In discussing the evidence for Mary's Perpetual Virginity, another point also deserves mention. Suppose, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that Mary did give birth to other children besides Jesus. What, then, are we to make of the fact that Jesus, in his final moments of earthly life, gives Mary into John’s care?
When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home (John 19:26–27).
As Paul makes clear, both Jews and Christians customarily entrusted the care of widows to their own families:
Honor widows who are real widows. If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn their religious duty to their own family and make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. She who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day; whereas she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. Command this, so that they may be without reproach. If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim. 5:3– 8, emphasis added).
Caring for one’s widowed mother was not regarded as some sort of extraordinary or saintly duty, any more than it is regarded that way today. It was regarded as one of the things that anybody calling themselves “human” was expected to do.
So, if Mary really had other children, why was she commended into the care of John and not, say, of James “the Lord’s brother?” Some will argue Jesus chose John because he was a believer and James was not. But the reality is that John was not much more of a believer than James at this point. Scripture notes John’s confusion at the Resurrection—which he neither expected nor believed at first (Mark 16:11)—and Scripture is clear that John had not yet received the Spirit, since the Spirit had not yet been given (John 7:39). Of course, as we know, John came to full faith in Christ shortly thereafter. But then again, so did James (1 Cor. 15:7). So if James, not to mention all the other supposed “siblings” such as Jude, aren’t only believers but siblings of Jesus, why did Jesus entrust Mary to John? The obvious inference is that James, Jude, and the rest were not the Blessed Virgin’s children.
Comments
Post a Comment
Mr. Shea,
I enjoyed your series of commentary and completely accept the arguments for Our Lady’s lifelong chastity and purity. Could you shed any light on the plausibility that the “brethren of the Lord” were children of St. Joseph’s by a previous marriage, hence, are Jesus’ step-siblings? Joseph is generally portrayed as aged by the time of the Nativity and as a carpenter it would not be impossible to imagine he would be a provider for an earlier family. If Mary during her widowhood had step-children would being non-blood relations exclude them from the caretaker duty?
This is a common view in the east, but I think the evidence points very strongly to the view that the “brothers of the Lord” (James (first bishop of Jerusalem), Joseph (aka Joses), Simon and Jude) are the children of Clopas and “the other Mary”. Eusebius even mentions that Simon son of Clopas succeeded James (“the brother of the Lord”) when he was martyred. WHy? It was a kind of dynastic succession. Simon son of Clopas was James’ kid brother.
None of that is de fide, of course. The only de fide point is that Mary was perpetually a virgin. But the evidence seems to me to pretty plain that the “brothers of the Lord” were extended relations, not step-brothers and sisters.
Mark thanks for the article. You brought up the point that has always convinced me that Mary had no other children. I am curious though, what is the evidence that “brothers of the Lord” were actually children of Clopas and “the other Mary”? other than your reference to Eusebius that is. Thanks.
I think it can said that James the Lesser, apostle, and James brother of The Lord are one and the same.
http://becominghinged.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/all-the-jameses/
Maryland Bill:
See my previous entries.
Mark Shea: the weakness of your argument is that, even if her so called children were just close relatives, don´t you think, in this culture , they would have had and felt an obligation to care for her anyway? So, to follow your argument, this close realtives would still be the ones to be the firstliners to care for Mary. Why Jesus commended Mary to the care of John, I don´t know, I am not aware of any scripture that tells us anything about that. If jesus , for any possible reason, commended her to John, this does not conflict whit the general obligation to care for one´s own. But your conclusion is just one possible interpretation, and in no way can be used as a proof that she had no children of her own ( apart from Jesus ). So your explanation still is not satisfactory to ” overlook ” the several words that at least indicate very strongly that she had other children.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.