July 28, 2022

July 28, 2022 By

Catholic apologist Trent Horn, on his popular YouTube channel, The Counsel of Trent, did a show entitled, “The ‘Pauline parody argument’ against the papacy (with Suan Sonna)” [7-27-22] This was directed towards a 2012 article from Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer, entitled, “51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy.”

What viewers wouldn’t know, however, is that Jason’s original parody was directed towards my 1994 piece, 50 New Testament Proofs for Peter’s Primacy & the Papacy (later published in 2003 on pages 233-238 of my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism).

In his usual charity and courtesy, Jason forgot to mention that I was the writer — though I am mentioned in the comments — or link to my article. I’ve long been banned from that site. What one would also never find out there, is that I answered Jason’s original articles along these lines twice (now almost 19 and 20 years ago):

*
*
If anyone is interested in reading the author that Jason was parodying (yours truly), defending his arguments twice, and critiquing Jason back, the above two articles will provide that information. He’s playing the same “we mustn’t ever mention that scoundrel Dave!” game in his reply to this video, stating, “I was paralleling a list at a Catholic web site . . .”
*
This is a tactic first developed by anti-Catholics James White and James Swan, in the early 2000s, in a cynical attempt to minimize, mock, and dismiss my apologetics work. They decided to rarely if ever mention my name (or to sometimes use “DA”): lest anyone read my work and be led astray to the hideous Harlot and Beast, Catholicism. Swan even once ridiculously wrote a book review of one of my books, without ever mentioning the book title or my name. That’s quite a feat!
*
Recently, Brazilian apologist Lucas Banzoli outdid Jason, with his “205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter.” He did at least extend the courtesy (and the standard protocol) of mentioning the person he was responding to:
The present study is, first, an extensive and elaborate refutation of a famous Catholic article by Dave Armstrong, which today is in practically all Catholic websites that, in Brazil and in the world, repeat and disseminate a list of 50 “proofs” of the primacy of Peter.
*
It was only after a long time that I decided to elaborate a rebuttal to that article, not only answering all of Armstrong’s points, but also carrying out 205 proofs against the primacy of Peter, which largely refute all the supposed “evidence” that he found in isolation in the Bible.
*
To show that the biblical gospel is not formed by one or another isolated passage that cannot support doctrine, I sought to show a much greater biblical content, clearly demonstrating that Dave’s study was extremely arbitrary and that it absolutely ignored the total content of the Scriptures that vigorously repudiate all his attempts.
I replied in four parts:
*
*
*
Contrary to his high confidence expressed above, not a peep has been heard back from Lucas, these past two months . . . But hope springs eternal!
*
One thing that Jason and some others don’t “get” about my original article is that it’s not about the alleged overwhelming force of any given item, but the cumulative effect of all of them together. That was the emphasis of Fr. Peter Stravinskas, when he encouraged me to write the article for his magazine, The Catholic Answer, in 1997.
*
In the video a criticism was made about the general drift of my #39. But it was misunderstood. The comparison wasn’t between Peter and everyone else in the Bible, but between him and other disciples. Here it is:
39. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!
Some of my 50 arguments are weaker than others, of course, and I’m not making humungous claims for individual arguments. I’m not epistemologically naive. Again, those who are interested would have to read my two counter-replies to Jason. I show how my arguments (rightly understood) stand up and that his do not. Nor, frankly, is he very good at satire and parody: learned arts for sure.
*
***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (c. 1482) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Trent Horn did a video on Jason Engwer’s parody of my article on 50 NT Petrine Proofs.  I’ve defended myself twice. Jason didn’t name me or link to my article.

June 21, 2022

June 21, 2022 By

Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer, who runs the Tribalblogue site, again accuses the Blessed Virgin Mary of sin in his article, How Much The Conclusion Of Luke 2 Contradicts Roman Catholic Mariology (5-17-22). He has done this several times now. This is my reply. His words will be in blue.

*****

Luke 2:34-35 (RSV) and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against [35] (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”

Protestants typically overlook or underestimate the closing verses of Luke 2 when addressing Catholic Mariology. There are several problems for the Catholic view of Mary in those verses, and the cumulative effect is highly significant.

I’ve discussed these issues in Luke 2 many times, but my comments are scattered across various posts over the years. I want to gather some of those comments in one place and supplement them with some other points: . . . 

A reference to being pierced by a sword just after a reference to people rising or falling probably implies that Mary will be among those who fall. Being pierced by a sword isn’t something we’d normally associate with rising. It’s reminiscent of what we see elsewhere in Luke, in the reference to falling by the sword in 21:24. The individuals in Luke 21 are guilty and are being judged accordingly, and the same is likely true of Mary in Luke 2. The episode that occurred when Jesus was twelve years old follows shortly after 2:35, and it’s the first example we’re given of the fulfillment of Simeon’s comment. What Simeon said is better fulfilled by Mary’s conflicts with Jesus later in Luke 2 and elsewhere than by any alternative I’m aware of. For example, if the sword of 2:35 was meant to refer to Mary’s suffering in the context of the cross, why doesn’t Luke even mention Mary’s presence at the crucifixion (as John does)? Luke 2:48-50 probably illustrates the sword of division within families that Jesus refers to elsewhere (Matthew 10:34-36). Mary isn’t adversely affected by the sword to the extent that an unbeliever would be, but she is adversely affected by it to some extent.

If this is such a standard or straightforward interpretation of this text, how odd that the classic Protestant commentaries scarcely ever (if ever) assert such a thing. It seems to be largely a myth that originated between Jason Engwer’s ears. Actual Protestant Bible scholars quite agree with the Catholic “take” on the passage. This is not even a source of division as regards Mary:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:  The announcement of the special sorrow that was to be the Virgin Mother’s portion, comes as the sequel to “the sign that is spoken against,” the antagonism which her Son would meet with. We may find fulfilments of it when the men of Nazareth sought to throw Him from the brow of their hill (Luke 4:29); when she came, as in anxious fear, to check His teaching as the Pharisees charged Him with casting out devils through Beelzebub (Matthew 12:46); when she stood by the cross, and heard the blasphemies and revilings of the priests and people (John 19:26).
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary: He shall be a suffering Jesus; his mother shall suffer with him, because of the nearness of her relation and affection.
*
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:  Yea, a sword … – The sufferings and death of thy Son shall deeply afflict thy soul. And if Mary had not been thus forewarned and sustained by strong faith, she could not have borne the trials which came upon her Son; but God prepared her for it, and the holy mother of the dying Saviour was sustained.
*
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: “Blessed as thou art among women, thou shalt have thine own deep share of the struggles and sufferings which this Babe is to occasion”
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:  . . . the sorrows she met with on account of her son: as he was a man of sorrows, so was she a woman of sorrows, from his cradle to his cross; and his sorrows, like so many darts, or javelins, rebounded from him to her, and pierced her soul through; as when Herod sought his life, Matthew 2:13 . . . and when he was frequently exposed to danger among the spiteful and malicious Jews; but never more than when she stood at his cross, and saw him, in his agonies, extended on the tree, bleeding, gasping, and dying, John 19:25.
Meyer’s NT Commentary: See on Luke 1:76. This καί and αὐτῆς places the anguish of the mother herself on a parallel with the fate of her Son . . . Bleek is mistaken in referring it to doubts of the Messiahship of her Son, which for a while were to cause division in Mary’s heart. For this thought the forcible expression would be quite out of proportion, and, moreover, unintelligible; and the thought itself would be much too special and subordinate, even apart from the consideration that there is no direct evidence before us of temporary unbelief on the part of Mary . . .
Expositor’s Greek Testament: . . . singles out the mother for a special share in the sorrow connected with the tragic career of one destined to be much spoken against (ἀντιλεγόμενον); this inevitable because of a mother’s intense love.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: Almost from the very birth of Christ the sword began to pierce the soul of the ‘Mater Dolorosa;’ and what tongue can describe the weight of mysterious anguish which she felt as she watched the hatred and persecution which followed Jesus and saw Him die in anguish on the cross amid the execrations of all classes of those whom He came to save!*
Pulpit Commentary: Christian art has well caught the spirit of her life who was, in spite of her untold suffering, “blessed among women,” in depicting her so often and so touchingly as the mother of sorrows (Mater Dolorosa). The childhood in the Nazareth home, and the early manhood in the Nazareth carpentry, were no doubt her happiest days, though, in those quiet years, expectation, fears, dread, curiously interwoven, must have ever torn that mother’s heart. The days of the public ministry for Mary must have been sad, and her heart full of anxious forebodings, as she watched the growing jealousies, the hatred, and the unbelief on the part of the leading men of her people. Then came the cross. We know she stood by it all the while. And, after the cross and the Resurrection, silence. Verily the words of Simeon were awfully fulfilled.
Vincent’s Word Studies: A figure of Mary’s pang when her son should be nailed to the cross.
Jason likes to ask a lot of skeptical (and often, downright stupid) questions. Let’s play his game for a moment and ask him several:
1) if his interpretation is so plausible and evident, why is it that none of the ten classic Protestant commentaries above never even hint at it?
*
2) What makes Jason look for sin in Mary (or anyone) when there seems to not be any insinuation of it at all in the biblical text (as indicated by these commentaries)?
*
3) Is this not a lack of charity, to so vigorously look for sin: even if this were not concerned with Mary: considered sinless by the vast majority of Christians throughout history?
4) Why does Jason place so much confidence in his own blasphemous speculations? If they are so plausible, why doesn’t he cite commentaries to back him up? Could it be because he couldn’t find any? And if that is actually the case, wouldn’t it be a good reason to refrain from such a slanderous (not to mention, ridiculously implausible) accusation?
*
5) Almost to a person, the commentaries above see this passage as a foreshadowing of Mary’s agony at the foot of the cross, or at least to the opposition Jesus received before He was murdered. But Jason doesn’t. Why? Is he dense? Is he irrationally hostile towards the Blessed Virgin Mary, simply because the Catholic Church that he hates so much, venerates her as sinless; so that he “must” interpret differently, even going to the extreme lengths of a desperate eisegesis of this passage, that can scarcely be found in any commentary?

***

Luke 2:42-50 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; [43] and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, [44] but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; [45] and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. [46] After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; [47] and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. [48] And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” [49] And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” [50] And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.

– There are a few problems with how Mary addresses Jesus in Luke 2:48. Whatever alternative interpretation a Catholic or somebody else may propose for one or more of those problems, we need to keep the cumulative effect in view and ask how likely it is that Mary isn’t being portrayed as sinful in any of the contexts involved. Keep in mind that Luke and Mary could have used different language if she was sinless and Luke wanted her to be perceived that way.

And they also could have — and did! — use exactly the language we have, existing side-by-side with the fact of Mary’s sinlessness. We can do “coulda-woulda-shoulda” pseudo-exegesis and theology all day. It may sometimes be interesting to speculate upon, but it never proves anything. It’s just a variation of the perennially weak “argument from silence” fallacy.

– First of all, as James Edwards notes, “She addresses him not as pais (v. 43, ‘boy, young man’), but with a more juvenile and subservient term, teknon (v. 48; ‘child,’ NIV ‘Son’).” (The Gospel According To Luke [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2015], 95)

Yes, since He was twelve years old at the time . . .

I don’t know Greek and don’t know much about the accuracy of Edwards’ distinction between the terms. I don’t recall having seen anybody else differentiate between the terms the way Edwards does, which makes me doubt that he’s right.

Good for Jason. He’s actually thinking it through a bit . . .

But the fact that two different terms are used is significant, even if Edwards is wrong about what each term suggests. Given Luke’s high regard for Jesus and Mary’s more inconsistent interactions with him and her negative reaction to him in Luke 2:48-50 in particular, the difference between her terminology and Luke’s within the same account is noteworthy.

How does one distinguish between Mary’s terminology and Luke’s, when in fact, Luke is reporting (and translating into Greek) what her terminology was?

The different terminology may imply a negative reaction to Jesus on Mary’s part, whether because of the term itself, because of the larger context, or because of both.

According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, teknon in this passage meant “specifically, a male child, a son: Matthew 21:28; Acts 21:21; Revelation 12:5; in the vocative, in kindly address, Matthew 21:28; Luke 2:48; Luke 15:31.” [my bolding] “Kindly” doesn’t exactly fit with Jason’s eisegesis of “negative reaction” does it?

Luke 15:31, which Thayer sees as a parallel to Luke 2:48, is part of the parable of the prodigal son, applies teknon to the prodigal son’s brother. Both appear to be fairly grown up, since they can possibly — or actually do — inherit property (2:12). Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines teknon as simply “‘child’ (or ‘son’) in the sense of progeny . . .” (p. 760 in the one-volume edition). Kittel doesn’t see some big or significant difference between teknon and pais, as Edwards above does, since it defines the latter almost identically: ” ‘child’ (usually ‘boy’ but also ‘girl’), and with reference to descent ‘son’ . . .” (p. 759). Teknon is also used to describe “children of God” (i.e., all Christian believers) in John 1:12 (cf. Rom 9:8; Gal 4:28).

This looks like a distinction without much or any difference to me. We use the word “children” in English to refer to adult children, too; as I just did in writing about Father’s Day: saying I had “four children and two grandchildren.” And again, we must remember that Jesus was twelve in this incident. Moreover, if Mary had “more juvenile” in mind, Kittel notes three words for “small child” that could have been used: paidion, paidarion, and teknion. So it’s much ado about nothing, and even Jason suspects this; hence his tentativeness. I would advise him — as a fellow Christian apologist — to refrain from making a dumb and irrelevant argument in the first place.

– Secondly, the question Mary goes on to ask is problematic. A group of Catholic and Lutheran scholars commented that “Mary’s complaining question in v. 48 seems to be a reproach to Jesus” (Raymond Brown, et al., edd., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], 160). Darrell Bock writes:

“Mary, speaking for both parents, wants to know why he [Jesus] has done such a seemingly insensitive thing. Jesus’ reply in the next verse addresses both of them as well. The form of Mary’s question may have OT roots (Gen. 20:9; 12:18; 26:10; Exod. 14:11; Num. 23:11; Judg. 15:11). This is the language of complaint….Bovon 1989: 159 notes that the idiom suggests the questioner’s [Mary’s] belief that an error has been made.” (Luke, Volume 1, 1:1-9:50 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994], 268 and n. 18 on 268)

– The comment Mary makes after her question is likewise inappropriate. She refers to how she and Joseph have been looking for Jesus “anxiously” (RSV, NASB), “in great distress” (ESV), “in great anxiety” (NRSV), etc. If you ask somebody why he treated you in a particular way, then follow the question by a comment about how worried you’ve been, that typically implies that you think he wronged you in some manner.

I don’t think “why have you treated us so?” is necessarily (wholly apart from theology and viewed logically and grammatically) an accusation of sinfulness on Jesus’ part at all. Mary and Joseph were simply (undeniably) perplexed, but it doesn’t follow that they were therefore accusing Jesus of sin. After all, all Christians believe that God is sinless, yet we are often perplexed by His words or actions or lack of answers to prayers, etc. None of that automatically means that we accuse God of sin.

We’re simply confused and lacking answers and full knowledge, while we accept certain mysteries in faith and the fact that God’s ways are much higher than ours. So they asked, “why have you treated us so?” They didn’t understand. And I’m sure they would have been the first to admit that they wouldn’t always fully understand God the Son.

The 1953 Catholic Commentary, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, noted:

Mary and Joseph are also amazed. . . but Lk gives the reason in 48b: Jesus has never behaved so to Mary before. It is to be remembered that with her, as with others, Jesus had conducted himself as a normal child; his divinity was to her, as to us, an object of faith and not vision. . . . 51b also throws light on the point. ‘They learnt only gradually what his Messiahship involved (cf. 2:34–35) and this is one stage in the process. From the point of view of her subsequent knowledge, Mary recognized that she and Joseph had not understood’ (Plummer ICC on 2:51).

Pope St. John Paul II offers further explanation:

Several early Fathers of the Church, who were not yet convinced of her perfect holiness, attributed imperfections or moral defects to Mary. Some recent authors have taken the same position. However, the Gospel texts cited to justify these opinions provide no basis at all for attributing a sin or even a moral imperfection to the Mother of the Redeemer.

Jesus’s reply to his mother at the age of 12: “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Lk 2:49), has sometimes been interpreted as a veiled rebuke. A careful reading of the episode, however, shows that Jesus did not rebuke his mother and Joseph for seeking him, since they were responsible for looking after him.

Coming upon Jesus after an anxious search, Mary asked him only the “why” of his behaviour: “Son, why have you treated us so?” (Lk 2:48). And Jesus answers with another “why”, refraining from any rebuke and referring to the mystery of his divine sonship. (“Mary Was Free from All Personal Sin,” 6-26-96)

Mary and Joseph were simply worried about the whereabouts of their son. If parents didn’t worry in some strong sense about their children, when there was sufficient cause, I submit that they would be negligent, irresponsible parents. The passage doesn’t show Mary as a sinner, but rather, as a very human, normal, concerned parent, as all parents should be. We wouldn’t expect anything less of the Immaculate Mother of God.

– Jesus’ response in verse 49 questions Mary and Joseph’s behavior in two contexts, their looking for him and their not knowing what he would be doing. That sort of questioning of people’s behavior would normally imply that you think they’re wrong. 

It doesn’t necessarily follow at all that Jesus’ usual provocative and rhetorical (indeed, even “socratic”) questioning is implying sin on Mary’s part. He was simply challenging them to realize that He was anticipating His mission to come.

– Luke goes on in verse 50 to refer to Mary and Joseph’s ignorance of what Jesus meant. That sort of comment usually has a negative implication about the ignorant person (Luke 8:10, 9:45, 18:34, Acts 7:25, 28:26), and it’s especially likely to imply something negative when it comes so soon after a context like we see in verses 35 and 48-49.

This is sheer nonsense. They simply didn’t “understand” at first. How is that necessarily a sin? Jesus was routinely misunderstood by almost everyone, including (quite often, before Pentecost) His own disciples (Mk 4:13; 6:52; 9:32; Lk 9:45; Jn 12:16). Even Jason says that other scriptural references to misunderstanding “usually” had a “negative implication”. But “usually” is not always.

– Mary’s silence after verse 49 is further evidence that she and Joseph were being rebuked by Jesus. His first question to them (“Why is it that you were looking for me?”) is something Mary had to have known the answer to, and Jesus goes on to ask a second question, yet Luke doesn’t refer to any response on her part. He mentions that Mary and Joseph didn’t understand what Jesus said, but no response is mentioned. If Mary was sinless and had the other characteristics Catholicism attributes to her, and Jesus was asking her questions without rebuking her, why wouldn’t she answer?

There is no general necessity to always answer a question. One might be struck by the question, or pondering it, since it was challenging, or not able to express their feelings instantaneously. It’s foolish to rush right in and assume its because they were rebuked for sin: whether Mary is involved or anyone else. It’s mere rash speculation. Jason is looking for sin in Mary, so as to shoot down Catholic beliefs, and biblical teaching, and therefore he “finds” it under every rock. Slander can be “found” too, if one looks hard enough for it and is intent on doing so.

And if she did answer, why did Luke mention her ignorance of what Jesus’ second question meant, but not mention her response?

Because that’s what he chose to write! I see no huge significance and insinuations here, that Mary had committed a sin. One can second-guess absolutely everything if they so choose. Jason constantly does this in his anti-Catholic polemics. It’s more silly than anything else. Failing to produce positive proof for what he argues, he then tries to tear down the usual understanding of biblical passages. This is the hyper-rationalistic theologically liberal approach: truth be told. It’s an attitude of relentless skepticism, which is counter to a robust Christian faith.

Luke leaves the reader with the impression that there was no response, and that’s best explained if no response was given. The lack of response makes the most sense if she was being rebuked and knew it.

That doesn’t follow, either. Such a response can also be to a challenging question, or one meant to help one grow and expand in knowledge. We need not go straight to the “rebuke of sin” explanation, as if there is no other plausible one. Jason simply sees what he wants to see. And that is, of course, eisegesis (reading into Scripture what isn’t there), not exegesis (reading out of Scripture what is there).

– The fact that Luke keeps referring to Mary and Joseph together – “his parents”, “they”, “them”, and “your father and I” several times in 2:43-51 – undermines any appeal to Mary’s (real or imagined) uniqueness as a counterargument. Catholics make many claims about Mary that they don’t make about Joseph. But the two are largely placed in the same category in this passage. Any appeal to her alleged sinlessness in Luke 1:28, her unique relationship with Jesus, how well we allegedly should expect a mother to understand her son, etc. has to address the grouping of her with Joseph in this context. The sort of unusual interpretation a Catholic would have to appeal to in order to reconcile the material in Luke’s gospel under consideration in this post with a Catholic view of Mary becomes even more problematic when it has to be applied to two individuals (Mary and Joseph), not just one.

Both being His parents, and both having looked for Him . . .  This is just stupid; asinine! There are no more descriptive words for it. These are the sorts of questions that godless atheists ask about biblical texts. I know: I dealt with them almost all the time over the last year. They argue and contend in a certain way, and Jason’s method is highly reminiscent of theirs. Everything (i.e., when dealing with Catholic distinctives) is questioning and skepticism and cynicism, rather than open-minded and open-hearted faith and any semblance of objective reasoning or willingness to learn.

By Jason’s simplistic “reasoning” here, Jesus’ disciples must have been equal to Him, too, since the Gospels mention “Jesus and his disciples” together three times (Mt 9:10; Mk 2:15; Jn 3:22)!

– Francois Bovon makes a good point about a contrast within the passage. “Jesus’ parents (2:48) do not share the wonderment of the crowd [in verse 47]. They are indignant that Jesus has left them, and are not at all impressed by their son’s wisdom. The logic of the story prevents one from taking their side.” (Luke 1 [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2002], n. 41 on 113) As Edwards mentions in his commentary cited above, “Her reproach [in verse 48] expresses less concern for Jesus than for what he has done to them.” (95) She is later referred to as treasuring “all these things” in her heart (verse 51), after Jesus has rebuked her, but there’s an initial contrast between the positive nature of what Jesus was doing and how others reacted to him in verse 47, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, how Mary and Joseph reacted in verses 48-50.

This ain’t rocket science. The crowd were not His parents: those who had taken personal care of Him for twelve years. That more than adequately explains the different reaction. The crowd wasn’t “looking for Him” as parents. They were simply listening to His teaching, and were rightly “amazed at his understanding and his answers.” In contrast, Joseph and Mary were searching for Jesus for three days, not knowing where He was.

Any parent — and I think, anyone, period, to a lesser extent — would immediately understand the emotional dynamics of that, and Mary being sinless or Jesus being God doesn’t make the reaction any different (just as Jesus felt agonized anxiety in Gethsemane). Mary was a human being with emotions, just like the rest of us, and she experienced the especially intense and excruciating feelings of a mother looking for her “lost” child. I think once one realizes this, her recorded reaction is seen to be extraordinarily mild. Sin isn’t within a universe’s distance to it. This is ultra-normal parental emotions: as far from sin as the east is to the west.

The rest of his article (two long paragraphs) is so asinine and blasphemous, I don’t have the patience or fortitude to continue responding to it. It’s mostly reiteration, anyway, and I have expressed what I wanted to communicate.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo Credit: The Annunciation (1644), by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist Jason Engwer tries to brashly, boorishly, & absurdly argue that Mary being anxious about her Son, missing for three days, is “sinful.”

April 19, 2022

April 19, 2022 By

[link for book and purchase information]

I dealt with this topic at length with Reformed Protestant apologist Matt Hedges (Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority, 7-28-21). As of this date he has not yet answered it. Today I discovered some instances of Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer making the same argument. So I’ll revisit the topic and address his dubious claims. Jason’s words will be in blue. Those he cites for his argument will be in green and brown.

I was banned long ago from the Tribalblogue site where Jason writes, and he has long since decided to ignore any counter-replies I make (what else is new with anti-Catholics?). In the past, it was very different. He made several replies, and we even had a debate at the large anti-Catholic site CARM: that he decided to depart long before it was finished. Just for the sake of background information . . . I have posted many refutations of Jason in his section on my Anti-Catholicism web page.

*****

First Clement . . . [is] one of the earliest extra-Biblical Christian documents we have, and it represents early Christianity in the city of Rome. It has a lot of relevance to the claims of Roman Catholicism. I’ve written about some of the inconsistencies between First Clement and Catholicism in the past. (“First Clement And Pope Francis”, 3-14-13).

In this same article he cites two men to back up his position:

Some scholars anachronistically saw in the epistle [First Clement] an assertion of Roman primacy, but nowadays a hermeneutic of collegiality is more widely accepted. (Thomas Halton, Encyclopedia Of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, ed. [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], 253)

This [the literary genre of First Clement] is a form of address that is identified in rhetorical handbooks and found in other texts that are contemporary with 1 Clement. It is used by those who wish to persuade others to reach for themselves a successful resolution to difficulties that they face, not to force them to submit to those who offer them this counsel….He [Clement] hopes to persuade because he cannot compel or command, and he knows that he cannot take it for granted that those whom he addresses will welcome and act on the counsel that he gives. He avoids the use of the imperative, and speaks instead in the second person plural….The second corollary is confirmation that this letter [First Clement] offers no evidence for the primacy of Rome at the time of its composition. The church at Rome writes to the church at Corinth of its own free will, but the form in which it does so makes clear that it could not take for granted that its counsel would be either welcome or in any way binding at Corinth. Nowhere does the Roman church demand obedience to its own authority, but only to that of God, as revealed in the Greek Bible and in certain Christian texts and traditions. (Andrew Gregory, in Paul Foster, ed., The Writings Of The Apostolic Fathers [New York, New York: T&T Clark, 2007], 26-28)

Let’s take a closer look at these claims. 1 Clement expressly contradicts them, and I contend that they are special pleading.

St. Clement writes (I use the standard [Protestant] Schaff translation):

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; . . . (59, my bolding and italics)

Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. (63, my bolding and italics)

Clement definitely asserts his authority over the Corinthian church far away. Again, the question is: “why?” What sense does that make in a Protestant-type ecclesiology where every region is autonomous and there is supposedly no hierarchical authority in the Christian Church? Why must they obey the bishop from another region? Not only does Clement assert strong authority; he also claims that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are speaking “through” him.

That is extraordinary, and very similar to what we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28 (“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things”: RSV) and in Scripture itself. It’s not strictly inspiration but it is sure something akin to infallibility (divine protection from error and the pope as a unique mouthpiece of, or representative of God).

Catholics maintain that the Jerusalem Council is an exercise of conciliar authority in conjunction with the pope (Peter), and that 1 Clement is analogous to a papal encyclical (a pope authoritatively acting on his own).

Andrew Gregory claims that Pope Clement wishes only “to persuade . . .  not to force them to submit” and that “he cannot compel or command.” “He avoids the use of the imperative” and “could not take for granted that [his] counsel would be either welcome or in any way binding at Corinth.” Supposedly, “Nowhere does the Roman church demand obedience to its own authority.”

This is simply (to put it mildly) not true to the excerpts above, which assert authority in the very strongest terms, even claiming that if the advice is disobeyed, the Corinthians would “involve themselves in transgression and serious danger.” Pope Clement claims that God is speaking “through” him (“words spoken by Him through us”).  This is not mere friendly, brotherly persuasion, folks!

It’s the language of binding authority (in effect straight from God via His pope), accompanied by a penalty if it’s not heeded. Gregory can repeat his claims as many times as he wants, but it doesn’t overcome the plain facts of the text of 1 Clement, that expressly contradicts his contentions.

Moreover, Max Lackmann, a Lutheran, makes the observation:

Clement, as the spokesman of the whole People of God . . . admonishes the Church of Corinth in serious, authoritative and brotherly tones to correct the internal abuses of their ecclesiastical community. He censures, exhorts, cautions, entreats . . . The use of the expression send back in the statement: Send back speedily unto us our messengers (1 Clement 65,1), is not merely a special kind of biblical phrase but also a form of Roman imperial command. The Roman judge in a province of the empire sent back a messenger or a packet of documents to the imperial capital or to the court of the emperor (Acts 25:21). Clement of Rome doubtless also knew this administrative terminology of the imperial government and used it effectively. (In Hans Asmussen, et al, The Unfinished Reformation, translated by Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Association, 1961, 84-85)

The essential questions remain: why does Corinth have to obey Rome? Who determined that set-up? Why does Clement casually assume that they should and must obey him, and that it would be “transgression and serious danger” if they don’t?

Jason adds in his article, “Was The Papacy Established By Christ? (Part 2)” (6-24-06):

Clement of Rome, the earliest church father and a Roman bishop, sent a letter to the Corinthian church to counsel them about a dispute involving the leadership of their church. Such letters were common in early Christianity (Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp, Polycarp’s letter to the Philippian church, etc.), and no jurisdictional superiority, much less papal authority, is implied by the sending of such a letter. To the contrary, the letter is written in the name of the church of Rome, not the bishop of Rome, and the letter makes many appeals to various authorities (scripture, Jesus, the apostles, the Holy Spirit, etc.), but never to any papal authority. . . . 

It’s important to recognize that the early sources had many opportunities to mention a papacy if they believed in such a concept. When men like Clement of Rome and Tertullian comment on issues of authority and the status of the Roman church without mentioning a papacy, the absence of the concept is significant.

The argument from the use of “church of Rome” rather than something like, “I, Pope Clement, . . .” is a trifle and an irrelevancy. The authority of the two was understood to be the same, and interchangeable, and it was that way from the beginning. Hence, Clement begins, “The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, . . .”

Likewise, for example, Pope Pius XI in his 1930 encyclical Casti Cannubii (On Christian Marriage), began with the words: “To the Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.” And he states: “We, looking with paternal eye on the universal world from this Apostolic See as from a watch-tower, . . .”

The “Apostolic See” is, of course, Rome. Similarly, Pope St. Paul VI, in his famous 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, begins as follows: “To the Venerable Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See, . . .”

Pope Clement didn’t have to appeal to papal authority per se (i.e., he didn’t have to use the words “pope” or “pontiff” or “leader of the Church” in reference to himself, etc., just as Jesus didn’t constantly say, I am God, I am God . . .”). He exercised it in what he expressed; how he acted, namely, claiming to speak for God, through the Holy Spirit, and expressing the notion of  “transgression and serious danger” should the authority be disobeyed. Therein lies the profound authority, just as in the case of the Jerusalem council.

This argument from Jason, as a result, carries no force at all. He needs to address what I bring up. He hasn’t yet done so. He talks about the document, dancing all around it, but refuses to directly address the language that precisely proves it is “papal” in nature.

Thomas Halton, whom Jason cites above (in brown) argued his position exactly as Jason has: making a pro-Protestant statement about 1 Clement without addressing the key parts of it that prove it isn’t Protestant, and is, rather, papal and ecclesiologically Catholic. If one observes his cited statement in context, one sees that he ignored the portions I highlight.

They need to be addressed. As long as they are not, we may conclude that Protestants (of Jason’s anti-Catholic sort, and even ecumenical ones who hold that Catholics are fellow Christians) are in effect conceding that we are correct, in refusing to deal with these ultra-relevant sections. We contend that Clement was indeed a pope, and was clearly acting like one in this letter.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Summary: Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist Jason Engwer flatly refuses to grapple with the most relevant literary facts regarding the question of “Is First Clement Non-Papal?”

December 3, 2021

December 3, 2021 By

Galatians 2:9 (RSV) and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer remarked:

Another relevant passage that uses the pillar metaphor is Galatians 2:9. It’s doubtful that people would have been grouping Peter with other apostles as pillars of the church and naming him second, after James, if he was thought of as a Pope. Remember, Catholics are the ones who place so much emphasis on the alleged significance of Peter’s being a foundation of the church in Matthew 16, which is similar to the pillar concept in Galatians 2:9. It’s highly unlikely that the early Christians believed that Peter was such a unique foundation of the church, the infallible ruler of all Christians, including the other apostles, yet perceived him as described in Galatians 2:9.

Protestant commentaries shoot down this claim even before we get to Catholic replies:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary James—placed first in the oldest manuscripts, even before Peter, as being bishop of Jerusalem, and so presiding at the council (Ac 15:1-29).

Expositor’s Greek Testament The name of James is placed before those of the Apostles Peter and John. This was probably because as permanent head of the local Church he presided at meetings (cf. Acts 21:18).

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges James . . . is named first, because the reference is to a special act of the Church in Jerusalem, of which he was president or Bishop. “When St Paul is speaking of the missionary office of the Church at large, St Peter holds the foremost place”. Lightfoot. Compare Galatians 2:7-8 with Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18.

Bengel’s Gnomen James . . . is put here first, because he mostly remained at Jerusalem, . . .

Pulpit Commentary James . . . is named first, before even Cephas and John, though not an apostle, as being the leading “elder” (bishop, as such a functionary soon got to be designated) of the Church of Jerusalem; for in the classification of the component members of that meeting in Acts 15:6, “the apostles and the elders,” James must be assigned to the latter category.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers The way in which St. Paul speaks respectively of St. Peter and St. James is in strict accordance with the historical situation. When he is speaking of the general work of the Church (as in the last two verses) St. Peter is mentioned prominently; when the reference is to a public act of the Church of Jerusalem the precedence is given to St. James.

Meyer’s NT Commentary The mention of his name here before the other two . . . is quite in due form, as the apostle is relating an official act done in Jerusalem, where James stood at the head of the church . . . The higher rank possessed by Peter and the apostles proper generally as such, is surely enough established by Galatians 1:18 f. But James . . . had already attained a certain archiepiscopal position in the Jewish-Christian mother-church, and consequently for Jewish Christianity generally, agreeably to the monarchic principle which was involved in the latter. If James had been precisely one of the twelve, Paul would not (comp. Galatians 1:18) have given him precedence over Peter; for, as mouthpiece of the twelve, Peter was the first for Jerusalem also and for the whole of the Jewish Christians (Galatians 2:7).

Benson Commentary James — Probably named first because he. was bishop of the church in Jerusalem; and Cephas — Speaking of him at Jerusalem, he calls him by his Hebrew name . . .

So none of this has any bearing on whether Peter was the leader of the original disciples and the apostles (and, we believe, the first pope), as explained. St. Peter’s primacy is based on many many indications:

*
*
*
50 Biblical Indications of Petrine Primacy and the Papacy [National Catholic Register, 11-20-16]
*

Top 20 Biblical Evidences for the Primacy of St. Peter [National Catholic Register, 1-8-18]

*
*
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
Photo credit: Thomas Hawk (9-18-13). Peter and Paul [Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0 license]

***

Summary: Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer argues that James listed before Peter in Gal 2:9 proves that Peter is of lesser (and non-papal) authority. Wrong!

November 18, 2021

November 18, 2021 By

Including Biblical Evidence of Analogous Miracles of a Supernatural Change of a Substance Minus Outward Physical Evidence 

Jason Engwer is a Protestant and anti-Catholic apologist, who runs the Tribalblogue site. I am responding to his article, You Ought To Believe In A Real Absence (7-29-19). His words will be in blue.

*****

Roman Catholics (and others) often criticize those who don’t believe in a physical presence of Christ in the eucharist by referring to that view as “the real absence”, in contrast to the real presence. They often act as though the phrase “real absence” does so much heavy lifting that they don’t need to do much beyond applying that label to their opponents’ view. But there’s nothing wrong with absence in this context, and it actually makes a lot more sense than the alternative.

For one thing, the original backdrop to the eucharist involved the absence of a physical presence in the Passover elements:

That the bread ‘is’ his body means that it ‘represents’ it; we should interpret his words here no more literally than the disciples would have taken the normal words of the Passover liturgy, related to Deuteronomy 16:3 (cf. Stauffer 1960:117): ‘This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate when they came from the land of Egypt.’ (By no stretch of the imagination did anyone suppose that they were re-eating the very bread the Israelites had eaten in the wilderness.) Those who ate of this bread participated by commemoration in Jesus’ affliction in the same manner that those who ate the Passover commemorated in the deliverance of their ancestors….M. Pesah. 10:6 uses the Passover wine as a metaphor for the blood of the covenant in Ex. 24:8″. (Craig Keener, A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999], 631, n. 27 on 631)

The problem with this commentary is what I pointed out in my previous reply to Jason, which was devoted to the great eucharistic discourse: John 6. Was Jesus teaching only that “bread of life” was simply metaphor for belief in Him and that there is no physical and sacramental substantial bodily presence in the Eucharist?

No; as I demonstrated in that article, both things are true: He used a metaphor for belief and faith in Him (“I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst”: Jn 6:35, RSV), but also made it clear that He was talking about His literal Body and Blood (in a supernatural sacramental sense; not the “cannibalistic” sense):

John 6:51 . . . the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

John 6:54 . . . he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, . . .

John 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Secondly, Biblical precedent gives us reason to conclude that no physical transformation has occurred if there’s an absence of physical evidence of such a transformation. For example, in John 2, Jesus didn’t change the water into wine under the appearance of remaining water. He didn’t heal lepers and blind men under the appearance of their remaining leprous and blind. Physical miracles produced the sort of corresponding physical evidence you’d expect. The absence of such evidence in the context of the eucharist is most reasonably taken as implying the absence of such a physical transformation.

This is untrue as well. Jesus had a body after His resurrection (and He encouraged His disciples to touch Him, including His wounds, to establish this fact), but it was a glorified body. He could, for example, pass through walls in a way that we normally deem to be physically impossible (yet which modern quantum physics actually claims is entirely possible). See John 20:19 . . .

Now, one could say that the “physical evidence” (I suppose) was His passing through the wall of the house, but how is that “physical” in an empirical sense? As far as the disciples were concerned, Jesus still had a normal physical body. He even ate with them. For that matter, how would someone “physically” prove that Jesus was God, even before He was resurrected? By looking at His cells in a microscope? There was no way to do that. The incarnation has to be received with faith as a supernatural miracle. So why does Jason demand so much more of the Eucharist?

Therefore, “Biblical precedent” indeed “gives us reason to conclude” that a “physical transformation has occurred” in the “absence of physical evidence of such a transformation.” The truth is the opposite of what Jason claims. And it is an analogy to transubstantiation. Moreover, this is not the only biblical example:

Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night; (cf. 14:24; Num 14:14; Neh 9:12, 19)

Note what is happening here. We’re talking about actual clouds (a form of water) and fire, which “consist[s] primarily of carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxygen and nitrogen” (Wikipedia, “Fire”). Yet God is somehow “in” both of them (so much so that the ancient Hebrews would worship God facing this cloud: Ex 33:10). How? How could one tell the difference between a regular old cloud or a fire and the ones that God was “in”?

They couldn’t. And no one could today, either, if God did that again. The only difference is that God said He was in both, in particular circumstances when both formed a “pillar.” But that’s not physical proof. It’s revelation. And it is exactly the same, analogously, as what we have in the Eucharist (substance changing without the accidents or appearances changing).

With regard to fire with God specially “in” it, we also have the burning bush (Ex 3:2-6), which is not only fire, but also called an “angel of the Lord” (Ex 3:2), yet also “God” (3:4, 6, 11, 13-16, 18; 4:5, 7-8) and “the LORD” (3:7, 16, 18; 4:2, 4-6, 10-11, 14) interchangeably. Also, the Bible states: “Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire” (Ex 19:18).

Next question? Jason and Protestants generally want to “argue Bible”? As usual, I’m running circles around him giving relevant Bible passages, whereas he mostly sits there and cynically speculates out of his own head about all kinds of things. He doesn’t ground his arguments in the Bible as I do. He claims he is doing so but doesn’t demonstrate it. He talks about supposed lack of “biblical precedent” while I prove that precedent exists that demolishes his contentions (mere traditions of men).

Lastly, scripture teaches us that Jesus is to be absent for a while (Matthew 24:23-27, Mark 14:7, John 14:2-3, 14:28, Acts 1:11, 3:21). He’s still spiritually present, and you have to allow for exceptions to the generalities in the passages I just cited (e.g., Jesus’ appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus, which seems to have been a physical appearance, like the other resurrection appearances). But a belief in Jesus’ physical presence in the eucharist would have him physically present frequently, if not all of the time or the large majority of the time.

When discussing the eucharist, Paul refers to how it proclaims Jesus’ death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:26). That sort of language makes more sense if Jesus is physically absent, but will return physically in the future. It makes less sense if he’s continually physically present, but will also come physically in some other sense in the future. Much the same can be said about Paul’s comments on being “absent from the Lord” in 2 Corinthians 5:6 (see, also, Philippians 1:23, 1 Thessalonians 4:17).

This is category confusion on Jason’s part. There are five senses in which we can refer to Jesus being “present” with us on earth:

1) His time spent on earth as a physical man, for about 33 years, from His birth to His crucifixion, resurrection, post-resurrection appearances, and ascension. [physical]

2) The indwelling: an attribute He shares with the Father and the Holy Spirit. In the same Last Supper Discourse (John 14-17) Jesus referred to He Himself (and God the Father) being “in” us [non-material / as a spirit]:

John 14:18 . . . I will come to you. (cf.  14:16-17)
*
John 14:20 . . . I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
*
John 14:23 . . . my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
*
John 15:5 . . . He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit . . .
*
John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, . . .
3) In the sense that He is (as God) omnipresent [non-material / as a spirit]:
*
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
*
Matthew 28:20 . . .  I am with you always, to the close of the age.
*
Ephesians 1:22-23 …the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.
*
Colossians 3:11 …Christ is all, and in all.
4) Supernatural eucharistic presence: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity [spiritual and sacramentally / miraculously physical and substantial]
*
5) After His return to earth as a physical man[-God] with a glorified body at the Second Coming [physical].
Now let’s look at Jason’s specific argument:
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
This is clearly referring to the Second Coming, or #5 above. So we can speak in terms of that being in the future, and His time living and teaching on the earth being in the past, while the senses of presence #2-4 are ongoing in the interim period. No contradiction! It’s just Jason’s characteristic lack of making crucial distinctions.
*
Paul’s being “absent from the Lord” or “away from the Lord” (2 Cor 5:6, RSV) is a sixth kind of presence of Jesus: not on earth but in heaven. It’s clearly what Paul is referring to here and in 5:8: “away from the body and at home with the Lord.” We also know this from context. 5:10 refers to appearing before “the judgment seat of Christ.” This simply has nothing to do with eucharistic presence at all. It’s a non sequitur.
*
Philippians 1:23 is in the same sense: “My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” He’s talking about being in heaven with God, like he did in 1 Corinthians 13:12: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.” 1 Thessalonians refers to the time of the Second Coming and being with Jesus thereafter. It’s all irrelevant to the matter of eucharistic presence.
*
An especially significant passage in this context is Mark 14:7. The surrounding context involves the Passover and the Last Supper. Jesus is anointed by a woman and makes the comment in verse 7 about how they won’t always have him around to do good to him as that woman did, whereas they’ll always have the poor around to do good to them. The passage refers to how the woman has anointed his body, and he refers to how she’s prepared him for burial. The focus is on the physical, especially Jesus’ body. What comes between Mark 14:7 and the burial? The events commemorated in communion. So, those events are included in how the woman has done good to Jesus. In fact, as I’ve documented elsewhere, Jesus’ burial was a prominent theme in early Christianity, often referred to in gospel summaries, baptism, etc. The implication of Jesus’ comment in Mark 14:7 is that doing good to him bodily in that context isn’t something they’ll always be able to do. Yet, that’s what Catholics claim to do frequently in communion. They honor Jesus’ body in communion in various ways, with altars, monstrances, church services, etc., worship him in that context, and so on.
*
This is a silly, frivolous argument. Jesus is here obviously referring to His presence in the sense of #1 above. Jason is foolishly mixing up categories.
*
If the physical presence of Christ in the eucharist is as significant as Catholics make it out to be, and they experience it as often as they claim to, then it’s harder to make sense of these New Testament references to the absence of Jesus.
*
Not in the slightest. One simply has to be aware of the different kinds of presence involved. Jason isn’t, and so he is out to sea, and makes  irrelevant, desperate arguments as a result.
*
And keep in mind that the issue isn’t whether it’s possible to reconcile these passages with the Catholic view. Rather, the issue is which view makes the most sense of the evidence.
*
Exactly! The Catholic view does, and the low church Protestant view does not, as repeatedly shown.
*
There’s no shame in believing in a real absence.
*
There’s a ton of shame, because it’s blasphemous (rejecting Jesus’ teaching) and an adoption of what the heretical sects throughout history have believed, rather than the unbroken history of what the apostles, early Church, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and high church Protestantism (Anglicans, Lutherans — starting with Martin Luther himself –, some Methodists and others) have believed. Falsehood comes from the devil, and it prevents Christian believers from receiving all the grace and blessing that God has for them.
*
In fact, that view is more consistent with the original context of the eucharist, the physical evidence we have pertaining to the eucharist and how that evidence relates to the history of Biblical miracles, and the Biblical affirmation of the absence of Jesus.
*
Not at all, as shown. Jason, in all likelihood (judging from longstanding history) will not respond to any of this, and I say that he cannot sensibly do so even if he were willing to. Any other Protestant is welcome to take a shot at it. Be my guest!

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,850+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or 50 books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general.
*
If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds (and am in no danger of cracking the Fortune 500). 1 December 2021 will be my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022, the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. “Catholic Used Book Service” (in conjunction with my address on PayPal) is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
***

Photo credit: The Incredulity of Thomas (1622), by Hendrick ter Brugghen (1588-1629) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Anti-Catholic Jason Engwer takes one of his groundless potshots against Catholicism: this time against transubstantiation, with a “real absence” argument.

November 9, 2021

November 9, 2021 By

Jason Engwer is a Protestant and anti-Catholic apologist, who runs the Tribalblogue site. I will be responding to several of his “anti-Mary” comments, as noted. His words will be in blue.

*****

Simeon’s prophecy in Luke 2:35 involves a negative assessment of Mary, not a positive one. It’s about a sword of division and judgment that will adversely affect Mary. See, especially, the use of sword imagery in Ezekiel. (combox comment, 12-14-16)

Luke 2:34-35 (RSV) and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against  [35] (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.

Many Protestant Bible commentaries express not a hint of the irrational hostility to Mary that Jason blasphemously asserts here (a prophecy originating from God that contains a supposed “negative assessment of Mary”). Here is a sampling of those with a quite different take on this passage:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers The announcement of the special sorrow that was to be the Virgin Mother’s portion, comes as the sequel to “the sign that is spoken against,” the antagonism which her Son would meet with. We may find fulfilments of it when the men of Nazareth sought to throw Him from the brow of their hill (Luke 4:29); . . . when she stood by the cross, and heard the blasphemies and revilings of the priests and people (John 19:26).

Expositor’s Greek Testament καὶ σοῦ, singles out the mother for a special share in the sorrow connected with the tragic career of one destined to be much spoken against (ἀντιλεγόμενον); this inevitable because of a mother’s intense love. Mary’s sorrow is compared vividly to a sword (ῥομφαία here and in Revelation 1:16, and in Sept[30], Zechariah 13:7) passing through her soul. It is a figure strong enough to cover the bitterest experiences of the Mater Dolorosa, . . .

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible  The sufferings and death of thy Son shall deeply afflict thy soul. And if Mary had not been thus forewarned and sustained by strong faith, she could not have borne the trials which came upon her Son; but God prepared her for it, and the holy mother of the dying Saviour was sustained.

That the thoughts … – This is connected with the preceding verse: “He shall be a sign, a conspicuous object to be spoken against, that the thoughts of many hearts may be made manifest – that is, that they “might show” how much they hated holiness. Nothing so “brings out” the feelings of sinners as to tell them of Jesus Christ.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Almost from the very birth of Christ the sword began to pierce the soul of the ‘Mater Dolorosa;’ and what tongue can describe the weight of mysterious anguish which she felt as she watched the hatred and persecution which followed Jesus and saw Him die in anguish on the cross amid the execrations of all classes of those whom He came to save!

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible  the sorrows she met with on account of her son: as he was a man of sorrows, so was she a woman of sorrows, from his cradle to his cross; and his sorrows, like so many darts, or javelins, rebounded from him to her, and pierced her soul through;

Vincent’s Word Studies A sword (ῥομφαία). Strictly, a large Thracian broadsword. Used in Septuagint of the sword of Goliath (1 Samuel 17:51). A figure of Mary’s pang when her son should be nailed to the cross.

John Calvin’s Commentaries This warning must have contributed greatly to fortify the mind of the holy virgin, and to prevent her from being overwhelmed with grief, when she came to those distressing struggles, which she had to undergo. . . . She was not overwhelmed with grief; but it would have required a heart of stone not to be deeply wounded: . . .

Adam Clarke’s Commentary [A]s this is a metaphor used by the most respectable Greek writers to express the most pungent sorrow, it may here refer to the anguish Mary must have felt when standing beside the cross of her tortured son: John 19:25.

John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible A sword shall pierce through thy own soul – So it did, when he suffered: particularly at his crucifixion.

Dom Bernard Orchard’s Catholic Commentary of 1953 offers particularly insightful commentary:

So far all has been on a note of joy and welcome; now there is a promise of tragedy, strife and the sword. Simeon thus gives a more complete picture of OT predictions. Note ‘is set’ (κεῖται) is pre-ordained; perhaps he has in mind such texts as Is 8:14.; 28:16; Ps 117:22; cf. Mt 21:44. Some have put 35a in parenthesis for fear of attributing anything derogatory to Mary; Origen and some of the ancient commentators, thinking of Mk 3:21, interpreted the words as foretelling that she would be tempted to doubt her Son. But it seems more probable that 35b applies to all the preceding; as Jesus will later say, contact with him reveals all hearts, i.e. the dispositions of soul in each one. There can be no neutrality; everyone must come to a decision. The same idea is in the Magnificat. But it is only natural that the heart of Mary will be pierced with sorrow by the opposition shown to her Son. Tongues of enemies are like a sharp sword, Ps 56:5; 63:4.

It’s probably not a coincidence that the incident of 2:48-50 and its surrounding context follow so soon after the account involving Simeon’s prophecy. 2:48-50 opens with a quotation of Mary’s inappropriate comments in verse 48, followed by Jesus’ rebuke of her in verse 49, and concludes with Luke’s comments about her ignorance in verse 50. . . . And that passage is likely intended by Luke to be an illustration of how the sword of division and judgment affected Mary. (combox comment, 12-14-16)

Luke 2:45-50 and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. [46] After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; [47] and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. [48] And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” [49] And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” [50] And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.

Jason seeks to attach blame to the Blessed Virgin Mary based on this text. I addressed the topic in my paper, Jason Engwer and a Supposedly Sinful Mary (11-16-20):

I don’t think “why have you treated us so?” is necessarily (wholly apart from theology and viewed logically and grammatically) an accusation of sinfulness on Jesus’ part at all. Mary and Joseph were simply (undeniably) perplexed, but it doesn’t follow that they were therefore accusing Jesus of sin. After all, all Christians believe that God is sinless, yet we are often perplexed by His words or actions or lack of answers to prayers, etc. None of that automatically means that we accuse God of sin.

We’re simply confused and lacking answers and full knowledge, while we accept certain mysteries in faith and the fact that God’s ways are much higher than ours. So they asked, “why have you treated us so?” They didn’t understand. And I’m sure they would have been the first to admit that they wouldn’t always fully understand God the Son.

The 1953 Catholic Commentary, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, noted:

Mary and Joseph are also amazed. . . but Lk gives the reason in 48b: Jesus has never behaved so to Mary before. It is to be remembered that with her, as with others, Jesus had conducted himself as a normal child; his divinity was to her, as to us, an object of faith and not vision. . . . 51b also throws light on the point. ‘They learnt only gradually what his Messiahship involved (cf. 2:34–35) and this is one stage in the process. From the point of view of her subsequent knowledge, Mary recognized that she and Joseph had not understood’ (Plummer ICC on 2:51).

Pope St. John Paul II offers further explanation:

Several early Fathers of the Church, who were not yet convinced of her perfect holiness, attributed imperfections or moral defects to Mary. Some recent authors have taken the same position. However, the Gospel texts cited to justify these opinions provide no basis at all for attributing a sin or even a moral imperfection to the Mother of the Redeemer.

Jesus’s reply to his mother at the age of 12: “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Lk 2:49), has sometimes been interpreted as a veiled rebuke. A careful reading of the episode, however, shows that Jesus did not rebuke his mother and Joseph for seeking him, since they were responsible for looking after him.

Coming upon Jesus after an anxious search, Mary asked him only the “why” of his behaviour: “Son, why have you treated us so?” (Lk 2:48). And Jesus answers with another “why”, refraining from any rebuke and referring to the mystery of his divine sonship. (“Mary Was Free from All Personal Sin,” 6-26-96)

Regarding Mary’s alleged knowledge of what Jesus would do, Tertullian referred to “a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him…their [Mary and Jesus’ brothers] unbelief is evident…they set small store on that which [Jesus] was doing within [the house in Matthew 12:46-50]…they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work” (On The Flesh Of Christ, 7). He goes on to criticize Mary and Jesus’ brothers for “the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work”, and he goes on to remark, “When denying one’s parents in indignation [as Jesus did in Matthew 12], one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults….in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship” (ibid.). (combox comment, 12-14-16)

Matthew 12:46-50 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

I dealt with this in my paper, “Who is My Mother?”: Beginning of “Familial Church”. Here is the gist of my argument:

James Spencer Northcote comments on these passages:

We are quite at liberty to imagine, if we like, that Our Lord, after uttering the words which the Evangelists have recorded, rose up and proceeded to grant His Mother the interview she had asked for; there would be nothing at all strange in such a supposition; on the contrary, it is more possible than not; but it is not certain. All that we are told is that He answered the interruption in these words, “Who is My mother and My brethren? And then looking round about on them who sat about Him, He saith, Behold My mother and My brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is My brother, and My sister, and mother.”

I need not say that these words were not really an answer sent to His mother and brethren, but rather a lesson of instruction addressed to those “who sat about Him;” nor can it be necessary to point out to anyone who is familiar with the Gospels, how common a thing it was with our Blessed Lord to direct His answers not so much to the questions that had been put forward, as to the inward thoughts and motives of those who put them; how sometimes He set aside the question altogether as though he had not heard it, yet proceeded to make it the occasion of imparting some general lesson which it suggested. This is precisely what He does now.

Jesus took this opportunity to show that He regarded all of His followers (in what would become the Christian Church) as family. Similarly, He told His disciples, “I have called you friends” (Jn 15:15). It doesn’t follow that this is “a rebuff of this kin” (i.e., his immediate family). He simply moved from literal talk of families to a larger conception and vision of families as those who do “the will of God.” Thus, Jesus habitually used “brethren” to describe those who were not His immediate family [I cite Matthew 5:47; 23:8; 25:40; 28:10; Luke 22:32; John 20:17] . . .

It’s not a rebuff of His mother and father and half-brothers and/or cousins . . .; it’s simply the beginning of the Body of Christ, and the Christian Church being regarded as one large, extended family.

There is nothing in this passage to suggest unbelief of the “brothers”; let alone His mother (though there is data about the cousins’ / half-brothers’ unbelief in other passages). All it says is that they wanted to see Him. How is that unbelief? Nor is it a rebuke, as explained. So Tertullian starts with unwarranted false premises and goes on to even worse false conclusions based on them.

John Chrysostom repeatedly accuses Mary of a variety of sins, and he doesn’t seem to think she was as knowledgeable as John Mark Reynolds claims:

“For in fact that which she [Mary] had essayed to do [in Matthew 12:46-50], was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs.” (Homilies On Matthew, 44)

“For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, ‘Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?’ [Matthew 12:48], because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion….And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ [John 2:4] instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul” (Homilies On John, 21). (combox comment, 12-14-16)

Once again, there appears to be nothing in the text to suggest all of these nefarious supposed intentions or motivations of Mary. Once Jesus’ reply is properly exegeted in light of His similar behavior and utterances elsewhere, it is readily seen to not be a rebuke at all. If it’s not a rebuke, then there is no implied sin on Mary’s part, since her alleged “sin” — in the minds of these critics — seems to be predicated upon Jesus’ reply being a censure or rebuke.

As for John 2:4, this was not a rebuke, either, as Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin has ably explained.

I note also that no Church father, in the Catholic system of belief, is believed to be infallible. That’s reserved for Scripture and what is authoritatively taught by the Church at the highest levels (by popes and ecumenical councils in union with him). A Church father being incorrect, even on a matter as important as this, is no disproof whatsoever of Catholicism. It’s not even an inconsistency.

Even Jason concedes — at least in part — concerning these negative comments of some Church fathers towards Mary: “they’re more critical of Mary than I am. I agree with them that she’s a sinner, that passages like Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 2:35 reflect negatively on her, etc., but I think some of the fathers sometimes were overly critical of her”. (combox comment, 12-14-16)

Athanasius refers to how sinfulness dominated mankind before the coming of Christ. He mentions Mary in passing, but not as somebody who was sinless. Rather, he cites Jeremiah and John the Baptist as examples of individuals who were delivered from sin in the womb. He doesn’t seem to think that Mary was sinless before Jesus’ incarnation: . . . [cites Four Discourses Against The Arians, 3:33] (More Early Sources On Whether Mary Was Sinless, 6-13-16)

This is similar to Martin Luther’s position later in his life on Mary’s immaculate conception (what I have described as “immaculate purification”). But note that since this sinlessness would begin at the moment Jesus was conceived (taking Jason’s description at face value), then Mary would have been sinless from that moment (which would include all of the biblical accounts describing her, including the Annunciation: by which time she was sinless, having conceived the Incarnate Son of God.

John Chrysostom:

“And moreover, none of these, not even His mother nor His brethren, knew Him as they ought; for after His many miracles, the Evangelist says of His brethren, ‘For neither did His brethren believe in Him.’ [John 7:5]” (Homilies On John, 22:1). (More Early Sources On Whether Mary Was Sinless, 6-13-16)

Mary was not one of Jesus’ “brethren” but rather, His mother. The Bible never states that she in particular did not believe in Him or His mission. To the contrary, from the beginning, she knew exactly Who He was (see my paper, Mary’s Knowledge About Jesus’ Divinity), and the Bible never gives the slightest hint that she wavered from this revealed knowledge. If she had, surely that would have been made clear, as the Bible never shrinks from revealing faults of even the most eminent people (Moses, Paul, Peter, David, Noah, etc.).

St. John Henry Cardinal Newman made several penetrating comments on the question of the Church fathers, tradition, and development of the doctrine of a sinless and immaculate Mary:

You will ask perhaps, ’Why then was there so much controversy about the doctrine or about its definition?’ . . . I do not see any difficulty in the matter. From the beginning of the Church even good and holy men have got involved in controversies of words. . . . The devotion to her has gradually and slowly extended through the Church; the doctrine about her being always the same from the first. But the gradual growth of the devotion was a cause why that doctrine, in spite of its having been from the first, should have been but slowly recognised, slowly defined. . . . ’The new devotion was first heard of in the ninth century.’ Suppose I say, ’The new doctrine of our Lord’s immensity, contradicted by all the Ante-nicene Fathers, was first heard of in the creed of St Athanasius?’ or ’The Filioque, protested against by the Orthodox Church to this day, was first heard of in the 7th Century?’ Whatever principle is adduced to explain the latter statement will avail for the first. . . . The Holy Ghost’s eternity is involved in His divinity; the Blessed Virgin’s immaculateness in her conception is involved in the general declarations of the Fathers about her sinlessness. If all Catholics have not seen this at once, we must recollect that there were at first mistakes among pious and holy men about the attributes of the Holy Spirit. . . . I fully grant that there is not that formal documentary evidence for the doctrine in question which there is for some other doctrines, but I maintain also that, from its character, it does not require it. (Letters & Diaries xix; To Arthur Osborne Alleyne, 15 June 1860)

[A]s to the antiquity of the doctrine. In the first ages original sin was not. formally spoken of in contrast to actual. In the fourth century, Pelagius denied it, and was refuted and denounced by St Augustine. Not till the time of St Augustine could the question be mooted precisely whether our Lady was without original sin or not. Up to his time, and after his time, it was usual to say or to imply that Mary had nothing to do with sin, in vague terms. The earliest Fathers, St Justin, St Irenaeus etc. contrast her with Eve, while they contrast our Lord with Adam. In doing this – 1. they, sometimes imply, sometimes insist upon, the point that Eve sinned when tried, and Mary did not sin when tried; and 2. they say that, by not sinning, Mary had a real part in the work of redemption, in a way in which no other creature had a share. This does not go so far as actually to pronounce that she had the grace of God from the first moment of her existence, and never was under the power of original sin, but by comparing her with Eve, who was created of course without original sin, and by giving her so high an office, it implies it. Next, shortly after St Augustine, the 3rd General Council was held against Nestorius, and declared Mary to be the Mother of God. From this time the language of the Fathers is very strong, though vague, about her immaculateness. In the time of Mahomet the precise doctrine seems to have been taught in the East, for I think he mentions it in the Koran. In the middle ages, when everything was subjected to rigid examination of a reasoning character, the question was raised whether the doctrine was consistent with the Blessed Virgin’s having a human father and mother – and serious objections were felt to it on this score. Men defined the words ’Immaculate Conception’ differently from what I have done above, and in consequence denied it. St Bernard and St Thomas, in this way, were opposed to it, and the Dominicans. A long controversy ensued and a hot one – it lasted many centuries. At length, in our time, it has been defined in that sense in which I have explained the words above – a sense, which St Bernard, St Thomas, and the Dominicans did not deny. The same controversy about the sense of a word had occurred in the instance of the first General Council at Nicaea. The Nicene Creed uses the word ’Consubstantial’ to protect the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity against Arius, which the great Council of Antioch some 70 years before had repudiated as a symbol of heresy. In like manner great Saints have repudiated the words ’Immaculate Conception,’ from taking them in a different sense from that which the Church has accepted and sanctioned. (Letters & Diaries xxii; To Lady Chatterton, 2 Oct. 1865)

This is what is often called development of doctrine. It is no where said e.g., by the early Fathers, that Mary was without sin – but they do say that she is the second Eve, and that also she is the contrary to Eve in not having fallen; from which the Church, under the gift of infallibility, deduces her sinlessness. And this deduction nevertheless might not seem necessary to Catholic believers on the first blush of the matter . . . (Letters & Diaries xxvii, 84; Letter to J. H. Willis Nevins, 25 June 1874)

Related Reading

“All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? [1996; revised and posted at National Catholic Register on 12-11-17]
*
*
*
Why Would a Sinless Mary Offer Sacrifices? (vs. Matt Slick) [10-29-20]
*
*
***
*
Practical Matters: if any of my 3,850+ free online articles and 50 books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them, and/or if you believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. 1 December 2021 will be my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022, the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. “Catholic Used Book Service” (which might be mentioned in conjunction with my address on PayPal) is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*
Photo credit: Jjensen (8-23-08). Icon from the Mégalo Metéoron Monastery in Greece, representing the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., with the condemned Arius in the bottom of the icon. [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]
*
***
Summary: I examine several biblical passages used by Jason Engwer & Church fathers Tertullian, Chrysostom, & Athanasius to opine on the question of “was Mary sinless?”
October 4, 2021

October 4, 2021 By

Jason is a Protestant and anti-Catholic apologist, who runs the Tribalblogue site. I will be responding to his article, What To Make Of 1 Timothy 3:15 And Catholic Claims About It (10-6-20). His words will be in blue.

*****

1 Timothy 3:15b (RSV) . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Roman Catholics often cite 1 Timothy 3:15 in support of their view of their denomination. 

Yes we do, because it is a rock-solid argument, and (best of all) explicitly biblical. And it is in support of the one true Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ with St. Peter as its first pope. We don’t believe in denominations, which are not a biblical concept and which essentially began as a scandalous novelty (even Luther and Calvin — very unlike modern Protestants — utterly detested them) 15 centuries after Christ.

But:

– The context makes it more likely that Paul is referring to the local church than that he’s referring to a worldwide denomination, like the Roman Catholic Church. He’s writing to Timothy about the latter’s work in Ephesus (1:3).

Paul was writing about how Christians ought to behave. Behave where? Well, in “the church“: an essential attribute of which he then describes (which seems to me to stand alone as a proposition). If Paul had written all this, ending with “behave in the marketplace” or “behave in the academies” and then proceeded to describe marketplaces or academies, in the same way, his description of those would not have directly to do with the previous section about “behave in such-and-such a manner.”
*
It’s two distinct propositions.  The behavior he refers to would apply in pretty much all situations (“temperate, faithful in all things . . . let them manage their children and their households well”: 1 Tim 3:11-12). Paul simply threw in a description of the Church for no extra charge.
*
St. Paul does precisely the same thing with the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians was written to one local Church in Corinth. And so there is much in it pertaining exclusively to that church at that particular time in history. But at the end of 1 Corinthians chapter 12, Paul abruptly switches to talk about the overall Church, the Body of Christ:
1 Corinthians 12:26-30 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. [27] Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. [28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? [30] Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
Now, according to Jason’s desperate eisegesis of 1 Timothy 3:15, applied to this passage also, we would have to hold that 12:26-30 was still referring only to the church at Corinth. That would mean that Corinth was the entire “Body of Christ” and that only it has prophets, apostles, teachers, administrators, etc. This is clearly a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum. Therefore, he is speaking of the institutional Church here, and also in 1 Timothy 3:15.
*
It’s just as silly to think that 1 Timothy 3:15 is any different: as if the local church at Ephesus (referred to one time, in passing, in the entire letter, at the beginning of the chapter, two chapters previously) alone was “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” That’s clearly ludicrous, but this is the desperation that Protestant apologists are reduced to, in trying to “refute” our best prooftexts for  Catholic positions. I understand that the stakes are high. They must discredit this passage because it alone destroys sola Scriptura and strongly backs up the Catholic rule of faith.
*
– What we read about the Ephesian church elsewhere, such as in Acts 20:17-38 and Revelation 2:1-7, suggests that there was no assurance that the Ephesian church would remain faithful, have an unbroken succession from the apostles in perpetuity, or any other such thing.
*
No doubt, but none of this proves that 1 Timothy 3:15 was only referring to Ephesus. It’s absurd. I know a weak argument when I see one, after doing apologetics these past forty years.
*
In Acts 20, Paul expects wolves to come in among the Ephesian leadership and calls on them to remember the teaching they’d received from Jesus and Paul. He says nothing of an assurance that they’ll maintain the faith or how they can look to the infallible church teachings of their day, in addition to remembering the teaching of the past. Even an apostolic church as prominent as Ephesus, one that had the principles of 1 Timothy 3:15 applied so directly to it, could also be addressed in the terms of Acts 20 and Revelation 2.
*
All of this is perfectly irrelevant (in logic, what we call a non sequitur) to the text in question. But this is what the sophist does. He throws up a bunch of extraneous stuff that is mere obfuscation and obscurantism. Lawyers with a bad case and few facts on their side do the same thing. It’s an unenviable task. It’s much easier to defend the truth. You don’t have to play all these games.
*
– 1 Timothy 3:15 is addressing a function the church has.
*
Precisely! And we will unpack the implications of this below.
*
There’s no reason within the text or nearby context to think that the church will infallibly carry out that function. 
*
Oh but yes there is, as we shall shortly prove.
*
Similarly, the people of Israel are referred to as God’s witnesses (Isaiah 43:10-12), Christians are called salt and light (Matthew 5:13-14), etc., but it doesn’t follow that they’ll infallibly fulfill that role or that they’ll have the other relevant characteristics Catholics associate with the 1 Timothy 3 passage.
*
That’s irrelevant, too. Jason has to explain what it means for the Church to be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” He’s trying mightily to explain it away, but he’s miserably failing.
*
– Even if the church were sure to always fulfill the function described in the passage, the church wouldn’t have to be infallible in the particular way Roman Catholicism claims to be.
*
Obviously a biblical text would not be as developed as Catholic ecclesiology over 2,000 years. Yet the basic concept is here, very strongly expressed.
*
For example, if there were always a church holding a set of beliefs with some degree of overlap with Roman Catholicism, but not identical to it (Trinitarianism, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, etc.), that wouldn’t be equivalent to the church always fulfilling 1 Timothy 3:15 in the form of Roman Catholicism. You could believe that the function of the 1 Timothy passage has been fulfilled in every generation since the time of the apostles without believing that Catholicism has fulfilled it. Catholicism isn’t the only candidate available, and there are other candidates that are superior.
*
Well, this gets into the vexed, controversial question of which institutional, historical Christian communion is most plausibly viewed as the one true Church. I’d be absolutely delighted to have that discussion with Jason or anyone else. But he ignores all of my refutations . . .
*
– We normally think of multiple pillars, not just one, supporting a structure (e.g., Judges 16:29, Galatians 2:9). But the passage uses the singular, “pillar”. The implication is that at least one other entity has the same role the church is described as having.
*
Nonsense. So Jason notes that the text refers to one pillar, and to him this implies that there are other ones in the sense that the passage expresses. Quite obviously, if that were the case, then the passage would say (duh!) that the Church was “one of many pillars and bulwarks of the truth.” But it says no such thing, and Jason is desperately special pleading.
*
– The theme of the last part of 1 Timothy 3:15 (upholding the truth) is so broadly applicable that you can’t limit it to the local church, some worldwide denomination like Roman Catholicism, or any other concept of the church.
*
This is remarkable! Once again, Jason simply ignores what the text says and goes sailing off into fantasy-land, pretending that it is something other than the Church being “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
*
There are many individuals and groups throughout history who have been called on to be a pillar and support of the truth in some sense. Many individuals and groups outside of any church hierarchy are referred to as having some sort of supporting role, comparable to a pillar, a support, a foundation, or whatever term you want to use (e.g., Luke 8:3, Romans 11:18, 2 Corinthians 8:4, Revelation 3:12). In the Romans 11 passage just cited, Paul is addressing the Roman Christians in particular, warning them not to be arrogant in light of their dependence on the Jewish people. Later in 1 Timothy, Paul refers to wealthy Christians building a foundation for their future through good works (6:17-19). The concept of some entity serving as a support of some other entity, communicated by using architectural terms (a pillar, a foundation, a rock, a bulwark, etc.) or communicated in some other way, is commonplace.
*
Yes, and what does any of that have to do with the passage under consideration? How is it to be sensibly understood? I will eventually give my view. But right now let’s take note of Jason’s pathetic view: some of the worst argumentation I have ever seen him make in 21 years of debates with him.
*
The idea that an individual, group, or object has to have attributes like the relevant ones Roman Catholicism claims to have in order to serve as something like a pillar or support of the truth doesn’t make sense, and it would lead to absurd conclusions if applied to other passages. The language Paul uses in 1 Timothy 3:15 is too vague, making it open to a variety of applications, to justify the Catholic use of the passage. We see the same sort of variability with the metaphors used in other contexts. God is referred to as a light (Isaiah 60:19, Micah 7:8, John 8:12), and so are other entities (Isaiah 62:1, Matthew 5:14, Philippians 2:15). But they’re lights in a variety of ways. When metaphors like these are used, involving architecture, light, or whatever else, there isn’t much you can derive from them. That kind of metaphor typically isn’t meant to convey as much as Catholics want it to in the context of 1 Timothy 3:15. You have to bring in other evidence if you want to justify the sort of conclusions Catholics often claim to be deriving from 1 Timothy 3. But, then, it’s no longer just a matter of what that 1 Timothy 3 passage tells us. And if Catholics are going to bring in other considerations, so can their opponents.
*
Jason: the master of the non sequitur and obfuscation. Just throw any type of manure against the “wall” [of a rational, logical, exegetical position] and hope some of it will stick . . . Well, it ain’t stickin’, but it’s sure stinkin’ up the place.
*
– The wide applicability of the language is illustrated in some second-century sources. Eusebius quotes a document providing an account of some martyrs in Irenaeus’ day, and that document refers to a man named Attalus as “a native of Pergamos where he had always been a pillar and foundation” (Church History 5:1:17). Irenaeus wrote, “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (Against Heresies, 3:1:1) He refers to how “the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life” (3:11:8).
*
– In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (recall what I said above about the relationship between 1 Timothy and Ephesus), he refers to how Christians in general, not just a church hierarchy, a Pope, or ecumenical councils, for example, are to uphold the truth in various ways. They’re to “speak the truth” (4:15), for example. In fact, relative to how short the letter is, there are a lot of references to truth in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (1:13, 4:15, 4:21, 4:24, 4:25, 5:9, 6:14). All of those references to truth are applicable to Christians in general, not just a church hierarchy or an allegedly infallible portion of the hierarchy.
*
Again, none of this exegetes the passage at hand. It just doesn’t.
*
– The language Paul uses to describe the church in 1 Timothy 3:15 (“the household of God”, “the church of the living God”) and his reference to “how one ought to conduct himself in” that church make more sense if his focus is on the congregation in general. See the similar concepts in Ephesians 2:19-22, for example. The language is less likely to be referring only to the hierarchy, to some portion of the hierarchy that allegedly is infallible, or some such thing. And just as laymen aren’t infallible in their role of upholding the truth, neither are those serving in the hierarchy. Furthermore, Paul’s references to the Ephesians in general upholding the truth in his letter to the Ephesians (as discussed above) offer another line of evidence that he had the church in general in mind. Even if we assumed that Paul was using the language of the church in general as shorthand for a particular portion of the church, there would be no way to justify the conclusion that the portion of the church Paul was thinking of is the portion Catholicism has in mind. But, again, the most sensible way to take the passage is that the church in general is being referred to, and Catholics don’t want to assign attributes like an unbroken succession and infallibility to the church in general.
*
He gets a little closer to the actual text here, but is still very far away. Now let me give you an example of how Catholics interpret it. You be the judge as to which interpretation is more plausible. Here is the related portion of my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (2012, pp. 104-107, #82; with one “footnote-type” bracketed interjection added):

Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:

Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.

Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (Is 1:10; 38:4; Jer 1:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; Ezek 13:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1, et cetera). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly originate from God, with the prophet serving as a spokesman or intermediary of God (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).

Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, he can hardly be a faulty foundation. Neither can the apostles or prophets err when teaching the inspired gospel message or proclaiming God’s word. In the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, so is the Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves (all Christians) are incorporated into the Church (following the metaphor), on top of the foundation.

1 Peter 2:4-9 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; [5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [6] For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (cf. Isa 28:16)

Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error.

Therefore, the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus (perfect in all knowledge), and the prophets and apostles (who spoke infallible truth, often recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture). Moreover, it is the very “Body of Christ.” It stands to reason that the Church herself is infallible, by the same token. In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.

[Romans 2:8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

*
2 Corinthians 13:8 For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.
*
Colossians 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel
*
2 Thessalonians 2:10 . . . they refused to love the truth and so be saved. (cf. 2:12-13)
*
1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
*
1 Timothy 4:3 . . . those who believe and know the truth.
*
2 Timothy 1:14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. (cf. Jude 3)
*
2 Timothy 4:4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (cf. 2:18, 25; 3:7-8; Titus 1:14) ]

*

Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.

If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.

Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authority apart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.

***

Photo credit: sferrario1968  (11-8-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***
Summary: Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist Jason Engwer engages in extraordinary efforts to try to explain away 1 Timothy 3:15. It’s a lost cause and has no foundation.
September 23, 2021

September 23, 2021 By

The Actual Biblical Data Brought to Bear, Rather Than Late (Post-Luther and Post-Calvin) Protestant Traditions of Men

Protestant anti-Catholic apologist and polemicist Jason Engwer follows the standard theologically liberal take that Jesus had literal blood brothers / siblings. This was not Martin Luther’s or John Calvin’s view. It didn’t come from classic, original Protestantism, but from skeptical theological liberalism hundreds of years later.

Jason wrote an article entitled, “Some Undesigned Coincidences Related To Peter’s Names” (9-19-21) that presupposed the existence of siblings of Jesus. His words will be in blue:

[T]wo of the gospels report that Jesus had a brother named Simon (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3), . . . the two gospels that name Jesus’ brothers. Even in Matthew and Mark, the reference to a brother named Simon is brief and occurs in passing, and that brother didn’t have the sort of later prominence that James and Jude had. 

. . . both Jesus and James were drawing a connection to the name of one of their brothers, . . . Simon was their youngest brother. . . . Youngest children often get treated differently because of their status as the youngest. Jesus may have had more affection for his brother Simon accordingly. . . . The angel didn’t have a brother named Simon, as Jesus and James did.

Okay. Why don’t we take a look at the two passages he cites, and cross-reference them to other related ones, to see if it makes any sense to believe that all four persons mentioned were Jesus’ literal siblings. Protestants always want the Bible first and foremost. I’m happy to bring up much more of it (relevant to the topic) than Jason does.

Matthew 13:55-56 (RSV)  Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? [56] And are not all his sisters with us? . . .

Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” . . .

***

Matthew 27:55-56 There were also many women there [at the crucifixion], looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him;  [56]among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, . . .

Mark 15:40-41 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me, [41] who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; . . .

John 19:25 . . . standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

Therefore, “brothers” James and Joseph are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Our Lady’s adelphe [Greek for brother or sister or more distant relative, kin, friend, etc.] in John 19:25.  Assuming that there are not two women named “Mary” in one family (which seems reasonable!), they cold then be Jesus’ “cousins” (beyond first cousin) or more distant relatives. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and “sisters” along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi.

The most plausible interpretation of all this related data is a use of adelphos as “cousins” rather than “siblings.” We know for sure, from the above information, that James and Joseph were not Jesus’ siblings.

But there is another option, too. Eusebius, in his History of the Church (III, 2), documents Hegesippus (c. 110 – c. 180) stating that Clopas (husband of Mary’s sister) was the brother of Joseph, her husband. That would make this “other Mary” the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sister-in-law, and her sons (James and Joseph named), Jesus’ first cousins.

Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic have words for “cousin.” The New Testament was written in Greek, which does have such a word (sungenis), but Jesus and His disciples spoke Aramaic (a late version of Hebrew), and the Hebrew word ach is literally translated as adelphos, the literal equivalent of the English “brother.” In the Bible, it has a very wide range of meanings beyond “sibling”: just as “brother” does in English. Thus, it is routinely used in the New Testament to describe cousins or kinsmen, etc.

It’s true that sungenis and its cognate sungenia appear in the New Testament fifteen times (sungenia: Lk 1:61; Acts 7:3, 14; sungenis: Mk 6:4; Lk 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Acts 10:24; Rom 9:3; 16:7, 11, 21).  But they are usually translated kinsmen, kinsfolk, or kindred in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than cousin: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews. Thus, the eminent Protestant linguist W. E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, lists sungenis not only under “Cousin” but also under “Kin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman, Kinswoman.”

Jesus Himself uses “brethren” (adelphos) in the non-sibling sense. In Matthew 23:8 (cf. 12:49-50), He calls, for example, the “crowds” and His “disciples” (23:1) “brethren.” In other words, they are each other’s “brothers”: the brotherhood of Christians.

Luke was a Greek Gentile. Paul, though Jewish, was raised in the very cosmopolitan, culturally Greek town of Tarsus. But even so, both still clearly used adelphos many times with the meaning of non-sibling:

  • Luke 10:29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
  • Acts 3:17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.”
  • Acts 7:23, 25-26 “When he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the sons of Israel.. . . [25] He supposed that his brethren understood that God was giving them deliverance by his hand, but they did not understand. [26] And on the following day he appeared to them as they were quarreling and would have reconciled them, saying, `Men, you are brethren, why do you wrong each other?’”
  • Romans 1:13 I want you to know, brethren,  . . .
  • Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.
  • 1 Thessalonians 1:4 For we know, brethren beloved by God, that he has chosen you;

Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way. Yet we often hear about Galatians 1:19: “James the Lord’s brother.” 137 other times, Paul means non-sibling, yet amazingly enough, here he must mean sibling, because (so we are told) he uses the word adelphos? That doesn’t make any sense.

Some folks think it is a compelling argument that sungenis isn’t used to describe the brothers of Jesus. But they need to examine the following passage, where sungenis appears:

Mark 6:4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.” (cf. Jn 7:5: “For even his brothers did not believe in him”)

What is the context? Let’s look at the preceding verse, where the people in “his own country” (6:1) exclaimed:

Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

It can plausibly be argued, then, that Jesus’ reference to kin (sungenis) refers (at least in part) back to this mention of His “brothers” and “sisters”: His relatives. Since we know that sungenis means cousins or more distant relatives, that would be an indication of the status of those called Jesus’ “brothers”.
*

If Jude (Mt 13:55 and Mk 6:3 above) is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus’ blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James‘ brother.

This is far too strange and implausible to believe. Now that we have seen that James is Jesus’ cousin (either first or more distant), then if Jude is his sibling (assuming that is the meaning of Jude 1:1), then he is also Jesus’ cousin (the same sort of cousin as James).

Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19).

This is serious and [what we used to call as evangelicals] “meaty” Bible study, not the highly selective, “milky” and surfacey fluff of Jason Engwer. He wouldn’t know in-depth Bible study if it hit him on the head. And he (knowing better, from past experience, including leaving right in the middle of a widely advertised written debate) won’t interact with this, because he ignores every reply I make to his arguments, and (can’t be too safe!) I am banned on his Tribalblogue site (not one of the “tribe”!).

We have, then, either compelling or very good, plausible biblical arguments showing that neither James, Joseph, nor Jude are Jesus’ siblings. The only named “brother” left to explain is the fourth one named Simon: the one Jason Engwer blithely assumes is Jesus’ sibling in his remarks above. In his case, we only have indirect deduction from the biblical data, as to his exact relation to Jesus (analogy to James and Joseph). But we have strong early Christian tradition, from the best historian in the early Church: Eusebius, who, in the same passage cited above, wrote:

After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed, there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were still alive assembled from all parts together with those who, humanly speaking, were kinsmen of the Lord – for most of them were still living. Then they all discussed together whom they should choose as a fit person to succeed James, and voted unanimously that Symeon, son of the Clopas mentioned in the gospel narrative [note: Jn 19:25; perhaps Lk 24:18], was a fit person to occupy the throne of the Jerusalem see. He was, so it is said, a cousin of the Saviour, for Hegesippus tells us that Clopas was Joseph’s brother. (The History of the Church, translated by G.A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, 123-124)

It turns out, then, that early tradition, from the second-century historian Hegesippus (whom we have no reason to doubt in his non-theological reporting of relationships) tells us that “Symeon” is also a son of Clopas. Thus, he is another first cousin, not a blood brother. That would identify three of these four named “brothers” as cousins, based on clear biblical evidence (James and Joseph) and a combination of sound early historical tradition and the Bible (Simon or Symeon). Jude, by other biblical evidence (see above) and plausible extrapolation is very likely no different.

***

Related Reading

*
*
*
Jesus’ “Brothers” Always “Hangin’ Around” Mary … (Doesn’t This Prove That They Are Actually His Siblings?) [8-31-09]
*

Photo credit: Head of Christ, by Palma il Vecchio (c. 1480-1528) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Ever wonder about Jesus’ “brothers” or “brethren” in the New Testament? Prima facie, it looks like they are siblings. But in-depth biblical, exegetical, & linguistic analysis proves otherwise.

November 16, 2020

November 16, 2020 By

Doubting Jesus’ Sanity? / Inconsiderate (?) Young Jesus in the Temple / “Woman” and the Wedding at Cana

Jason Engwer is a Protestant apologist who is also an anti-Catholic polemicist (as presently). This is a response to his article, “Some Early Sources On The Sinlessness Of Mary” (9-7-06). His words will be in blue.

*****

The Biblical view of Mary seems to be that she was a believer who sometimes sinned. Like John the Baptist, Peter, and other New Testament figures, she’s sometimes an example of faithfulness to God and sometimes an example of how “we all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). The belief that Mary was a sinner apparently goes back to scripture itself, . . . 

It’s not the biblical view — I would contend — once the full implication of Luke 1:28 (Hail Mary, full of grace”) is understood. I have made an entirely biblical argument for Mary’s sinlessness based on that passage and other ones related to grace and its antithetical relation to sin in the New Testament:

Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”) & Immaculate Conception [2004]

Dialogue: Luke 1:28 & Immaculate Conception [7-11-06]

The Bible: Mary Was Without Sin [4-1-09]

Mary’s Immaculate Conception: A Biblical Argument [2010]

Annunciation: Was Mary Already Sublimely Graced? [10-8-11]

Sinless Mary: Dialogue w OT Professor (Dr. Jonathan Huddleston) [12-8-14]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #6: Sinless Mary [3-1-17]

Scripture, Through an Angel, Reveals That Mary Was Sinless [National Catholic Register, 4-30-17]

Biblical Support for Mary’s Immaculate Conception [National Catholic Register, 10-29-18]

I should also note that the passages discussed below are representative examples. Other relevant passages from the New Testament and the ante-Nicene sources could be cited.

In the gospels, Mary is often associated with Jesus’ unbelieving brothers, not just in terms of being with them, but also in terms of joining them in their opposition to Jesus:

“Not only the religious leaders ([Matthew] 12:24, 38), but Jesus’ own family doubted him (Mk 3:21-31, bracketing the Pharisees’ attack; cf. Jn 7:5)….Relatives normally sought to conceal other relatives’ behavior that would shame the whole family, hence their concern in Mark 3:20-21 (cf. Malina 1993: 80). Their opposition to or disbelief in Jesus is less clear in Matthew than in Mark, perhaps because of the shame of the family’s unbelief, especially after Mary’s experiences in Matthew’s infancy narratives” (Craig Keener, A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], pp. 369-370)

I have dealt with this false claim many times:

“Who is My Mother?”: Beginning of “Familial Church” [8-26-19]

“Who is My Mother?” — Jesus and the “Familial Church” [National Catholic Register, 1-21-20]

Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers”? (Jason also claims that “Mary believed in Jesus,” but wavered, and had a “sort of inconsistent faith”) (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-27-20]

Dialogue on Whether Jesus’ Kinfolk Were “Unbelievers” (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew) [5-28-20]

On Whether Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers” [National Catholic Register, 6-11-20]

Did the Blessed Virgin Mary Think Jesus Was Nuts? [7-2-20]

Seidensticker Folly #50: Mary Thought Jesus Was Crazy? (And Does the Gospel of Mark Radically Differ from the Other Gospels in the “Family vs. Following Jesus” Aspect?) [9-8-20]

Here is the heart of my argument in my article dated 7-2-20 above:

***

Mark 3:21-22 (RSV) And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, “He is beside himself.” [22] And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el’zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” (cf. Jn 10:20-21)

Note the italicized and bolded word. Other translations (including, unfortunately, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB) make it sound like Jesus’ family were agreeing and/or saying that Jesus’ was mad, but in fact the text is saying that “people” in general were doing so (just as the Pharisees did).

But if the text doesn’t refer to them, it can simply be construed as His family coming out to remove Him from the crowds, who were massively misunderstanding Him, accusing, and perhaps becoming violent (as at Nazareth, when they tried to throw Him over a cliff). Hence, there would be no necessary implication of His family’s (let alone Mary’s) disbelief in Him. They were concerned for His safety. Other translations convey the true sense of the passage (which is interpreted by 3:22 indicating that the “scribes” were saying Jesus was crazy):

NRSV When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”

Good News / (TEV) When his family heard about it, they set out to take charge of him, because people were saying, “He’s gone mad!”

Moffatt . . . . . . for men were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

Phillips . . . for people were saying, “He must be mad!”

NEB . . . for people were saying that he was out of his mind.

Even in the translation that has “they were saying.” etc., it’s a question of who “they” refers to. It can still be read as others besides the family. The 1953 Catholic Commentary, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, has some very good commentary on the passage:

The usual interpretation is that relatives (or followers) of Christ, disturbed by reports, came out to take charge of him. The following points are to be noted. (1) The phrase οἱ παρ’αὐτοῦ does not necessarily mean relatives (friends). It has a wider usage which would include disciples, followers, members of a household. It is not certain that the persons designated by this phrase are the same as ‘his mother and brethren’, 31. Even if they are, there is no reason for thinking that our Lady shared in the sentiments of the others, though she would naturally wish to be present when the welfare of her divine Son was in question. (2) ‘For they said’, rather, ‘For people were saying’. If this be correct, then 21b refers to reports which reached Christ’s friends, not to an expression of opinion by them.

***

Suffice it to say that there is no direct evidence that Mary thought her son was out of his mind. It appears to be applied to the passage because of a bias or predisposition (which is eisegesis), as opposed to the idea actually being present in the passage.

A group of some of the leading Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world, while addressing Luke 2:48-50, commented that “Mary’s complaining question in v. 48 seems to be a reproach to Jesus” (Raymond Brown, et al., editors, Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 160). Darrell Bock writes:

“Mary, speaking for both parents, wants to know why he [Jesus] has done such a seemingly insensitive thing. Jesus’ reply in the next verse addresses both of them as well. The form of Mary’s question may have OT roots (Gen. 20:9; 12:18; 26:10; Exod. 14:11; Num. 23:11; Judg. 15:11). This is the language of complaint….Bovon 1989: 159 notes that the idiom suggests the questioner’s [Mary’s] belief that an error has been made.” (Luke, Volume 1, 1:1-9:50 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994], p. 268 and n. 18 on p. 268)

Luke 2:42-50 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; [43] and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, [44] but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; [45] and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. [46] After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; [47] and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. [48] And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” [49] And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” [50] And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.

I don’t think “why have you treated us so?” is necessarily (wholly apart from theology and viewed logically and grammatically) an accusation of sinfulness on Jesus’ part at all. Mary and Joseph were simply (undeniably) perplexed, but it doesn’t follow that they were therefore accusing Jesus of sin. After all, all Christians believe that God is sinless, yet we are often perplexed by His words or actions or lack of answers to prayers, etc. None of that automatically means that we accuse God of sin.

We’re simply confused and lacking answers and full knowledge, while we accept certain mysteries in faith and the fact that God’s ways are much higher than ours. So they asked, “why have you treated us so?” They didn’t understand. And I’m sure they would have been the first to admit that they wouldn’t always fully understand God the Son.

The 1953 Catholic Commentary, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, noted:

Mary and Joseph are also amazed. . . but Lk gives the reason in 48b: Jesus has never behaved so to Mary before. It is to be remembered that with her, as with others, Jesus had conducted himself as a normal child; his divinity was to her, as to us, an object of faith and not vision. . . . 51b also throws light on the point. ‘They learnt only gradually what his Messiahship involved (cf. 2:34–35) and this is one stage in the process. From the point of view of her subsequent knowledge, Mary recognized that she and Joseph had not understood’ (Plummer ICC on 2:51).

Pope St. John Paul II offers further explanation:

Several early Fathers of the Church, who were not yet convinced of her perfect holiness, attributed imperfections or moral defects to Mary. Some recent authors have taken the same position. However, the Gospel texts cited to justify these opinions provide no basis at all for attributing a sin or even a moral imperfection to the Mother of the Redeemer.

Jesus’s reply to his mother at the age of 12: “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Lk 2:49), has sometimes been interpreted as a veiled rebuke. A careful reading of the episode, however, shows that Jesus did not rebuke his mother and Joseph for seeking him, since they were responsible for looking after him.

Coming upon Jesus after an anxious search, Mary asked him only the “why” of his behaviour: “Son, why have you treated us so?” (Lk 2:48). And Jesus answers with another “why”, refraining from any rebuke and referring to the mystery of his divine sonship. (“Mary Was Free from All Personal Sin,” 6-26-96)

Regarding John 2:4, Craig Keener writes:

“Jesus’ answer in v. 4 is a rebuff, but like the rebuff of 4:48, is more a complaint than an assertion that he will not act….Jesus is establishing a degree of distance between himself and his mother, as did the Jesus of the Synoptic tradition….The rebuff element is increased in Jesus’ next words [‘What is there between us?’], however. In both OT and Gospel tradition (e.g., Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34), as well as Greco-Roman idiom, a phrase like ‘What is there between us?’ would imply distancing or hostility….But the primary reason for the rebuff must be that his mother does not understand what this sign will cost Jesus: it starts him on the road to his hour, the cross.” (The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], pp. 504-506)

John 2:3-4 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” [4] And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”

I dealt with this false claim that Jesus was rebuking His mother, who supposedly sinned, in my article dated 7-2-20:

***

The next misguided criticism is directed towards the wedding of Cana: the old, tired, fundamentally silly argument that Jesus was supposedly disrespectful of His mother. This silly trifle was disposed of by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, citing three Protestant commentators:

The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:

“The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatra, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it” (The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).

Similarly, the Protestant Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan, states:

Jesus’ reply to Mary was not so abrupt as it seems. ‘Woman’ (gynai) was a polite form of address. Jesus used it when he spoke to his mother from the cross (19:26) and also when he spoke to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection (20:15)” (vol. 9, p. 42).

Even the Fundamentalist Wycliff Bible Commentary put out by Moody Press acknowledges in its comment on this verse, “In his reply, the use of ‘Woman’ does not involve disrespect (cf. 19:26)” (p. 1076).

Did Jesus “rebuke” His mother at this wedding? No: . . . The Navarre Bible explains the passage:

[The sentence rendered “What have you to do with me?” (RSV) is the subject of a note in RSVCE which says “while this expression always implies a divergence of view, the precise meaning is to be determined by the context, which here shows that it is not an unqualified rebuttal, still less a rebuke.” The Navarre Spanish is the equivalent of “What has it to do with you and me?”] The sentence “What has it to do with you and me?” is an oriental way of speaking which can have different nuances. Jesus’ reply seems to indicate that although in principle it was not part of God’s plan for him to use his power to solve the problem the wedding-feast had run into, our Lady’s request moves him to do precisely that. Also, one could surmise that God’s plan envisaged that Jesus should work the miracle at his Mother’s request. In any event, God willed that the Revelation of the New Testament should include this important teaching: so influential is our Lady’s intercession that God will listen to all petitions made through her; which is why Christian piety, with theological accuracy, has called our Lady “supplicant omnipotence.”

Dom Bernard Orchard’s 1953 Catholic Commentary adds more insightful interpretation:

Concerning the second: the Master’s question which literally reads: ‘What to me and to thee?’ has to be understood from biblical and not modern usage. Therefore it does not mean: ‘What concern is it of ours?’ or ‘There is no need for you to tell me’. In all the biblical passages where it occurs, Jg 11:12; 2 Kg 16:10, 19:22; 4 Kg 3:13; 2 Par 35:21; Mt 8:29; Mk 1:24, the phrase signifies, according to circumstances, a great or lesser divergence of viewpoint between the two parties concerned. In 2 Kg 16:10 it means total dissent; in Jg 11:12 it voices a complaint against an invader. In our passage, also, divergence must be admitted. In a sense our Lord’s answer is a refusal, but not an absolute refusal, rather, a refusal ad mentem, as a Roman Congregation would say, and the Blessed Virgin understood her Son’s mind from the tone of his voice. His first public miracle belonged to the divine programme of his Messianic mission into which flesh and blood could not enter. His answer is therefore an assertion of independence of his Mother, similar to the word he spoke in the temple about his Father’s business. The Blessed Virgin’s subsequent action shows that the tone of our Lord’s protest on this occasion was neither a curt nor an unqualified refusal.

It all comes down to language, culture, idiom, context . . . theological liberals / heterodox and many other people (including way too many orthodox Catholics) so often don’t get that. But doesn’t Jesus’ fulfillment of His mother’s request for more wine (by performing a miracle — His first recorded one — to provide more) suggest that He didn’t intend to rebuke her in the first place? He did what she requested. One would think so, it seems to me. Much ado about nothing . . .

***

Photo credit: Saint Raphael Catholic Church (Springfield, Ohio) – stained glass, Wedding at Cana – detail (Nheyob: 11-22-14) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

October 17, 2020

October 17, 2020 By

Protestant apologist Jason Engwer wrote:

Tertullian and Helvidius are often named as early opponents of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but other opponents of the concept seem to be mentioned less often. . . . What I want to do in this post is cite some other examples.

In the West before Hilary – that is, up to the middle of the fourth century – there is no witness at all for the ‘semper virgo’ [perpetual virginity]; and that can hardly be a mere chance: see pp. 72 f. below. Hippolytus, too, regards the ‘brothers of Jesus’ as the children of Joseph and Mary… [apparently quoting Hippolytus:] ‘He [Jesus] did [not] acknowledge as brothers those who were regarded as his brothers according to the body; the Redeemer did not acknowledge them, because in truth those [were] not his brothers who were born from Joseph through seed, but he from the Virgin and the Holy Spirit; and they regarded them as his brothers, but he did not acknowledge them.’ (Hans von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth In The Theology Of The Ancient Church [Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2011], n. 4 on 48-9)

. . . what should we conclude from the English translation he provides of that one passage?

If the brothers were “born from Joseph through seed”, then Hippolytus at least believed they were children of Joseph from a former marriage, thus differing from the more popular view that they were cousins of Jesus or some other more distant type of relatives. But was he denying Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Probably. To reconcile the passage with perpetual virginity, I think we’d have to take a few problematic steps. We’d have to assume a prior marriage of Joseph, which would be an unusual scenario and one not implied by the text. Second, if the relatives of Jesus in question were regarded as “brothers” without further qualification, the most natural way to take that term is as a reference to individuals with a biological relationship with both Joseph and Mary. If the individuals were all older than Jesus and older than Joseph’s marriage to Mary, having been born during a former marriage, it’s highly doubtful that they’d all be mistaken for biological offspring of Joseph and Mary. Third, we’d have to assume that Hippolytus failed to mention the first wife of Joseph (by description or name), even though mentioning her would have strengthened his point (by putting even more distance between Jesus and the brothers).

Why, then, does Hippolytus say that the individuals in question were “regarded” as brothers of Jesus? He can’t be denying that they were brothers in any sense. Even in a perpetual virginity scenario involving children from a former marriage of Joseph, the individuals in question would be brothers in a legal context. So, all that Hippolytus seems to be getting at by using the “regarded” qualifier is that the men weren’t brothers in the fullest sense, even though they were thought of that way. That would be true regardless of whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, so it’s an irrelevant issue. (“More Early Opponents Of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity”: Tribalblogue, 11-27-14)

This is classic Engwer polemics: take a dubious proposed “proof” of an assertion he already holds and obfuscate, engage in obscurantism and sophism, special plead, create as much doubt and confusion as possible, as to the traditional Catholic interpretation, and hope that readers (most of whom already agree with him) will be persuaded by such nefarious methods. In this instance, he seems to be aware of how weak and speculative a “proof” he is working with: leading to an excessive amount of special pleading (even by his low standards of research).

Yet, rather than admit as much, he digs in and gives it all he has to try to make his long shot position work. It’s all in vain, because St. Hippolytus (c. 170 – 235) elsewhere calls Mary ever-virgin, which is a definitive indication that she had no other children. Case closed. Thus, much ado about nothing, trying to make this “square peg” passage fit into the “square hole” of Mary’s perpetual virginity. If Jason had spent another ten minutes searching “Hippolytus, perpetual virginity” he could have save himself the embarrassment of trying to make a hopeless argument. But he didn’t, and so I had to write this paper and set the record straight.

Hippolytus wrote, c. 210:

But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, and in order to connect the universe with unchangeableness, the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man.  (Against Beron and Helix, Frag VIII; my bolding)

Likewise, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume 12 (“Virgin Birth”), reinforces this view with regard to St. Hippolytus and also St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), and Origen (c. 184 – c. 253):

Clement of Alexandria taught unequivocally the virgin birth—the only virgin mother (Pædagogus, i. 6)—and appears inclined to the notion of a miraculous birth as well as a miraculous conception (Strom., vii, 16; Eng. transl. in ANF, vol. ii.). . . .

This doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was advanced a further stage by Origen, whose principal discussion of the virgin birth appears in reply to Celsus, who had assailed this doctrine. . . .

Hippolytus maintained the perfect purity and perpetual virginity of Mary (Adv. Veronem), . . .

The great Protestant scholar J. B. Lightfoot explained what the early Church believed about the perpetual virginity of Mary, in his work, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age (1892; section: “The Brethren of the Lord”):

In the early ages of the Church two conflicting opinions were held regarding the relationship of those who in the Gospels and Apostolic Epistles are termed ‘the brethren of the Lord.’ On the one hand it was maintained that no blood relationship existed; that these brethren were in fact sons of Joseph by a former wife, before he espoused the Virgin; and that they are therefore called the Lord’s brethren only in the same way in which Joseph is called His father, having really no claim to this title but being so designated by an exceptional use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of the miraculous incarnation. On the other hand certain persons argued that the obvious meaning of the term was the correct meaning, and that these brethren were the Lord’s brethren as truly as Mary was the Lord’s mother, being her sons by her husband Joseph. The former of these views was held by the vast majority of orthodox believers and by not a few heretics; the latter was the opinion of a father of the Church here and there to whom it occurred as the natural inference from the language of Scripture, as Tertullian for instance, and of certain sects and individuals who set themselves against the incipient worship of the Virgin or the one-sided asceticism of the day, and to whom therefore it was a very serviceable weapon of controversy. . . .

Thus it would appear that, taking the scriptural notices alone, the Hieronymian account [that the “brethren” were cousins of Jesus] must be abandoned; while of the remaining two the balance of the argument is against the Helvidian [the “brethren” were literal siblings or blood brothers] and in favour of the Epiphanian [they were sons of a former marriage of Joseph]. To what extent the last-mentioned theory can plead the prestige of tradition, will be seen from the following catena of references to the fathers and other early Christian writings. . . .

[T]he testimony of Hegesippus [c. 110 – c. 180] . . . favours the Epiphanian rather than the Helvidian [view]. . . .

Origen [c. 184 – c. 253]. . . declares himself very distinctly in favour of the Epiphanian view, stating that the brethren were sons of Joseph by a deceased wife. . . .

In one passage he [Origen] writes at some length on the subject; ‘Some persons, on the ground of a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or the Book of James (i.e. the Protevangelium), say that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph’s sons by a former wife to whom he was married before Mary. Those who hold this view wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity throughout… And I think it reasonable that as Jesus was the first-fruit of purity and chastity among men, so Mary was among women: for it is not seemly to ascribe the first-fruit of virginity to any other woman but her’ (in Matt. xiii. 55, III. p. 462)’. This passage shows not only that Origen himself favoured the Epiphanian view which elsewhere he has directly maintained, but that he was wholly unaware of the Hieronymian, . . . (pp. 3-4, 25, 31, 34-35)

Jason will have to go back and revise his research, if he wishes to claim Hippolytus (or any of the other fathers above, save the eventual heretic Tertullian) for his heretical and unbiblical (and also anti-Protestant “Reformers”) view of the “brothers of Jesus” allegedly being His blood brothers and sons (younger brothers and/or sisters) of the Blessed Virgin Mary also.

***

Photo credit: The Madonna in Sorrow, by Giovanni Battista Salvi da Sassoferrato (1609 – 1685) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
What Religion Does Taylor Swift Practice?
Sticking the Corners
2
Have You Ever Wanted to Hear...
Beloved
3
Does God Make People Suffer?
Reflections in the Knight
4
Church Joyfully Welcomes U.S. Navy Chaplain...
The Pursuit of Holiness
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
The Music of Life
John Chrysostom (c. 345-407) vs. "Faith Alone"
Our World Needs Peace - Be A Peacemaker
Sheep (Gospel for Apr. 21, 2024)
For This Type of Food
Thoughts on Day Two of the Trump Trial
view all Catholic blogs