Part 2

The Blessed Virgin Mary in Scripture: A Response to Jim Tetlow

Tim Staples

There are a number of key errors in Jim Tetlow’s presentation concerning John 19. Tetlow’s errors seem to focus mainly on Mary’s perpetual virginity, so we will begin there.

Perpetual Virginity

From a Catholic and biblical perspective, in John 19:26–27, Jesus gave his mother to the care of John even though, by law, the next eldest brother of Jesus—if he truly had one—would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable to believe that Jesus would take his mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

Tetlow argues that Jesus’ brothers were unbelievers, referencing John 7:5: “Even his brothers did not believe in him.” Tetlow claims, “By entrusting Mary to John, He revealed that Mary and John, as believers, were family!”

This contention can be dismissed immediately because “brothers”—as we will see in more detail below—can mean any kind of relative. John 7 does not specify who these “brothers” were other than they were related to Jesus. But more important to the point, Tetlow reveals a rather “low” and unbiblical Christology in his way of thinking. Scripture tells us Jesus knew the woman who anointed his head with oil would be remembered “wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world” in Matthew 26:13; he knew beforehand of Peter’s thrice denial in Matthew 26:34; he knew of Peter’s death in John 21:18–19; he knew Judas would betray him in Matthew 26:21; he knew all of the apostles would leave him in Matthew 26:31; he knew he would be crucified and raised from the dead in Matthew 20:19, etc. In fact, Peter tells us in John 21:17, that Jesus “know[s] everything!” And John specifically tells us that Jesus “knew all men”:

But Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.[1]

To say that Jesus did not know that his “brothers” would be faithful is contrary to what we know of Jesus. Whether you believe that James was Christ’s uterine brother or that he was Christ’s relative, and if you believe he would have been one of Jesus’ “brothers” who “mocked him” in John 7 (which is unlikely), Jesus would have known he would be “strengthened” through the ministry of Peter because he prophesied as much in Luke 22:29–32. Christ would have known James would one day become not only faithful, but a bishop (along with his brother Jude). There would be no need to give his mother to John.

Further, not only would Jesus not entrust his mother to the care of another if he had living uterine brothers, but Mary would not abandon her other children as well. St. Athanasius, the great fourth-century Patriarch of Alexandria and defender of the faith, made this point most persuasively in his own defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary:

For, if she had other children, the Savior would not have ignored them and entrusted his Mother to someone else; nor would she have become someone else’s mother. She would not have [abandoned her own] to live with others, knowing well that it ill becomes [a woman] to abandon her husband or her children. But, since she was a virgin, and was his Mother, he gave her as a mother to his disciple, even though she was not really John’s mother, because of his great purity of understanding and because of her untouched virginity.[2]

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

But what about Tetlow’s claim that Jesus had other brothers and sisters? He gives two main reasons for this assertion. First, Jesus was called the “firstborn” in Matthew 1:25. This implies a “second-born,” does it not? Actually, it doesn’t. Exodus 13:1–2 tells us something very important about the “firstborn” in Israel:

The Lord said to Moses, “Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.”

Notice they are not called “firstborn” because there is a “second-born.” They are called firstborn at birth. The parents did not have to wait for the birth of a second child before they would consecrate the “firstborn.” The first born became the “firstborn” whether another child would be born or not.

Secondly, Tetlow points out that Matthew 13:55 names James, Joses, Simon and Judas as “brothers of the Lord.” How could the Bible be plainer? The truth is that it was common in Hebrew and in Hebrew culture for cousins, uncles, or nephews to call one another “brother” even though they were not uterine brothers. This probably stemmed, at least in part, from the fact that both Hebrew and Aramaic did not have words for “cousin,” “nephew,” and “uncle.” It became common to use “brother” when speaking of any of these relations. One could also use a circumlocution like, “My father’s brother’s son,” but more often “brother” was used because it was easier. Abraham and Lot are classic examples of this in Genesis 13:8 and 14:16. Though they were uncle and nephew in relation, they called one another “brother.”

We also find a wide semantic range for “brother” in the New Testament. For example, Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8. No sane person would conclude from this that all mankind comes from the same physical uterus! Thus, Tetlow is guilty of going “beyond what is written”[3] when he claims the Bible teaches Christ had “biological” brothers born of a sexual relationship between Joseph and Mary.

When we get to the Greek of the New Testament, there is definite proof that the Greek word for “brother”—adelphos—could be and was used with reference to “cousins” or “extended relatives” just as anepsios (“cousin”) and sungenis (“relative” or “cousin”) were by Greek-speaking Jews before the time of Christ. In the Greek Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures translated ca. 250–100 b.c.), we have multiple examples of the use of the Greek word adelphos in the context of referring specifically to “cousins” by relation. Leviticus 10:4 uses a form of adelphos to refer to Moses and Aaron’s cousins. In 1 Chronciles 23:22, the cousins of the daughters of Eleazar are called adelphoi. And in Tobit 7:2–4, we have forms of both anepsios and adelphos used as synonyms within two verses of each other:

Then Raguel said to his wife Edna, “How much the young man resembles my cousin (anepsios) Tobit!” … So he said to them, “Do you know our brother (adelphos) Tobit?”

Further, we actually get clarification as to the identity of the “brothers” of the Lord by examining Matthew’s gospel more closely. After having mentioned the “brothers” of the Lord, in Matthew 13:55, Matthew tells us who their mother was in Matthew 27:56. He includes among the women following Jesus on the via dolorosa: “Mary, the mother of James and Joseph.” Protestant and Catholic scholars agree that this Mary is not the mother of Jesus. She is always called “the mother of Jesus” or “mother of the Lord” and would have been so designated especially in this context of following her divine Son at the time of the passion. This would have definitely been another Mary. Yet the children of this Mary are “the brothers of the Lord.”

Some may object at this point: “The ‘James and Joses’ of Matthew 27:56 are different from the ‘James and Joses’ of Matthew 13:55 because Matthew does not tell us that the ‘James and Joses’ of chapter 27 are specifically ‘brothers of the Lord.’” That is a very tenuous position indeed. Matthew had already mentioned “James and Joses” among the “brothers of the Lord” in chapter 13. It is quite common for writers to abbreviate references when they are repeated. For example, an author may first describe a man about whom he is writing as, let’s say, “Bill Smith, the plumber from Arlington, Virginia.” But after that first encounter in the story, the author may just say “Bill Smith,” or “the plumber” when writing about him as the story progresses. He would not normally repeat, “Bill Smith, the plumber from Arlington, Virginia” each time. Moreover, if our hypothetical author were going to refer to another person named “Bill Smith” he would want to signify that this is another Bill Smith and not the plumber from Arlington, Virginia. Thus, if Matthew wanted to distinguish the James and Joses of Matthew 27:56 from the James and Joses of Matthew 13:55, the onus would be upon him to tell us they were not the same ones mentioned before. He does not do so.

Most likely, this Mary is the same person as “Mary, the wife of Clopas,” who is revealed to be Mary’s sister in John 19:25. Thus, her children would be called “brothers,” meaning “relatives” or “cousins” of the Lord.

Mother of Us All

As far as Mary being “the mother of us all,” the Bible is really quite plain. As we saw in John 19, even though John’s mother was present at the crucifixion (see Matthew 27:56), Jesus refers to Mary as “woman” in relation to himself and as “mother” in relation to John. Obviously, she was not John’s biological mother. She was his spiritual mother. It would be this same John who would inform us that this spiritual motherhood would extend to more than just him. In Revelation 12, John refers to “the woman” eight times in just 17 verses. This “woman” would give birth to Christ in verse 5 and to “all those who have the testimony of Jesus Christ and keep his commandments” in verse 17. Pope Benedict XVI commented on this text in his Wednesday audience of August 22, 2007:

Without any doubt, a first meaning is that it is Our Lady, Mary, clothed with the sun, that is, with God, totally; Mary who lives totally in God, surrounded and penetrated by God’s light. Surrounded by the 12 stars, that is, by the 12 tribes of Israel, by the whole People of God, by the whole Communion of Saints; and at her feet, the moon, the image of death and mortality.

Tetlow claims the Scripture does not even “imply that [Mary] is the mother of all.” Yet the text and context of Revelation 12 demonstrates Mary to be the woman, at least on one level, for at least four reasons:

First, in Revelation 12:5, the woman “brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.” This child is obviously Jesus. If we begin on the literal level, there is no doubt that Mary is literally the one who “brought forth” Jesus.

Second, though we could discover multiple levels of meaning for the flight of the “woman” in verses 6 and 14, Mary and the Holy Family literally fled into Egypt in Matthew 2:13–15 with divine assistance.

Third, Mary can be quite easily seen to be the prophetic “woman” of Genesis 3:15 and Jeremiah 31:22. When you add to this the reference by Jesus himself to Mary as “woman” in John 2:4 and 19:26, it should be no surprise that the same apostle John would refer to Mary as “the woman” in Revelation 12. Scott Hahn relates:

Tradition tells us that she is the same person whom Jesus calls “woman” in John’s gospel, the reprise of the person Adam calls “woman” in the Garden of Eden. Like the beginning of John’s gospel, this episode of the Apocalypse repeatedly evokes the Protoevangelium of Genesis.[4]

Finally, there are four main characters in the chapter: “the woman,” the devil, Jesus, and the Archangel Michael. No one denies that the other three central characters mentioned are real persons. It fits the context exegetically to interpret the “woman,” at least on one level, as a person (Mary) as well.

The Assumption of Mary

Mary is clearly depicted as having been assumed into heaven in Scripture. Two points need to be made here: First, the New Testament reveals Mary to be the new and true Ark of the Covenant.

Second, in Revelation 12:1, Mary is revealed as having “the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” This is a marked contrast to other texts of Scripture, where saints in heaven are referred to as the “souls of those who had been slain”[5] or “the spirits of just men made perfect.”[6] Those who have died in friendship with God do not possess their bodies until the final resurrection. They are disembodied “souls” or “spirits.” Yet the woman of Revelation 12 has a body with a head and feet. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Mary is not just present in heaven, but she is there bodily.

Sinless?

Having seen Mary to be “the New Eve” and “Ark of the Covenant,” one can readily see that she would have been most fittingly immaculately conceived. Tetlow, however, misapplies Luke 1:47 when Mary said, “My soul rejoices in God my savior.” Because Mary said God was her savior, Tetlow declares “only a sinner needs a savior”; thus, Mary had to have sinned. Tetlow fails to consider that Scripture reveals salvation to include not only being “saved” from sins already committed, but it also entails being “saved” by God’s power before one sins. Jude 24 puts it this way:

Now unto him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory.

Thus, Mary was saved, but she was saved from sin by being “kept from falling,” which would have most certainly occurred were it not for the saving power of God.

Tetlow also uses Romans 3:23, which says “all have sinned.” Would that not prove Mary committed sins just like all of us? No. It is obvious that there are exceptions to the general biblical norm that “all have sinned”—and 1 John 1:8 could be added as well, which says, “If any man says he has no sin, he is a liar.” If we are going to take 1 John 1:8 and Romans 3:23 in a strict, literal sense, then Jesus would have to be included as a sinner!

A Protestant may respond, “But Jesus was an exception to Romans 3:23 and I John 1:8. And the Bible tells us he was in Hebrews 4:15: Christ was ‘tempted on all points as we are, yet without sinning.’” Indeed, but there are actually millions of exceptions to 1 John 1:8 and Romans 3:23!

First of all, Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8 speak of personal sin rather than original sin. Romans 5:12 deals with original sin. 1 John 1:8 obviously refers to personal sin because in the very next verse John tells us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” We don’t confess original sin because we didn’t do it! Confession is only for personal sins. The context of Romans 3:23 is similar:

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.

Now we need to ask two simple questions: First, has a baby in the womb or a child of two ever committed a personal sin? No. Romans 9:11 flatly declares concerning Jacob and Esau before they were born, “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad.” Second, how about the severely retarded who do not have the use of their intellects and wills—have they committed personal sins? No. Right there you have millions of exceptions to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8.[7]

Indeed, Much More So

In Tetlow’s concluding paragraph, the text in question is Luke 11:27–28:

As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Tetlow claims this text eliminates the Catholic notion of devotion to Mary. On a superficial level, one can see Tetlow’s point. But the word translated as “rather” and viewed by many Fundamentalists to mean “no, rather” is menoun, which can mean “on the contrary”[8] but can also mean, “indeed, much more so.”[9] If Christ were truly correcting the unnamed woman’s assertion that Mary was blessed, then he contradicts Luke 1:42 and 48, where both Elizabeth and Mary herself declare Mary to be blessed indeed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus challenged this unnamed woman—as well as all of us today—to understand Mary’s blessedness on a deeper level than just the biological. It is in this context that we can discover the true meaning of the term—blessed—for Mary and for all believers. Mary’s greatness does not lie in her calling alone but in the fact that she responded to God’s grace and calling in her life; she “heard the word of God and kept it.”

[2] St. Athanasius, On Virginity, quoted in Luigi Gambero and Thomas Buffer, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Though (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 104.

[3] 1 Corinthians 4:6.

[4] Scott Hahn, Hail, Holy Queen (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 59. Hahn goes on to point out the parallels between Genesis and our text: “The first clue is that John—here, as in the gospel—never reveals this person’s name; he refers to her only by the name Adam gave to Eve in the garden: she is ‘woman.’ Later in the same chapter of the Apocalypse, we learn also that, like Eve—who is ‘mother of all the living’ (Genesis 3:20)—the woman of John’s vision is mother not only of the ‘male child’ but also to ‘the rest of her offspring,’ further identified as ‘those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus’ (Revelation 12:17). … The New Eve, then, fulfills the promise of the old to be, more perfectly, the mother of all the living.”

[5] Revelation 6:9.

[6] Hebrews 12:23.

[7] Universal norms can have exceptions in Scripture. Hebrews 9:27 is another example: “It is appointed for every man to die once and then go to judgment.” This is a universal norm: We are all going to die. However, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 tells us that “those who are alive and remain” when Jesus comes will never die. 1 Corinthians 15:51 says, “We shall not all die.” We also have many examples of people we presume to have died more than once. Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Paul, and Peter all raised the dead. Those folks presumably died at least twice.

[8] Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 113. The definition of menoun given is: “Rather, on the contrary; indeed, much more.”

[9] Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 398. “Men ouv [in Luke 11:28: menoun], Lat. Quidem igitur, [English: “So then, now therefore, verily,” etc.], where men is confirmatory of the matter at hand, and ouv marks an inference or transition.” Thayer uses Luke 11:28 to demonstrate how the Greek word menoun can denote affirmation of the first matter and a transition to another matter.

NEXT: Jim Tetlow responds to Tim Staples.