William Jay on Mary

[bookslover]

This year, I've been reading through William Jay's two books of daily devotions - "Morning Exercises" and "Evening Exercises." Both republished by Reformation Heritage Books in 2023.

In "Morning Devotions," in the entry for November 7, Jay says that Mary was not a perpetual virgin (correct) but then says that she never had any children (not correct), that the children mentioned in the Gospels were Mary's sister's children (for which there is not a shred of biblical evidence).

So - she was not a virgin but she and Joseph never had any children? Do tell.

Matthew clearly states that she and Joseph didn't start having sex until after Jesus was born (1:25). And the Gospels even give us the names of their children (at least the boys). God rewarded Mary for her submission to His decision that she would give birth to the Messiah by giving Joseph and Mary at least 6 children after Jesus was born (at least 4 boys and at least 2 girls [in the Gospel where the boys are named, the girls are not named but the word is "sisters," plural].

Joseph and Mary were a normal married couple with a normal sex life after Jesus was born. And they had a large family, as so many families did in that time.

It's well-known that Roman Catholics believe in and promote Mary's supposed perpetual virginity. But it's always surprising that some Protestant folks seem to want to find a way to deny that she had a sex life with her husband but without using Roman Catholic terminology.

We know that Rome's doctrine is wrong. So, why do some Protestants have such a hard time believing that Mary was a normal wife and mother?

 

[davejonescue]

Possibly that even up to the point of Herods death, and their return from exile in Egypt, Matt. 2:19-23, the family is still being talked of as just Mary, Jesus, and Joseph. So if we count the time before they fled, and the time they were exiled (possibly 4-5 years) it looks like Jesus is still being mentioned as the only child. Digging a little deeper, it looks like in the context of ancient Israel, the term "brother, and sister" were used for close relatives as well. And since the Bible doesnt explicitly state that Mary gave birth to any other children; this could be the reason that others take a different position. I dont know, havent researched it much.

Another thing could be when Jesus tells John "behold, your mother." Might suggest that Jesus is passing responsibility of Mary to John; which may come into question why it wouldnt be his living brothers?

 

[MW]

So, why do some Protestants have such a hard time believing that Mary was a normal wife and mother?

I suppose because the people of Mary's time did not think like modern Protestants but were very much integrated with the physical sacredness of the temple, and Mary gave birth to the Holy One. Luke (2:37) describes Anna as follows: "And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day." We are set free from these physical ideas of the sacred, but it was part and parcel of the system in which they lived and worshipped.

The use of "some" might be true today, but it was somewhat standard in reformation and post-reformation thought -- not as a dogma, but as something which might be piously believed.

 

[Ploutos]

The Roman Catholic position depends on Mary being a perpetual virgin, and on the "brothers and sisters" being something else.

But the converse is not true. The Protestant position does not depend on Mary's marital life, or on the existence of other children of the union between her and Joseph. That is why some Protestants felt fine affirming her perpetual virginity, or that the other children were not full siblings of Jesus.

It may be true that there is no warrant for believing any of that. But the non-virginity of Mary is not necessary to Protestant thought and theology.

Something similar is true with regards to Petrine primacy. It is critical for Roman Catholic theology, but its absence is not critical for Protestant theology. That is why some Reformed theologians have granted it to some degree.

 

[Alive in Christ]

It hasn't been my experience that protestants insist upon such an unbiblical Mariology. On the contrary, it's been my experience that protestants err by going too far in the opposite direction. It's clear by reading the early church fathers, as well as the reformers, that the blessed virgin Mary was held in high regard. There is absolutely no biblical or historical justification for the Marian dogmas, but at the same time, there is no justification for complete irreverence. Protestants almost have an aversion to Mary - almost a phobia. Mary proclaimed that all generations would call her blessed, yet so many protestants act as though she was just some woman in the Bible, not even as significant as Mary Magdalene. That's irony. I digress, but the idea that the Mary in whom the Messiah dwelt is spoken of and preached about less than the Mary in whom the demons dwelt is just sad.