Hail, Holy Queen (Part 2)

Hey Neal,

I'm half awake, and I have an exam to study for (in like, one hour), so I'll make this short, and try to elaborate on it later on (if it even makes sense!).

When referring to Jesus' "brothers and sisters," as Catholics, we believe that this could mean cousins, or close family friends. Yet, these people who are not necessarily biologically related to Jesus are still His "brothers and sisters," and this is still important.

As those born again, made sons of the Father, we are "brothers and sisters" in Christ, not biologically, but on another level. Both examples are inclusive, but I'm not seeing a contradiction within that.

Maybe it's just early. Feel free to clear up anything that I said that doesn't make sense.

God bless,

Grant

 

Neal [/qb][/QUOTE]Perhaps the language allows us to have our cake and eat it too. Here is an interesting article on the use of the word Adelphos. It is short but takes some evidence for the usage of the word adelphos from the writings of plato (and the Nero example is good also), showing that it can and does have the broader meaning. From a Catholic perspective when there is this type of ambiguity we go along with what tradition says in the matter which clears up the ambiguity quite nicely. This allows Mr. Hahn to know what particular definition is used in a certain passage. Two points determine a line if you will recall from geometry.

It has been a while since I have read Hahn's book and I will try to get time to glance at it latter but it seems to me that it is not a contradiction to use one definition in one place and the other in another place. Yet there has to be an overriding criterea rather than the whim of the reader to clear these things up. Tradition for me is the answer. My guess is it is Hahn's clarifying answer also as if you look in Gambini's "Mary and the Church Fathers" the perpetual virginity of Mary was believed by all but Tertullian who was influenced in this area by his Montanism I believe.

Hope that helps.

Blessings

 

Neal,

I understand how you see an inconsistency in what Hahn has written. Let me see if I can clear this perception up for you.

Hahn is saying that adelphos means "from the same womb". This is an interesting tidbit that he throws in at the very end of Chapter 6. His conclusion is that we who are made brothers of Christ are Christ's adelphos, and so we share the same mother. This is true, theologically speaking (that is, that we share the same mother), but I do believe that Hahn is stretching a bit here. Although, I do not see an error in what he has written.

However, we are able to make sense of the apparent contradiction. Even though adelphos has the meaning of "from the same womb" technically, it does not follow that every time this word is employed, it means "the adelphos of Jonathan shares the same mother as Jonathan".

Hahn isn't in error, and his point is valid because we aren't cousins of Christ. When adelphos is used of us, it really means "brothers", and so the technical "from the same womb" may validly be applied to us. But, the technical "from the same womb" does not necessarily imply that adelphos is used only to refer to a brother sharing the same mother, and this has been defended extensively in various apologetical texts such as in this extensive tract:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Richard J. Bauckham, a Protestant Biblical scholar in Scotland, has defended the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in "The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John P. Meier," in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (4, 1994) pp. 686-700).

Bauckham has also written a piece in the Biblical Archaeology Review entitled "All in the Family: Indentifying Jesus’ Relatives," which is quite revealing: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bsba2806kprdg1.html

I encourage you to read the two pieces above. They may be of help in your quest.

 

Well Carson, I also support the virginity of Mary. She was virgin when God conceived Jesus in her womb, and she remained virgin until she gave herself to Joseph her husband.

However, She will always remain "that virgin that gave herself to God for His purpose", even though she voluntarily ended her physical virginity with her husband Joseph.

If there was no conjugation between Mary and Joseph, there was no reason for them to be betrothed and subsequently married. A man from one family and a woman from a different family do not routinely cohabitate without conjugating.

No matter how pure your own thoughts may be towards women, if you had one living under your roof, in close proximity to you, for whom you were the provider, you would not be celebate for long. Even the purest of motivations crumbles in the face of strong temptation. That is why we are warned against allowing ourselves to be tempted! Living together in a betrothal is extremely strong temptation to engage in sexual activity. All it takes is once, and virginity is gone forever!

So for "the church" to make such a thought a central or core belief is purely false doctrine, that is not in keeping with God's created humanity.

 

What do you think would of happened to Mary if Joseph had "set her aside"? She would of been stoned to death. It was only at the Lord's request that Joseph married Mary.

In (back then) Jewish customs betrothel is the same as married...however neither Joseph or Mary had sexual relations prior to, or after. This was no ordinary marriage here.

Do you really think Joseph would enter into Mary, the Mother of our Lord?


LaRae

 

What proof do you offer that Joseph and Mary had no sexual relations?

I know I would! Where else do you get the best of the best? Besides, once Jesus vacated the womb, it was no longer HOLY, but just another womb. Crude perhaps, but absolutely true!

This is not desecration, because Mary was not and is not Holy, nor is or was she deity. For 9 months, the contents of her womb was HOLY. But all good things come to an end, and the Holy one was born into this world, to be it's Savior.

When God is in the Temple or the Tabernacle made by man, the Temple or Tabernacle is a HOLY place. When God departs from the Temple or Tabernacle, His Holiness departs with him. Same thing applies to Mary's womb! So get real! End this false doctrine!

[ June 09, 2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

Yelsew,

Thank you for adhering to Neal's request for this one thread. Oh wait, you didn't.

God bless,

Grant

 

suggenes - Luke 1:36 (KJV and Douay-Rheims both translate as "cousin"; modern translations as "relative")
anepsios - Col 4:10 (KJV translated it as "sister's son" but the Douay-Rheims as "cousin german"; modern translations "cousin")

Yep.

 

suggenes - Luke 1:36 (KJV and Douay-Rheims both translate as "cousin"; modern translations as "relative")
anepsios - Col 4:10 (KJV translated it as "sister's son" but the Douay-Rheims as "cousin german"; modern translations "cousin")

Yep. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey Neal,

Sola is correct with the Greek words and references that he has provided as examples of other words for cousin or close relatives. However, I talked to Dr. David Alan Black (Greek Prof. here at SEBTS) about this issue back in January when Carson and I went down this same road.

According to Dr. Black the Greek word adelphos can also carry the meaning of cousin or other relative. The way you know which meaning to ascribe to adelphos is determined by the over-all context of the passage you are translating. So you have to ask what evidence can be taken from the context of the passage that would justify the use of the word "cousin" in passages like Matt. 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; and Luke 8:19-21?

The context does not lead one to use the word "cousin" when applying a literal historical/grammatical interpretation to these passages. However, if you have a presupposition based upon church tradition that says that Mary remained an eternal virgin, then your interpretation must translate adelphos to mean "cousin" in these passages. Otherwise, Catholic theologians run the risk of going against the official church position and open themselves up to being labeled as heretics.

 

Since Luke used suggenes with respect to Elizabeth & Mary it would have been most natural for him to use it again with respect to Jesus' cousins if he ever wrote about such individuals, which he did not. He rather wrote about his brothers and sister, hence he used the words denoting those relationships.

 

That's a good point Sola. It goes right along with what I was saying about the over-all context of a passage. Except here we are considering the over-all context of the entire Book of Luke. Clearly, Luke knew and understood the concept of family relationships that are outside the immediate family. Thus, he used the Greek word suggenes when referring to Elizabeth, Mary's kinswoman, which we understand to be a cousin in modern English. Therefore, why would Luke refer to Jesus' "cousins" as brothers and sisters in the same breath that he indicated that Mary was Jesus' mother? Why didn't Luke use a Greek word that clearly specifies a cousin?

Likewise, there has been much talk on this thread of our being "from the same womb" as Christ because we are considered to be Christ's brothers and sisters. Where is the biblical support for that claim? Romans 8:12-17 says that we become the sons (and daughters by implication) of God by adoption. Thus we are able to cry out Abba, Father. When we are born again we become the children of God the Father and joint heirs with Christ. Nowhere does the Bible speak of Mary being our common mother.

 

It all ties in to Mary being a type of the Church, the New Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant, the spiritual Mother of us all. Nicodemus, when Jesus told him we must be born of water and spirt said "how can this be". We are born in water and spirit in to the Church, our Mother, through baptism. Mary, our Mother also, but not another Mother, brought us the Church by bringing us Jesus Christ. She is the cause of salvatoin but not the CAUSE of salvation. We are not saved by her but through her (her yes to God and her giving birth to the savior of the world), through her salvation came in to the world. In a like manner that salvation continues to come to us through the Church by which we are born into Jesus Christ. Into his image and likeness through baptism and we continue to grow in the Church which in spirit(which is the womb) just as Jesus grew in to a man in the womb of Mary. God wastes nothing. Mary was not just a shell that he used to come in to the world. She helps us to understand the Church. And Mary typifies what will happen to the Church in the end also. The Catholic view of the assumption to me (though I have not heard anyone speak on this) is a view of what will happen to the Church in the end. The Church at the judgement and reserection of the dead will be assumed, body and soul in to heaven as Mary was. John's vision in Rev 12 cannot be separated out such that it is only Mary or only the Church because it is both. The Church will end up in heaven just as Mary did.
All of this happens through Jesus Christ, her son, whom she points us to, just as the Churches purpose is to draw us nearer to him. By his grace. What mother would not point to her son and what son would not honor his mother and expect his friends to do the same?

That's my short take.

Blessings

 

Bibleboy,

"Likewise, there has been much talk on this thread of our being "from the same womb" as Christ because we are considered to be Christ's brothers and sisters. Where is the biblical support for that claim? Romans 8:12-17 says that we become the sons (and daughters by implication) of God by adoption. Thus we are able to cry out Abba, Father. When we are born again we become the children of God the Father and joint heirs with Christ. Nowhere does the Bible speak of Mary being our common mother. "

You can read my post above but I see it in Nicodemus's question? How can I reenter my mother's womb? Jesus never answers the question in a negative way. "Oh that's just plain crazy". Rather he speaks of being born of water and spirit. In a spiritual sense we enter the womb of the Church, our Mother. Mary, being a type of that mother is also our Mother in a spiritual way because both lead us to her son and bring us salvation. Jesus said to John at the foot of the cross, "Mother behold thy son, son, behold thy mother". While in one sense this verse is about John taking care of Mary after Jesus has died, in another sense, a spritual sense it is a statement not just to John, but to us all, that Mary is our Mother, concerned for us and our spiritual needs. In revelations 12 we see the woman clothed with the sun and the moon and the stars at her feet as both Mary and the Church. Not the last line of that chapter:

Revelation 12:17
So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of HER children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Why doesn't it just say his children since we are children of God? To quote you:

"When we are born again we become the children of God "

We have a mother. The Mother is the Church. Mary is a type of the Church, the Mother is Mary.

Blessings


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Just thinking out loud, this fine Tuesday morning.

Are we agreed that the Greek word used for "brothers" in reference to Jesus' "brothers" CAN mean "cousins?" Irregardless if you believe it does not, it CAN have this meaning, correct?

If that is the case, wouldn't it make much more sense to use this term for these cousins, because they were not merely cousins, but also spiritual brothers of the Son of God, just as we are? If the word can carry the double meaning, it seems to say more to me.

God bless,

Grant

 

Adelphos never means "cousins" - it always means "brothers" either in the sense of a literal brother, a religious brother, or a racial brother. The context of the passages in question about Jesus' brothers, of course, demand that it be understood in the literal sense.

(Mat 13:55-56) "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? {56} And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?"

If Mary was not a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth then there is no fulfillment of the prophecy of Isa 7:14. If there is no fulfillment of this prophecy, then Matthew's gospel is untrustworthy (because he says it was fulfilled), and if Matthew's gospel is untrustworthy, why should we trust the rest of the Bible? Thus, those who profess to be Christian but deny the virgin birth are denying the very basis of the faith. How could one who does such be successful at evangelism? Even if he could get someone to "accept Christ" it would only be in a marginal sense, seeing as how that person's trust in the word of God (the Bible) has been shaken - they will never fully submit to the Lord. And they will be wrong Christologically, because they will think Christ was born of natural generation and therefore will most likely deny his Godhood, which means that they will not really be Christian at all.

Then, there could be those who deny that Jesus was born of a woman at all, thus denying his humanity. Obviously, there would be a huge problem there as well. Galatians 4:4 says "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,..." The knowledge of this fact is necessary in seeing how/why Christ was/is qualified to save mankind, and in understanding how he lived (the born under the law part explains a lot). A Christ that was not born of woman could not redeem mankind, because according to Hebrews he had to be made in everyway like those whom he was saving (except for sin) - thus he had to take on the flesh, which he did by being born of woman. Those who would deny his birth are denying that he came in actual flesh and are therefore antichrists as John says "and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world." (1 John 4:3)

[ June 12, 2003, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Sola: Adelphos never means "cousins"

If I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to the trigger.

In 1 Chronicles 23:22, the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint or LXX) renders the Hebrew 'ach in the Greek adelphoi when describing the cousins of Eleazar's daughters; this is the Eleazer who "had no sons" (1 Chr 23:22).

Neal: Any more explanations on Mary's role in evangelism and the gospel?

Mary is the Theotokos, which bespeaks of the Hypostatic Union, which is the divinity accomplishing our salvation through the instrument of Christ's humanity.

Mary is the Queen Mother, which corresponds to her son's reign as the Son of David, the Son of God, the Christos/Messiah.

Mary's example as the Christian disciple par excellence with her sublime humility and humble acceptance of the will of God (Cf. the Annunciation) shows us the path to true Christian discipleship.

Mary's role as the New Eve corresponds to the role of the New Adam. She is the Co-Redemptrix who collaborates in the work of the Redeemer as Eve, the Co-Peccatrix was associated with the negative action in Adam, the Peccatrix.

Mary is the archetype of the Church, the New Israel (Cf. Revelation 12). When we look at Mary, we see who we are and what our calling is as ecclesia. That is, to be a fruitful virgin. We are to keep from the stain of sin, while producing fruits of evangelism, bearing little christs in baptism as Mary bore the Son of God maternally once in time.

I could go on and on and on.. volumes upon volumes have been written on this subject: i.e., Mariology.

I wholly suggest the three volumes entitled Mariology by J.B. Carol.