Perpetual virginity of St Mary

[Iqbal Youssef]

The issue of the Holy Virgin's perpetual virginity has been one ive been trying to do an indepth study on at the moment, for it is an issue i have already started to engage in with my Proetstant friend.

I have a fairly reasonable understanding of the reasons why Protestants object and why the Orthodox maintain to the perpetual virginity of the Mother of us all, however its getting VERY CONFUSING.

First of all, before i bring up the many issues which i am having trouble dealing with. I have one question: DOES THE ORTHODOX CHURCH UNANIMOUSLY AGREE ON WHO CHRISTS BROTHERS WERE?? I initially decided to engage in a formal email debate with my friend, my first argument was largely based on RC apologetics, for i did not think there would be a difference between our two church's stance on this particular issue. But then someone corrected me and told me the 'cousin' theory is not advocated by the orthodox church, but rather the 'step-brother' one, YET i have still come across many Orthodox works promoting the cousin theory.

Can someone please resolve this particular issue?

[Herman Blaydoe]

I have seen both "theories" presented, often side-by-side from several Orthodox sources. I would say that the Orthodox Church feels both are valid.

[Iqbal Youssef]

In what sense are both valid?

That the "brothers" are both step-brothers and cousins? or...that scripture and history say nothing conclusive, therefore since both views can be justified, its one or the other kind of thing?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Well, the Scriptures certainly support the idea that "brother" can also refer to cousins. The Church does not deny the tradition of St. Joseph being a widower.

There is a tradition that when St. Joseph the Betrothed died, there was an argument in the family as to whether or not our Lord was entitled to any inheritance, since, after all, St. Joseph never actually married the Theotokos. Only James, "the brother of the Lord" spoke up on His behalf.

[Iqbal Youssef]

Interesting, ive never heard of that before. Do you have a source which tells the basis of this tradition - any early church Fathers speak of it?

Also, if you could please: Could you please explain who exactly James "the brother of the Lord" is?

We have a James in: Matthew 13:55, Matthew 27:55-56, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 10:3, Galatians 1:19. Whose who? Ive heard so many different views that im getting a headache..id love to be able to stick to one coherent explanation. Ive heard everything from James Son of Alphaeus = James the less = James the Lords brother, to there being 4 diffrent James! : 1) James the brother of the Lord 2) James the son of alphaeus 3) James the son of Clopas 4) James the son of zebedee.

[Herman Blaydoe]

It is sort of like trying to figure out which MARY is being referred to....

Here are some sources
Life of St. Joseph the Betrothed (http://www.stjohndc.org/stjohndc/English/Saints/0101c.htm)
Life of St. James (http://www.stjohndc.org/stjohndc/English/Saints/9511a.htm)

I would add that there IS some confusion as to which James is which and I don't know how authoritative this particular account is, other than I know it is from an Orthodox source.

[Herman Blaydoe]

One more source that helps sort things out (I hope):

James and the Brothers of the Lord (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SMOF/SNBIBL16.htm)

[Clement Alexander]

It is an accepted tradition in the Church since the early days that St Mary the Theotokos was Dedicated to Be a Virgin in the Temple and that when she became of age, that is when she started menstruating, and that was around the time of the annunciation, she was entrusted to Joseph who was an older widower. Joseph did have children from his previous marriage; of those we know James and Judas.

These stories were recorded in the apocryphal Gospel attributed to James the Lord’s brother. And they are accepted and true tradition in the church. That is why of the twelve major feasts of the church we have the feast of the birth of the most holy Theotokos and the feast of the presentation of the most holy Theotokos to the Temple. By tradition we know that James the Lord’s brother who later became the bishop of Jerusalem until his Martyrdom was older than the Lord Jesus Christ and Yet it is stated clearly in the Gospel of St Matthew that the Lord Jesus Christ was St Mary’s first born son, and this clearly support this story.

IN CHRIST Clement A

[icxcnika]

As an answer on the topic question.

Yes, the Church unanimously agrees on who the brothers of our Lord and Saviour are. For the unity of the Church extends beyound unity in communion.
In the old world, there is no difference between a brother, stepbrother or a first cousin as far as calling is concerned.. they are, all, a BROTHER. And this is so from time immemoriam.

Dear brother, Iqbal, Lord is risen. Arguing the points of the faith with memebers of heterodox groups can be very interesting and (God is my witness) joy. But, the real question that comes from this sort of activity is whether it is for the Glory of the Lord. If it is, which I do not doubt, then God will arm you with the wisdom to show Him to those without full Light of knowledge. But we, all of us, have to be very careful so that evil one can not use that and make us proud us and not of our Lord.

ICXC

NIKA

[Iqbal Youssef]

Dear all, thanks for all your input so far.

Specifically to icxcnika...to be honest, this sort of activity from my side personally, isnt really for the purpose of the glory of God, nor to bring glory to myself - but rather as a way that i can learn. Im very open minded and objective about things these days, and i just simply want to know the truth. I have no agendas...i cant say the same for my Protestant friend..he has explicated his agenda to "refute and shut down" my arguments, and to "crush the opponent" - he has turned it into a competition, but he doesnt scare me - i feel very at ease and comfortable, and his attitude hasnt caused me to hate him or feel negative towards him in anyway - i just feel sorry for him if anything.

Ive read through the links, and think this half-brother theory is probably most plausible anyways. BUT i would love someone to address the most common objections to this theory.

1) does the theory destroy Christs Messiahship? Since if Jesus had older brothers, he would not have been the legal heir, and St Matthew specifically refers to Jesus as the heir of Joseph and hence the Son of David.

2) If these brothers were in fact older than Jesus, having being born of an earlier marriage, why are they not mentioned in the Infancy narratives, especially the escape to Egypt?

3) The impression left by the Gospel of St Luke (2:41-52) concerning the story of Jesus in the temple is that even 12 years after Jesus' birth, the Holy Family consists of the three persons only.

4) If Jesus had step-brothers, why would he leave His mother in the hands of St John?

[Herman Blaydoe]

1) No. There is no indication in Scripture that Joseph was the first-born son of a first-born son etc. That "chain" may have been broken many times. In that, by any account, Jesus Christ is NOT the biological son of Joseph to begin with, it is meaningless. He is still not Joseph's first-born son.

2) Perhaps it was not important to the narrative? The death of St. Joseph the Betrothed is not remarked upon in any way in the Scriptural narratives but we can surmise that he is no longer part of the picture when Jesus leaves his mother with St. John. Things not critical to God's message get left out...

3) Two problems with this. I don't get that impression, in fact, I can quickly draw another entirely. Jesus is 12 years old. If we accept the Protestant story, He has biological brothers and/or sisters, but they are not mentioned, either. If He was an only child, would it be so easy to lose track of Him? But if there are other children "I thought He was with James" or I thought YOU had Him" becomes much more plausible, don't you think?

4) That one is easy. If they were step-brothers, they had NO blood relation to the Theotokos, and therefore no obligation, especially if we acknowledge the ancient tradition that Joseph and Mary never actually wed (which is why we refer to him as St. Joseph the Betrothed).

[Arsenios]

If inheritance passes from the father to the first-born son, then when the son is the only begotten Son of the Father, then that Son is the sole 'heir'...

And the other legend is that Joseph was quite elderly at the time of his betrothal, and that it was a marriage of the priesthood of the temple - eg both Joseph and Mary were descended from within that class of Jews, and that being old, he had children by a previous marriage.

Now he was told in Spirit that this was a very special child legitimately and virginally conceived, and knowing that he was not the father of the child, and knowing the legitimacy of the conception, and indeed the Divinity of it, he can reasonably be assumed to know who the Father of it was, and the Spiritual marriage of the Father with the virgin... So that while obedient to the Holy Spirit's instructions, he would not be ever having relations with the virgin whose 'Husband' was "I AM WHO AM"...

I mean, in that culture, being in the priestly class of Jews, having been muzzled in and from the Temple itself, until the birth of the Baby, would YOU??? I sure wouldn't! And while this line of thinking most certainly will not satisfy the neo-scholastic insistence upon 'scriptural proof', yet even so it affords us a way of understanding the holiness of the events and the people involved in the grace-filled labors of the bringing in of the incarnation of of our Lord...

Arsenios

[garry horne]

you may find it good to read "The Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos" written and compiled by Holy Apostles Convent P.O. Box 3118, Buena Vista, Colorado 81211 U.S.A.
ISBN 0-944359-03-5

[John Curtis Dunn]

It is the woman who gives the status of first born, not the man. That which opens the womb is the first-born, a term which makes no statement about the number of children which comes from the womb.

rdr.john dunn

[George K.]

(Isaiah XXIX: 9-12) Faint ye, and be amazed, and be overpowered, not with strong drink nor with wine. For the Lord has made you to drink a spirit of deep sleep; and he shall close their eyes, and the eyes of their prophets and of their rulers, who see secret things. And all these things shall be to you as the words of this sealed book, which if they shall give a learned man, saying. Read this, he shall then say, I cannot read it for it is sealed. And this book shall be given into the hands of a man that is unlearned, and one shall say to him, Read this; and he shall say, I am not learned.

From St. John Chrysostom:

O! WHAT A WONDER? "Why learned (who knew wedlock) Joseph can't you read this book (Mary)?" And Joseph responds, "Why, you ask? Because the Lord sealed it. Who am I to dare open it!!!" And who is this unlearned (virgin) man who is then given this book and cannot read it because he is unlearned? Who else, but John the Evangelist, the virgin disciple, whom the Lord entrusted with his mother.

gk