The gospel lectionary reading for Easter Sunday in Year B is the short ending of Mark in Mark 16.1–8. Although it is a short reading, there are lots of interesting things to reflect on.
(If you have chosen to read or speak on the reading from John 20, then the commentary on that passage is here, and the video discussion of it can be found here.)
Throughout Mark’s passion narrative, he has been careful to track the passing of time. He has noted the passing of each new day through the narrative, the timing of the “sixth hour” and the “ninth hour” in Mark 15.33, and the coming of evening in Mark 15.42. At the opening of our passage, he notes that “the Sabbath has passed”; but we need to remember that, in the first century, there were three ways to track the passing of days: from morning to the following morning; from midnight to midnight (the Roman method, which we continue to follow); and the Jewish way of counting days from evening to evening. This means that the women bought the spices on what we would call Saturday evening; as soon as dusk comes and the sabbath is over, buying and selling may start again. That is why, inverse two, he needs to specify a different time, “very early” in the morning, when the women go to the tomb.
We have already been told, in Mark 15.43, that Joseph of Arimathea has taken the body and laid it in the tomb. From the parallel account in John 19.38f, we also know that Nicodemus accompanied him, and between them the two of them wrapped his body with spices. As a complement to this, the women are coming, not to add solid spices, but liquid; the verb used here translated “anoint” ἀλείφω implies this, being cognate with the word for ‘olive oil’ ἔλαιον. This then reminds us of the earlier episode, in Mark 14, where Jesus is anointed by the woman at Bethany in preparation for his death. Jesus is very clear: “she has anointed my body beforehand for burial” (Mark 14.8). Here we find a classic Marian irony; as Morna Hooker notes:
The women fail to do belatedly what was in fact done by another woman prematurely. Her action was a prophetic sign of Jesus’ death; theirs is made impossible because of his resurrection.
As often with the gospels, and particularly in Mark (as well as John), we can only make sense of the later passage in the light of the earlier—and the earlier only reveals its full meaning in the light of the later.
The concern both of Joseph (with Nicodemus) and the women to care for the body of Jesus reminds us of the physicality of Jesus’ body which occupies the central concern of the narrative. He really was, bodily, crucified and died, and he really is, bodily, raised.
The list of women here is intriguing. Mary Magdalene is an important figure at the crucifixion and the empty tomb in all four gospels, and yet in three of them this is their first mention of her. The only one who names her earlier in the narrative is Luke, where she is mentioned as one of the women accompanying and supporting Jesus and his disciples in their ministry in Luke 8.2:
…also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out…
(There is no reason to conflate her with the woman of ill repute who anoints Jesus.)
In Mark, she is mentioned in Mark 15.40, and Mark also makes the specific point that, when Joseph takes the body, she and the other Mary ‘saw where it was laid’ (Mark 15.47), so she knows where to go to anoint the body after the Sabbath.
Even more intriguing is ‘Mary the mother of James’. In Mark 15.40 we meet ‘Mary the mother of James and Joses’, and in Mark 15.47 we find ‘Mary the mother of Joses’ who is with Mary Magdalene a witness to where Jesus is laid. This must surely be the same person.
(Note that inscriptional evidence suggests that around one fifth of all women in Israel were named ‘Mary’, Greek Maria, Hebrew Miriam, presumably after Moses’ sister, so in the absence of surnames, they were identified either by the place of their birth or residence, hence ‘Magdelene’ from Magda, or by a male relative, ‘of X’ referring to either a husband or a son. Mary here is simply ‘the of Joses’ and ‘the of James’.)
But the only person we know from the gospel who is ‘Mary the mother of Joses and James’ is the woman who is the mother of Jesus’ brothers (Mark 6.3)! We must therefore assume that this is Jesus’ mother—which then agrees with the account of the women around the cross in John 19.25. Remarkably, in this gospel, the natural kinship relationship with Jesus is of no account; what matters is the new kinship of believers in the gospel. Jesus’ earthly family have no privileged position in the community of faith—and in fact at times appear to be an obstacle to his ministry.
(It is worth noting that, apart from the early chapters of Luke, Jesus’ mother Mary is actually depicted in quite negative terms in all the gospels. Here, Justin Taylor supposes that there were two different Marys, both with sons named James and Joses, both at the cross, which looks rather unlikely to me.)
The time when they arrive is given my Mark as ‘when the sun had risen’. The parallel in John 20 seems to make a lot of the gradual dawning of light, so that at first Mary does not recognise him, but her dawning understanding matches the growing light as the sun rises. We need to recognise this, though, as a literary device; for those of us further away from the equator, we are used to a gradual dawn, but in Israel the dawn comes quickly as it is further south.
There is a repeated emphasis, from the beginning of this passage to the end, on the women’s sense of ‘fear; and trepidation. On the one hand, this might be seen as a contrast with the ‘boldness’ of Joseph of Arimathea in Mark 15.43; after all, the mention of the group of women before and after the mention of Joseph could look like a Markan sandwich, drawing our attention to the contrast. And yet, the women do indeed go to the tomb, and there is no sign of the male disciples, which accounts for their wondering ‘who will roll away the stone?’ (This again ties in with the account in John 20, with the whole of this narrative summed up in John 20.1, the women then returning to the male disciples who only go when they have told them the stone has been rolled away.)
We know both from the careful account in John 20 and from archaeological evidence that a rock-hewn tomb will have had a low entrance blocked by a round disc of stone. (Some popular drawings depict the stone as a ball-shaped boulder, but we know this is inaccurate). Even as a disc, the stone will be of some size and take effort to roll away, since the groove it sits in was designed to make it close into the groove and be harder to push away.
The fact that the women, in their preoccupation and distress, have not thought about the practicalities of how they are going to access the tomb, seems like a very human and mundane observation. How many times have people left the house to go on a journey whilst anxious and preoccupied, and only realised once outside that they did not pick up the car key?!
The expression ‘And looking up they saw…’ does not imply that the tomb is uphill from where they are. Rather, they have turned from one another and their own preoccupations to the reality before them. Once again, Mark is using ‘biblical’ language; ‘he lifted his eyes and saw…’ is a frequent semitism found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament—most notably when Abraham sees the men coming to him who represent the visit of the presence of God in Gen 18.2.
The details of the physical space are abbreviated, but like the more detailed account in John 20, they fit with what we know from archaeology. The tomb has a door through which they must enter; the man they sit is sitting ‘on the right’ (an interesting eye-witness detail which does not appear to have any symbolic significance) on one of the shelves on which bodies would be laid out until the flesh has decomposed and the remaining bones would be placed in an ossuary. This custom would allow the dead to look at those they were merely sleeping on a bed, which ties in with the major metaphor in the New Testament for death as sleep, from which we awake when Jesus returns. (The most common verb for resurrection ἀνίστημι is the same as the word for getting up from sleep in the morning.)
The person they encounter is described as a ‘young man’; there is no need to link this to the young man in the garden who flees naked (Mark 14.51 a self-reference by Mark, most likely), since this man is dressed in white which appears to shine in the darkness of the tomb. This reminds us of Jesus’ shining whiteness at the transfiguration, as well as the white robes of those in Rev 7.13; white clothing is a common sign of angelic presence or of those who have been in the presence of the divine. Note that in Luke’s account, he describes such figures as ‘men’ (Luke 24.4, in clothes like ‘lightning’) then later as ‘angels’ (Luke 24.23).
This person’s divine authority is also suggested by his direct, staccato speech in seven phrases. What he offers is explanation and command; there is no room for discussion! As is frequent with angelic appearances, his first command is ‘Do not be alarmed!’ In an elegant literary touch, the verb he uses matches the verb that Mark has just used to describe their state! He addresses their concerns head on.
It is striking that, as later in Acts, and earlier in the gospel, Jesus is identified by the town of his birth: ‘Jesus of Nazareth’. Once more, we have an emphasis on his physicality and earthiness juxtaposed with the startling transcendence of the reality of his death and resurrection.
Despite the reality of his gruesome death on the cross, the situation is now reversed—and the turning point in Greek is expressed in a single word: ἠγέρθη He has been raised! It is not just that he has ‘got up’; the passive here implies divine action. ‘This Jesus, whom you crucified, God has raised from the dead’ (compare Acts 2.24, 36).
Drawing attention to the place where his body was raised both emphasises the physicality of the events, and the physical reality of the empty tomb, as well as connecting with the women’s own witnessing of his burial in Mark 15.47. The women can both testify to where his body was laid, and now testify to the fact he is no longer there.
Although Mark’s account does not use the apostell– language for being sent, there is no doubt that they are commissioned, just as Mary Magdelene is in John 20.17, to take this gospel message to the male disciples who continue to hide in fear.
What we now realise is that the stone was not rolled away for the sake of Jesus, to enable him to leave the tomb. After all, he is perfectly capable of appearing and disappearing, and entering into locked rooms (John 20.19). No, the stone is rolled away for our sake, to enable us to enter the tomb and see that Jesus is not there. There are no witnesses to the resurrection, only witnesses to the compelling evidence that Jesus has been raised.
Each of us must therefore examine the evidence for ourselves, and make the decision to accept the only credible explanation—that God has indeed raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 10.9).
Come and join James and Ian as they discuss all these questions:
(typo: “Marian irony”, although it was one of the Marys who anointed him)
My spell checker really did not like the word Markan…! (and still doesn’t!)
Luke probably acknowledges that both the word ‘men’ and the word ‘angels’ should be used, as his two synoptic sources (Matt seems to be a source at this point because of the lightning robes) have one apiece; or else because Mark’s man may be an angel anyway; or both.
This is in line with his harmonising on many matters (e.g. anointing of feet and of head) but also specifically here on the male disciples coming to the tomb (referred to but not necessarily mentioned in the narrative, depending on whether we include the Western non interpolation). Then he harmonises all that with the prostration required in context by the Joseph template.
Hi Ian, am I being a bit dumb here “It is striking that, as later in Acts, and earlier in the gospel, Jesus is identified by the town of his birth: ‘Jesus of Nazareth’”
Isn’t a more liberal take to see Nazareth as his actual birth place rather than Bethlehem or is this a typo?
Oops, sorry, theologian-in-a-hurry blunder!!
It should say ‘the town of his upbringing…’!!
I am intrigued by the Angel, perhaps “looking into” this amazing season.
Perhaps this angel was aware of the angels who were cast out of heaven who did not keep to their estate Jude 1:6
No mercy and no love.
Perhaps here there was an amazing demonstration of the love of God never known before.
For an angel I would imagine that this was just so incomprehensible, here are inferior beings
Rebellious, stubborn, as sinful as Hell itself,
and God’s revelation that God loves these worms so much that, He suffers for them and invites them to partake in His Divine nature and to sit in a heavenly throne as co-heirs! etc., etc.
Paul says that his ministry had the effect of demonstrating of a unique wisdom:
“that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.”
Dr. Arthur Custance, a Canadian scientist. Says
It is a revelation in which these “principalities and powers” are learning something by observing the church. What does he mean? Well, this is one of the instances in which Scripture clearly states that we are surrounded by an invisible spiritual kingdom made up both of demons and angels. In Ephesians 6 Paul says, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers in the heavenly places — wicked spirits from the very headquarters of evil itself,” Ephesians 6:12). But we also learn from other passages that angels are watching us.
It is as if we are on stage in a great theater, with the angels gathered around, watching us, learning from what is happening here in the lives of believers.
This is why, in First Corinthians 11, Paul says to women that their dress and their demeanor toward their husbands teaches the angels something. He says it ought to be correct “because of the angels,” (1 Corinthians 11:10). Angels are watching and learning. What are they learning?
Let me share with you another quotation from Dr. Custance:
The key to the existence of such a universe as this lies, I believe, in the fact that God wished to show forth that aspect of his being which the angels have never comprehended, namely his love, without at the same time surrendering that part of his being which they do comprehend, namely his holiness.
So the revelation of the mystery is essentially the revelation of the love of God — in ways that make the angels amazed and startled as they learn the tremendous secrets of God’s love. This is why the Apostle Peter says in his first letter that our salvation is so tremendous that the angels longed to look into these things. What does he mean? Well, that God’s incredible love is being demonstrated by the church in such a way as to startle and amaze the angels, as they see the “many-coloured” wisdom of God. The word translated manifold here is literally the “many-coloured” wisdom of God.
This whole garden episode seems to be redolent of a reversal of Genesis 3 Jesus as
1 the last Adam
2 the way back into the presence of God
3 the cherubim stood down as door keeper, an immovable barrier to God.
4 Angel(s) now pointing to the Way of Life, (new eternal Resurrection defeat- of- the -curse -of -death Life)
4 desire of women for their true husband Jesus/Last Adam
Geoff, thanks, make an interesting diagram.
Me Steve? Even matchstick people are beyond me.
A book stimulated the thoughts. “Last Things First” by J.V. Fesko …unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology.
The theology of Genesis is a one of a “Garden Temple” with the Presence of God and Adam as Prophet, Priest and King. It forms a protological bedrock.
These “protological connections” include:
1. crucifixion on the sixth day-the same day Adam was created
2. Pilate pronounces to the crowds “Behold the man” (John 17:4) echoing the creation of Adam.
3. Jesus completing the work he came to do (John17:4) cries out from the cross, “It is finished.” (John 19:30). – This corresponds to completion of the creation on the 6th day.
4. Then this was followed by a day of rest, a Sabbath (John 19:31)
5.Then on the first day of the week Christ rose from the dead.
6. “that Jesus’ public career is to be understood as the completion of the original creation, with the resurrection as the start of the new.” N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God.
7. The tearing of the veil in the temple on Christ’s death, confirms the scriptural trajectory.
8. The two cherubim prohibiting entrance to the archetypal temple “garden” were placed by God.
9. The two cherubim figures were embroidered on the veil/curtain separating outer temple from the inner, Holy of Holies.
10. The Holy of Holies, presence of God could only be entered at the appointed time by the High Priest. Jesus is that High Priest.
11. The penalty of the curse, had been paid and the promise of the protoevangelium had arrived with the dawn of the new creation.
12. The cheribum no longer stand at the entrance barring access under penalty of death.
13.Because the veil has been torn in two;
– The cherubim have withdrawn to their station before the throne of God. (Revelation 4:6-8)
– The new Adamic humanity can once again enter into God’s presence.
14. The new adamic humanity bear the image of the last Adam Jesus (the groom) therebye
– fulfilling God’s intended purposes for creation – the spreading of the image of God to the ends of the earth.
15. This moves into Christology and ecclesiology and bride and groom imagery as in Genesis and Revealtion 21:2
16. Just as Eve, is first helpmate of Adam. SoWoman are Jesus’ , the Last Adam’s helpmate.
Thanks Geoff!
I have just completed my latest art based on Genesis 1&2 . Eve is at the centre as the last and ultimate expression of God. I think I posted a diagram a few months ago of my plan. I thought I had diverted off course from Revelation but in fact the Genesis account reflects Some patterns in Revelation. The more I delve into this subject the more awesome a challenge it becomes. Your reference to Fesko is much appreciated, thanks. I’ll look into it.
Steve,
You may also be interested in, “The Temple and the Church’s Mission – A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God” by G.K. Beale in the New Studies in Biblical Theology Series.
While it differs significantly from Fesko’s book, it traces the Garden Temple motif, from Genesis, through the OT, the Gospels, Acts, Epistles and the book of Revelation.
So, Geoff,
I’ve accidentally purchased a Kindle version of “The Temple and the Church’s Mission” by G.K. Beale! 🙂 Too easy to doon Amazon.
Thanks.
Steve,
It seems that Fesko’s book is available from Christian Focus Publications, from their Mentor imprint:
https://www.christianfocus.com/products/1015/last-things-first
Geoff, Thanks but they currently have no more in stock! I’ll keep the link and try later.
Geoff
March 26, 2024 at 8:42 pm
Thanks Geoff.Certainly worth considering.
Ian writes:
>>But the only person we know from the gospel who is ‘Mary the mother of Joses and James’ is the woman who is the mother of Jesus’ brothers (Mark 6.3)! We must therefore assume that this is Jesus’ mother-which then agrees with the account of the women around the cross in John 19.25.<<
In point of fact, we know that James, Joseph/Joses, and Judas are not the children of Mary and Joseph because the Gospels tell us this.
Scriptural texts:
”Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.” (Mark 15:40)
“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25)
”Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:16)
“Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot.” (Luke 6:15)
”Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favour of him.” (Matthew 20:20)
In summary then, the Gospels inform us that James and Joseph were the sons of Mary, (Mark 15:40), who is described in the Gospel of John as the Virgin Mary’s “sister” and wife of Clopas (John 19:25). So, if we assume a blood relationship, James and Joseph would be cousins of Our Lord. Judas was the son of James (not either of the apostles) (Luke 6:16). James the lesser was the son of “Alphaeus,” (a variant of the name Clopas) (Luke 6:15). James the greater and John were the sons of Zebedee, with a mother Mary other than Our Lady (Matthew 20:20).
As for the women at the tomb, we can infer from Matthew and John who the actual Mary in Mark’s Gospel was who went to the tomb with Mary Magdalene.
Scriptural texts:
“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)
“Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb.” (Matthew 27: 61)
“After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.” (Matthew 28: 1)
“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.” (Mark 15:40)
“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25)
It’s improbable that Matthew would refer to Jesus’ mother as “the other Mary.” This other Mary can be identified as being the mother of James and Joseph, the so called “brothers” of Jesus, and the wife of a man named Clopas.
When we take the evidence from Matthew’s Gospel, and we put it together with the evidence from John’s Gospel, it seems clear, in fact there’s no other way to read the evidence, that James and Joseph, the so-called “brothers” of Jesus, are the sons of another Mary who’s related to the Virgin Mary and is the wife of a man name Clopas – and that it’s this Mary who Mark is referring to.
St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred … brothers at the same time.” (1 Cor. 15:6) Are we to infer from this that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children?!
So what did Matthew and Mark mean? One explanation is that they were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (the assumption being Joseph was a widower) – a view was favoured by the early Eastern Church. It’s equally possible that they were cousins of Jesus – the view predominant in the early Western Church.
The terms “brother” ” (adelphos) and “sister” ” (adelphe) have a wide semantic range in Scripture that includes extended family members and also those in a spiritual relationship. The writers of the New Testament were accustomed to the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father – plus other relatives and even non-relatives.
Are you assuming that ‘James’, the son of the Mary in question, is one of the twelve?
I thought it was generally accepted that the James (the Just) of Acts 15 was “James the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19). After his martyrdom, he was succeeded by Simeon of Jerusalem, who according to Eusebius:
“They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.”
This all makes sense as, in the first century Church*, apostles were itinerant, whereas the elders/’bishops’ were local and stayed put.
*I think this is given in the Didache, where there is a precedence among the itinerant ministers: apostles first, prophets next and then teachers.
Reference is also made to Jesus’ mother, ‘brothers and sisters’. Were they actually all cousins? Perhaps but not necessarily.
Of course 500 does not mean blood-brothers as we know ‘brother’ is often used as a reference to a disciple/believer. But then Jesus himself contrasted his ‘mother and brothers’ with his non-blood related followers whom he called ‘brothers’. And elsewhere ‘brothers’ appears to be distinguished from ‘disciples’ as two different groups. So as always, context is everything.
Matthew also said ‘But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.’
To me that implies that Matthew by the time of writing knew of Jesus’ literal brothers so he knew Joseph and Mary did consummate their marriage, but only after Mary gave birth to Jesus (hence ‘not until’). Jesus was their older brother.
So whilst I agree ‘brothers’ may refer to followers of Jesus or blood-cousins, it can also clearly refer to blood-brothers. Matthew’s words strongly imply he had the latter.
@ PCI
>>And elsewhere ‘brothers’ appears to be distinguished from ‘disciples’ as two different groups. So as always, context is everything.<>Matthew also said ‘But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.’<<
Matthew actually says: "but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus." He didn't say they consummated their relationship. You are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until.” In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later.
Consider this: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6). But we know that no one has known its location past that day either.
Actually, this whole confusion is not new. About 380, Helvidius suggested that the “brethren” were the children born of Mary and Joseph after Jesus. St. Jerome declared this as a “novel, wicked, and daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” In his On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary, St. Jerome used both Scripture and the fathers like Saints Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr to refute Helvidius.
This was not an issue at the time of the Protestant Reformation, as John Calvin, Martin Luther and others defended Church teaching in this regard. Ironically this means that modern Protestants have developed a doctrinal tradition that departs from their religious forebears.
@ PC1
@ PCI
You write: “And elsewhere ‘brothers’ appears to be distinguished from ‘disciples’ as two different groups. So as always, context is everything.”
Because the terms “brother” ” (adelphos) and “sister” ” (adelphe) have a wide semantic range in Scripture that includes extended family members and also those in a spiritual relationship.
The mother and father of at least two of the supposed male “brothers” of Jesus by Joseph and Mary is identified in the verses I’ve cited. Although they’re called adelphoi, they were Jesus’ cousins – sons of their mother’s sister. No light is shed on the parentage of His “sisters.”
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brothers.”
This point is again corroborated at the crucifixion scene: “Near the Cross of Jesus there stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Seeing his mother there with the disciple whom he loved, Jesus said to his mother, ‘Woman, there is your son.’ In turn he said to the disciple, ‘There is your mother.’ From that hour onward the disciple took her into his care. (John 19:25-27)
According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first born son. By this time, St. Joseph had died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no “blood brother,” He entrusted Mary to the care of John.
You assert: “Matthew also said ‘But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”
Matthew actually says: “but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.” He didn’t say they consummated their relationship. You are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until.” In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later.
Consider this: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6). But we know that no one has known its location past that day either.
Actually, this whole confusion is not new. About 380, Helvidius suggested that the “brethren” were the children born of Mary and Joseph after Jesus. St. Jerome declared this as a “novel, wicked, and daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” In his On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary, St. Jerome used both Scripture and the fathers like Saints Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr to refute Helvidius.
This was not an issue at the time of the Protestant Reformation, as John Calvin, Martin Luther and others defended Church teaching in this regard. Ironically this means that modern Protestants have developed a doctrinal tradition that departs from their religious forebears.
(Ian, can you kindly delete the first copy of this – still haven’t mastered the formatting on here!)
Thanks. These are all fair points. Though I would suggest standard Jewish practice of the oldest son, then if he’s not available, the next oldest son would normally be expected to look after their mother was not at the forefront of Jesus’ mind whilst hanging on a cross. He was concerned that his closest disciple should take care of his mother as the evidence suggests none of Jesus’ blood family actually understood or believed in him at this stage.
I think the honest view to hold is that based on the text, and given the rather flexible way the words for ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ could be used then to imply cousins etc, we cant be 100% sure whether or not he had younger brothers or sisters, born to Mary & Joseph. Though would Joseph have viewed their marriage as legitimate if it was never consummated?
But it would seem you are sure based on your particular understanding of Mary. Is that not a bias, not based on the text?
@ PC1
“[W]e cant be 100% sure whether or not he had younger brothers or sisters, born to Mary & Joseph.”
Quite so. My view is we can be 100% sure He didn’t.
“Though would Joseph have viewed their marriage as legitimate if it was never consummated?”
I would have thought the greater test was Mary being made pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit! Why not believe he regarded their marriage as legitimate?
To argue against Mary’s perpetual virginity is to suggest something greatly implausible: that neither Mary nor Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh. It was the practice for devout Jews in the ancient world to refrain from sexual activity following any great manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
An early first-century popular rabbinical tradition (first recorded by Philo, 20 BC-AD 50) notes that Moses “separated himself” from his wife Zipporah when he returned from his encounter with God in the burning bush. Another rabbinical tradition, concerning the choosing of the elders of Israel in Numbers 7, relates that after God had worked among them, one man exclaimed, “Woe to the wives of these men!”
These stories, whether true or not, express the popular piety in Israel at the time of the birth of Christ. That culture understood virginity and abstinence not as a mere rejection of something enjoyable, but as something naturally taken up by one whose life has been consecrated by the Lord’s Spirit to be a vessel of salvation to His people.
The intervening centuries of social, religious, and philosophical conditioning have made us suspicious of virginity and chastity in a way that no one in the Lord’s time would have been.
Mary became the vessel for God Himself. Consider that the poetically parallel incident of the Lord’s entry through the east gate of the Temple (in Ezekiel 43-44): “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.”
And Joseph – his wife’s miraculous conception and birth-giving (confirmed by the angel in dream-visions) and the sight of God incarnate in the face of the child Christ, would be enough to convince him that his marriage was set apart from the norm. Within Mary’s very body had dwelt the second Person of the Trinity. If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life, and if even the scrolls containing the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were venerated, certainly Joseph would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary to request his “conjugal rights”!
“But it would seem you are sure based on your particular understanding of Mary. Is that not a bias, not based on the text?”
True – but it’s a dogma of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faith, based on 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, so I’m in good company.
to HJ,
Ezekiel 43-44): “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.”
I take this reference to have been fulfilled when the Holy Spirit came on Jesus at His baptism “and remained”.
Ezekiel’s Temple plan describes The Lord Jesus, not Mary.
@ Steve
I wasn’t suggesting it was referring specifically to Our Lady. It’s a poetic comparison given Mary became the vessel for God Himself. She had been consecrated by the Holy Spirit. Given this, Mary and Joseph would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh.
I take this reference to have been fulfilled when the Holy Spirit came on Jesus at His baptism “and remained”.
Ezekiel’s Temple plan describes The Lord Jesus, not Mary.
HJ,
When the serpent tempted Eve she replied that the tree should not even be touched. She added to God’s command. I feel if Joseph had not consummated the marriage he would have been doing following the same pattern by adding to the command issued by the Angel. By waiting and then consummating he demonstrated faith. The Pharisees were fond of adding to scripture which Jesus condemned. Paul was not happy with the Galatian Christians for adding prohibitions. I’m happy to think Joseph obeyed the Angel of the Lord and demonstrated true belief and faith by NOT adding pious restrictions on himself. It didn’t help Eve. It didn’t help the Pharisees. It did not commend the Galatian’s to Paul. It won’t help us either.
Not necessarily!
There are two apostles called James who are differentiated by their fathers: “James, son of Zebedee” (Matt. 10:2), and “James, son of Alphaeus” (Matt. 10:3).
James, “the Lord’s brother” of Gal. 1:19 could be a different James or, as Jerome concludes, is James, son of Alphaeus, the apostle. This is the traditional view.
The identification of James is identified as the son of Alphaeus/Clopas for the following reasons:
– Hippolytus writes of James, the son of Alphaeus, being stoned to death while preaching in Jerusalem. Josephus also wrote that James, the brother of Jesus was stoned to death in Jerusalem. Some believe these to be the same person.
– According to Papias of Hierapolis, Alphaeus and Clopas were the same person. When Mark 16:1 says that “Mary, the mother of James” went to the tomb this is Mary, the wife of Clopas (John 19:25) who was the sister of Mary.
However, it’s possible that James, “the brother of the Lord” in Gal. 1:18-19, is another James. Whatever view is taken, the James noted in Galatians 1:18-19, for reasons given above, is a relative/cousin of Jesus, not a blood brother. And it doesn’t alter which Mary was at the tomb with Mary Magdalene.
Mary had a sister called Mary? Hmm.
@ James
Well exactly!
“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25)
This just reinforces the point that the terms “brother” ” (adelphos) and “sister” ” (adelphe) have a wide semantic range in Scripture that includes extended family members and also those in a spiritual relationship.
But why all the unpersuasive manouvering to avoid the clear implication of the text, that Mary and Joseph went on to have a normal married life with other children?
There is no need for any perpetual virginity, nor any need for some sort of special birth without sin of Mary. It’s unbiblical supersition and it leads people away from the Gospel, along with the assumption of Mary it heaps millstones on the back of believers. The fact that it’s an old mistake doesn’t make it any better.
@ Thomas Pelham
It’s on you to demonstrate my presentation of the scriptural texts is “unpersuasive manoeuvring.” Yet, all you do is assert this and claim it as “unbiblical superstition (that) leads people away from the Gospel.”
I think there is evidence that it is very reasonable to interpret the texts I’ve quoted as showing that Jesus did not have brothers by Our Lady and to conclude there is no scriptural evidence Mary gave birth to other children. All the supposed Scriptural evidence for “Mary’s other children” encounters some fatal difficulty.
It’s true that Scripture doesn’t explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin. But nothing in Scripture contradicts this, and – to say the same thing another way – nothing in the perpetual virginity doctrine contradicts Scripture.
Plenty of Protestant exegesis and scholarship confirms the views I’ve presented, especially in older commentaries. For example, the prominent 19th century Commentary on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, states, regarding Matthew 13:55:
It’s what the early Church believed, as did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli Bullinger, Turretin, and Cranmer. Most Protestant continued to believe it for at least another 350 years or so.
That Mary had other children is a modern Protestants opinion that departs from your own religious forebears and is not supported by scripture.
The Immaculate Conception, Mary’s sinlessness and her Assumption are separate topics.
Saying people believe things is not an argument. You can’t cite no evidence for believing things 1500 years later and then say the belief is to be respected.
If there is evidence that is another matter. But in that case you should be citing the evidence rather than preemptively the ‘conclusion’. You don’t.
Plus the ‘argument’ from authority is a well known philosophical fallacy.
Then you cite Jamieson, Fausett and Brown’s agnosticism as support for you view. I don’t follow. Their position is quite different, not the same as yours.
Fausset
But you didn’t give reasons above. You just said that (A) the cousin perspective was one possibility, & a possibility cannot transmute into a firm finding and basis for discussion.
-The other perspective you mentioned was (B) the earlier marriage. Hence you missed out (C) the blood brothers perspective. Why did you miss that out?
The phrase is ‘his mother and his brothers’. This makes no sense on the cousins perspective, for 2 reasons: (1) Why would Mary go around with nieces/nephews only AND those cousins go around with their aunt to the exclusion of their own parents? (2) The use of the word ‘mother’ and the word ‘brothers’ together as economically as this has this natural meaning anyway, and one would be surprised at any other. Would anyone suggest such were it not for vested interests? On (B) the stepchildren view (Joseph as widower), it makes more sense. BUT…
If they were all stepchildren from Joseph’s previous marriage, that would mean James was much older than Jesus and Simon a little older at least. Neither of these comports with later references to James and Simon and their respective floruits.
As to Clopas, it is one thing if (D) he and wife both died and Mary was then to look after their children. But his wife (at least) clearly is still alive, and Luke 24 may possibly speak of her husband. So that does not work either.
Jesus’s brothers did not believe in him till well into the ministry at least (Jn 7) so cannot be among the 12.
The idea that only one pair of brothers can be called James and Joseph is a non starter.
The idea that only one pair in this entourage can be called James and Joses is very plausible.
Mark’s formulation is similar to ‘Simon the father of Alexander and Rufus’ – identifying the minor characters (for such is Mary in this book) whom readers have not met by reference to their known children whom they may well have met or seen.
As misfortune (?) would have it, Mark happened to choose this particular phrase ‘Mary the mother of Joses’, ‘Mary the mother of James’ for his clunk-click chain-link between the section that ends in ch15 and the epilogue. Bruce Longenecker has written on chain link composition visavis the NT. Because he has so chosen it, we do not know whether Mary would have been given a less enigmatic description otherwise; but the earlier reference in ch15 and the Simon parallel, and Mary’s own minor status in Mark, all suggest not.
We may have reached a stage in Mark’s perception where Jesus, the glorious Son of Man, is not spoken of in terms of having had an earthly mother, unlike James and Joses.
We (strictly with hindsight) may be surprised at Mary’s low profile in Mark; at least this would make it less low.
The assumption is that Matthew understood whom Mark meant, when in reality that is something he may or may not have done.
Matthew systematises and neatens when it comes to names (Levi becomes Matthew so that he can be a member of the 12 and not a loose end; he groups Peter with his brother in the list of the 12). He has a higher view by now of the great apostles, so has Zebedee’s wife rather than her sons make the case for their high status – this gives him an extra character whom he can then employ in favour of someone he knows nothing about but their name (‘Salome’). Here we see that he has little knowledge of the women in the entourage. He confirms this impression later in his phrase ‘the other Mary’: all he knows is what he inherits from Mark.
90% of scholars think Mark is the first gospel.
If we see what he says, he says:
(1) Jesus’s mother thought he was out of his mind at first.
(2) Or: Jesus’s mother always did think he was out of his mind, to our knowledge, if with you we take Mark 15-16 as not referring to Jesus’s mother.
(3) Jesus’s mother and brothers did not travel round with him (ch6) and were in the camp of the Nazareth residents so that they could appeal to them.
(4) Jesus saw family ties, however important or not, as more trivial compared to what the children of the kingdom shared in common. (Not quite ‘mother-schmother’ but you get my drift.)
(5) IF we have Jesus’s mother in chs 15-16, then she is possibly identified by her better known sons.
However, the really interestng thing is that the author seems to have been in the family that (from c42 but quite possibly from much earlier) hosted the Jerusalem church which Mary belonged to. Whenever Mary died (and again, that is not seen as a significant enough event for Luke to report even despite his reporting her earlier presence), this shows perhaps how she was seen as a Christian follower like any other.
@ Christopher Shell
Mark 4:21-22, 31 (RSV) reads:
Other translations 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 Scribes did).
Even in the translation that has “they were saying,” it’s a question of who “they” refers to. It can still be read as others besides the family, i.e., the Scribes.
The text can 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 is be no necessary implication of His family’s, let alone Mary’s, disbelief in Him.
The 1953 Catholic Commentary, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard
Mark 3:32-35 is wrongly interpreted in an unbiblical, un-Semitic “either/or” fashion as a decisive rejection of His family. Jesus took this opportunity to show that He regarded all of His followers (in what would become the Christian Church) as family. It doesn’t follow that this is a rebuff of this kin. He simply moved from literal talk of families to a larger conception and vision of families as those who do “the will of God.”
How old was James if he was the eldest of 4 sons and at least 3 daughters of Joseph’s first wife? Jesus’s estimated birth date is often around 4BC.
What makes this ancient James (ancient before he starts doing anything) actually likelier than other options?
HJ
Plenty of Protestant exegesis and scholarship confirms the views I’ve presented, especially in older commentaries. For example, the prominent 19th century Commentary on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, states, regarding Matthew 13:55:
However Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, do not “confirm” your view
Quote “An exceedingly difficult question here arises –
“Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties.”
@ Alan Kempson
Yes, he appreciated the fact that the Scriptural texts given as “evidence” that Mary gave birth to children after Our Lord are indeterminant. As I’ve said, nothing in Scripture contradicts Mary remaining a virgin, and – to say the same thing another way – nothing in the perpetual virginity doctrine contradicts Scripture.
But look at what you leave out!
-Most texts are indeterminate in one way or another, simply because it is impossible for any text to deal with every possible angle.
-To say that that means that likely options are equally likely to unlikely ones (or even that all options are on the table) takes the breath away. It is merely the fefault situation of us not knowing everything about everything from the texts. When do we ever?
-But that does not mean we can make the leap of assuming unusual things were true: Firstly, unusual things are rarely true. Second, it would be a non sequitur. Third, if they were that unusual, it is all the likelier that someone in the text would have commented on them.
-To put ”evidence” in inverted commas is bias.
-Nothing in Scripture contradicts – here we are back to the Peter Jermey argument which is equivalent to ‘What did Jesus think about Super Mario brothers?’.
-Nothing in perpetual virginity contradicts Scripture? – the same applies. And if two things do not overlap in the first place, they can neither contradict nor not contradict.
(default)
@ Christopher Shell
“It is merely the default situation of us not knowing everything about everything from the texts. When do we ever?”
Scripture can, and has, been interpreted in very different ways concerning the Trinity, the Atonement, the Incarnation, etc. That’s why we have a Magisterium and Church Councils.
“But that does not mean we can make the leap of assuming unusual things were true …”
One would hardly expect the Gospel writers to enquire into or comment on the sex life of Mary and Joseph!
See my reply to PC1 @ March 30, 2024 at 3:27 pm for a further response to this.
So you prefer the Magisterium and Church Councils to consulting those who have studied most, who then get unfairly downgraded in favour of some who sometimes will have studied less but have an ‘official’ position?
@ Christopher Shell
Are you claiming the Church Fathers didn’t study scripture or that the Catholic and Eastern Churches are without serious scholars?
If you cherry pick authors then you will be able to come to any conclusion. Why would later authors know more than the NT authors?
You’re basing a lot on an argument from silence.
@ PC1
I’m simply pointing out, in contradiction to the positive assertions by some Protestant that Mary had children, that Scripture actually cannot be used to demonstrate this.
The strongest argument in favour of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the one I gave you @ March 30, 2024 at 3:27 pm.
All that means is that 100% proof cannot be obtained. What you omit to mention is two things:
(1) It very rarely is, which is why it is odd to frame things in such terms, and makes one think you have a preferred conclusion in mind (and truth has no connection to preference);
(2) this is a matter of relative percentage likelihoods, yet you are framing it as more like a binary yes/no, which means that every 24% and 61% would shift absolutely massively and inaccurately away from what are (given the evidence) its proper odds. This would be a backward shift from accurate nuance to something more simplistic and wrongly binary.
What are the actual percentage likelihoods that you would suggest?
Taken together, according to neigh on 2000 years of undisputed Church teaching, 100% that Mary had no other children after Jesus and remained a virgin.
Based on “scripture alone”, who knows?
The classic example of ‘conclusion’ (or ideology) preceding scholarly evidence. The relegation of thought.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/women-empty-tomb/
All addressed in my comments above.
Unpersuasive RC Magisterium dogma it seems to me, HC.