JND Kelly: Jerome Did Not Believe in Mary's Perpetual Physical ("In Partu") Virginity when he wrote Against Helvidius

In his book on Jerome, J.N.D. Kelly argued that Jerome, when he wrote Against Heldivius (written around 383), did not believe in the preservation of Mary’s physical virginity after the birth of Jesus:

 

A point which is often overlooked is that, while fiercely defending the virginity of Mary in her conception and after the birth of Jesus, Jerome was not yet ready to support the view soon to be accepted in the west that she had retained her virginity in the process of parturition, i.e. that the act was a miraculous one involving no opening in her womb. (J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies [London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1975], 106)

 

In a footnote to the above, Kelly supports this claim:

 

Cf. the realistic description of the gestation and birth in Against Helvidius 18; also in Letter 22, 39. Many years, doubtless influenced by Augustine and Ambrose (cf. esp. Ep. 42 sent by the latter and in his suffragans to Pope Siricus in 390), Jerome came to teach the virginity of Mary in partu: cf. Dialogue against the Pelagians 2, 4. (Ibid., 106 n. 10, emphasis in bold added)

 

Here are the quotations from the relevant texts:

 

There are things which, in your extreme ignorance, you had never read, and therefore you neglected the whole range of Scripture and employed your madness in outraging the Virgin, like the man in the story who being unknown to everybody and finding that he could devise no good deed by which to gain renown, burned the temple of Diana: and when no one revealed the sacrilegious act, it is said that he himself went up and down proclaiming that he was the man who had applied the fire. The rulers of Ephesus were curious to know what made him do this thing, whereupon he replied that if he could not have fame for good deeds, all men should give him credit for bad ones. Grecian history relates the incident. But you do worse. You have set on fire the temple of the Lord’s body, you have defiled the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit from which you are determined to make a team of four brethren and a heap of sisters come forth. In a word, joining in the chorus of the Jews, you say, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us? The word all would not be used if there were not a crowd of them.” Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy? who thought the theory worth two-pence? You have gained your desire, and are become notorious by crime. For myself who am your opponent, although we live in the same city, I don’t know, as the saying is, whether you are white or black. I pass over faults of diction which abound in every book you write. I say not a word about your absurd introduction. Good heavens! I do not ask for eloquence, since, having none yourself, you applied for a supply of it to your brother Craterius. I do not ask for grace of style, I look for purity of soul: for with Christians it is the greatest of solecisms and of vices of style to introduce anything base either in word or action. I am come to the conclusion of my argument. I will deal with you as though I had as yet prevailed nothing; and you will find yourself on the horns of a dilemma. It is clear that our Lord’s brethren bore the name in the same way that Joseph was called his father: “I and thy father sought thee sorrowing.” It was His mother who said this, not the Jews. The Evangelist himself relates that His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written, “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” You will certainly find this in your manuscript. Now tell me, how is Jesus the son of Joseph when it is clear that He was begotten of the Holy Ghost? Was Joseph His true father? Dull as you are, you will not venture to say that. Was he His reputed father? If so, let the same rule be applied to them when they are called brethren, that you apply to Joseph when he is called father. (Against Helvidius, 18 [NPNF2 6:343])

 

The things that I have here set forth will seem hard to her who loves not Christ. But one who has come to regard all the splendor of the world as off-scourings, and to hold all things under the sun as vain, that he may win Christ; one who has died with his Lord and risen again, and has crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts; he will boldly cry out: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” and again: “I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.”

 

For our salvation the Son of God is made the Son of Man. Nine months He awaits His birth in the womb, undergoes the most revolting conditions, and comes forth covered with blood, to be swathed in rags and covered with caresses. He who shuts up the world in His fist is contained in the narrow limits of a manger. I say nothing of the thirty years during which he lives in obscurity, satisfied with the poverty of his parents. When He is scourged He holds His peace; when He is crucified, He prays for His crucifiers. “What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits towards me? I will take the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” The only fitting return that we can make to Him is to give blood for blood; and, as we are redeemed by the blood of Christ, gladly to lay down our lives for our Redeemer. What saint has ever won his crown without first contending for it? Righteous Abel is murdered. Abraham is in danger of losing his wife. And, as I must not enlarge my book unduly, seek for yourself: you will find that all holy men have suffered adversity. Solomon alone lived in luxury and perhaps it was for this reason that he fell. For “whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.” Which is best—for a short time to do battle, to carry stakes for the palisades, to bear arms, to faint under heavy bucklers, that ever afterwards we may rejoice as victors? or to become slaves forever, just because we cannot endure for a single hour? (Epistle 22, 39 [NPNF2 6:40])

 

"Resurrection and the Future of Marriage: Interpreting Luke 20:34-36 in its Hebraic Context"

I just came across the following article which I am sure many readers of my blog will find to be interesting: 

Sarah Giles, Resurrection and the Future of Marriage: Interpreting Luke 20:34-36 in its Hebraic Context

The Father as the one to be feared in Matthew 10:28

  

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt 10:28)

 

Who is the one we should fear--Satan or God (the Father)? It appears that Jesus is warning us of the wrath of the Father. Consider the following texts which warn us of the Father's wrath at the judgement and our need to fear Him:

 

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 10:32-33)

 

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Matt 13:41-42)

 

I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. (Luke 12:5)

 

There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who are thou that judgest another? (Jas 4:12)

 

Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. (1 Pet 2:17)

 

Chris Dates on the Christological Danger of the Doctrine of Eternal Torment if One Holds to Penal Substitution

Chris Dates of Rethinking Hell wrote the following about the Christological necessity of rejecting conscious eternal torment if one holds to Penal Substitution:

 

The Christological Danger of Eternal Torment

 

Meanwhile, whereas traditionalists charge conditionalism with being Christologically problematic, it seems the real danger to orthodox Christology lies in their own tendency to locate the substitutionary work of Christ in his suffering. In support of the idea that the union of Jesus’ divine and human natures rendered him uniquely capable of enduring God’s infinite wrath, Grudem writes, “When Jesus knew that he had paid the full penalty for our sin, he said, ‘It is finished’ (John 19:30).” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 578; italics in original.) Grudem’s use of the perfect-tense “had paid” makes explicit what logically follows from treating Christ’s pain as that in which his substitutionary work consists: On the cross Jesus completely bore the punishment of hell—separation from God and infliction of suffering—and only then did he die. But if the finite duration of his suffering is the substitutionary equivalent to the eternity of suffering awaiting the risen, undying wicked, why did he go on to die? If “he had paid the full penalty for our sin,” as Grudem says, what penalty was left to pay with his death?

 

The doctrine of eternal torment thus risks rendering Jesus’ death irrelevant, unnecessary, and arbitrary. One can hardly imagine a more egregious heresy; to Paul, the substitutionary death of Christ is paramount in importance and definitional of the gospel itself (1 Cor 15:1–3), and one who preaches another gospel—such as one denying the substitutionary death of Jesus—should be accursed (Gal 1:6–9). Conservative evangelicals are ordinarily adamant that it is heresy to deny the substitutionary death of Christ. Bruce Ware, for example, insists that “open theism is an unacceptable and nonviable view for Christians who desire to remain biblically faithful.” (Ware, “The Gospel of Christ,” 310.) Among his reasons is that in open theism, “no actual substitution can be made, for God cannot know, when Christ hangs on the cross, any actual person who will yet be conceived. His death must be seen as a substitution in general, not a specific substitution for sinners who deserved the judgment he received on their behalf.” (Ibid., 333; emphasis in original.) John Piper includes belief in the “substitutionary dimension of the death of Christ” in his small list of salvation prerequisites. (Piper, “What Must Someone Believe.”) J. I. Packer and Gary Parrett insist that “Christ’s atoning death” features at the center of the gospel, and that while there “are many aspects of this glorious atonement,” nevertheless “the other aspects of the atonement disappear if at its heart it is not a substitutionary atonement.” (Packer and Parrett, Grounded in the Gospel, 98; italics in original.)

 

But if it was not until Jesus died that his substitutionary, atoning work was complete, why did he say, “it is finished,” just prior to dying (John 19:30)? The answer lies in “the idea of prolepsis or anticipation,” illustrated by the famous phrase “dead man walking,” in which “the man walking is not yet dead but the reality of his death is very much present.” (Mostert, “Radical Eschatology,” 403.) E. W. Bullinger refers to biblical figures of speech as prolepsis or anticipation “when we anticipate what is going to be done, and speak of future things as present.” (Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 914) Accordingly, as explained by John Gill, Jesus said “it is finished” because all those things he was given to do—“that he should be incarnate, be exposed to shame and reproach, and suffer much, and die; the whole work his father gave him to do”—all these things “were now done, or as good as done.” (Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, 2:117; emphasis added.) And after Jesus drew his final breath, and his heart stopped beating, this work that was “as good as done” moments before was, in fact, done. (Christopher M. Dates, "The Righteous for the Unrighteous: Conditional Immortality and the Substitutionary Death of Jesus," McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 18 [2016-2017]:69-92, here, pp. 80-82)

 

Benjamin F. Johnson Providing Additional Material to what is now D&C 131

Benjamin F. Johnson provided the following additional details about what is now D&C 131 (the section was based on notes from a private conversation between Joseph Smith, William Clayton, and Benjamin F. Johnson):

 

Benjamin [F. Johnson] says he “nothing but the unpardonable sin can prevent him (me) from inheriting eternal glory for he is sealed up by the power of the priesthood unto eternal life having taken the step which is necessary for that purpose.” He said that except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity while in this probation by the power and authority of the Holy priesthood they will cease to increase when they die (i e) they will not have any children in the resurrection, but those who are married by the power & authority of the priesthood in this life & continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost will continue to increase & have children in the celestial glory. The unpardonable sin is to shed innocent blood or be accessory thereto. All other sins will be visited with judgement in the flesh and the spirit being delivered to the buffetings of Satan untill the day of the Lord Jesus.” I feel desirous to be united in an everlasting covenant to my wife and pray that it may soon be. (Instruction, 16 May 1843, as Reported by William Clayton, pp. 14-15)

 

 

Rick Brannan on Additional Sayings of Jesus in Bezae and Washingtonianus

  

Sayings in Additions to New Testament Manuscripts

 

Some manuscripts of the Greek New Testament have unique variations that record alternate versions or even completely different sayings of Jesus. Most of the sayings in this section are taken from what is known as Codex Bezae, a fifth-century document with the text of the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin. It has a number of unique readings and is known for its idiosyncrasies, particularly in the book of Acts. One reading (an insertion at Mark 16:14 known as the “Freer Logion”) is taken from Codex Washingtonianus, a fourth- or fifth-century document. The following variations are examined here:

 

•    Matthew 20:28 (Bezae)

•    Mark 9:49 (Bezae)

•    Mark 16:14 (Washingtonianus)

•    Luke 6:4 (Bezae)

•    Luke 10:16 (Bezae)

•    John 8:7, 10–11 (Bezae)

 

Each of these will be briefly discussed below. The English translation of each passage is by the author unless otherwise specified.

 

Matthew 20:28 (Bezae)

 

This agraphon, which Metzger calls “a piece of floating tradition,” is inserted at the end of the pericope where the mother of James and John requests that her sons sit in an exalted place in the kingdom (Matt 20:21). After disqualifying them from such an honor (22–23) and dealing with the ruckus caused among the other disciples by the request (24–25), Jesus goes on to teach that the one who wants to be great must become a servant, following the model of the Son of Man (27–28). In this context, it is an expansion that gives the disciples specific instruction on how to serve.

 

Parallels

 

Luke 14:8–10 offers what Metzger terms “an expanded but inferior version” of this material. It is also similar in conception to Jas 2:1–7.

 

Translation

 

“But you, seek to increase from what is small and to be less from what is more. And upon entering and being called in to eat, do not recline in the place of prominence, else someone more esteemed than you might come in and the one who invited you to dinner might come and say to you, ‘Move down further.’ and you will be shamed. But if you move back into the lower place and a person less important than you comes, the one who invited you to dinner will say, ‘Come still higher’ and this will be to your benefit.” (Mt 20:28 Brannan)

 

Mark 9:49 (Bezae)

 

Bezae as well as manuscripts that reflect the Old Latin tradition have this instead of “For everyone will be salted with fire.” Some other manuscripts, including Alexandrinus, include both forms: “For everyone will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt.”

 

Mark 9:42–49 is about withstanding the temptation to sin. Jesus states that it is better to lose the offending body part than to succumb to sin (43–47). Fire is introduced with the notion of being in hell, “where the worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished” (48), a quotation of Isa 66:24. After this comes the saying about salt. The version in Bezae recalls Lev 2:13, “Also all of your grain offerings you must season with salt; you must not omit the salt of your God’s covenant from your offering,” focusing on the salt and recalling sacrifice. The canonical version instead focuses on the believer and foresees persecution (fire).

 

Parallels

 

As mentioned above, the version in Bezae may be a recollection of Lev 2:13. Evans notes that Ezek 43:24 mentions similar things (salt and burnt offering).

 

Translation

 

For every sacrifice will be salted with salt. (Mk 9:49 Brannan)

 

Mark 16:14 (Washingtonianus)

 

This interpolation, also known as the “Freer Logion” is found in Codex Washingtonianus, a fourth- or fifth-century Gospel codex. It occurs after Mark 16:14, in which the eleven disciples are rebuked for unbelief. The Freer Logion provides the disciples a chance to explain their unbelief, and for the risen Christ to explain more about his task and the gospel. Verse 15 follows, with Christ exhorting the disciples to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”

 

Parallels

 

There are no close parallels to this agraphon.

 

Translation

 

They offered this excuse: “This lawless and faithless age is under Satan, who does not allow what is unclean and dominated by spirits to grasp the true power of God. Therefore,” they said to Christ, “reveal your just authority now.” Christ replied: “The measure of the years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things are imminent. Yet it was for the sake of sinners that I was handed over to death, that they might return to the truth and sin no more, and inherit the spiritual and immortal glory of justification in heaven.” (Mk 16:14 NAB)

 

Luke 6:4 (Bezae)

 

Luke 6:1–5 is the account of Jesus and his disciples picking and eating heads of grain on the Sabbath. The Pharisees interrupt with their accusation (2) and Jesus responds (3–4), noting David’s eating of the bread of presentation. In Bezae, this agraphon comes next. Verse 5 ends with Jesus proclaiming the Son of Man as “Lord of the Sabbath,” but Bezae moves verse 5 to follow verse 10, which has the effect of including Luke’s account of the man with the withered hand (6–10) as the third example of Jesus’ lordship over the Sabbath in a single group.

 

Parallels

 

There are no close parallels to this agraphon. Fitzmyer notes some similarity with Gos. Thom. 3, 14.

 

Translation

 

That same day, seeing someone working on the Sabbath, he said to him, “Man, if you know what you do, you are blessed. But if you do not know, you are a curse and a transgressor of the law.” (Luke 6:4 Brannan)

 

Luke 10:16 (Bezae)

 

The larger pericope is Luke 10:1–20, the appointing and sending out of the 72 disciples. Jesus appoints the 72, gives them instructions, and sends them out (1–12). He issues woes to Chorazin and Bethsaida for their lack of repentance (13–14), and then similarly condemns Capernaum (15). Then he returns to the 72, stating “The one who listens to you listens to me, and the one who rejects you rejects me.” In the standard edition, the rejection of Jesus is extended to a rejection of the one who sent Jesus; instead, in Bezae the heeding of Jesus is extended into also heeding the one who sent Jesus. This changes the focus of the section from negative (rejecting Jesus) to positive (heeding Jesus). Some other manuscripts append the ending found in Bezae onto what is considered the standard text, covering both options.

 

Parallels

 

Similar statements by Jesus found in the gospels include Matt 10:40; John 5:23; 12:44–45; 13:20.

 

Justin uses similar language in 1 Apol. 16.10 and 63.5.

 

Translation

 

“But the one who hears me hears the one who sent me.” (Lk 10:16 Brannan)

 

John 8:7, 10–11 (Bezae)

 

The account found in Codex Bezae, while differing from the standard text, does not substantively change the understanding of the event. In verse 7, Bezae omits “him” after “asking.” The larger changes are in verses 10–11. In verse 10, the standard text “said, ‘Woman’ ” becomes “said to the woman.” In verse 11, “And she said” becomes “And that woman said to him,” while “Go and” becomes “Go away.”

 

Parallels

 

There are no close parallels to this agraphon.

 

Translation

 

And when they persisted in asking, he straightened up and said to them, “The one of you without sin, let him first throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7 Brannan)

 

And Jesus, straightening up, said to the woman, “Where are they? Does no one condemn you?” And that woman said to him, “Nobody, Lord.” And Jesus said “Neither do I condemn you. Go away, from now on, sin no longer.” (Jn 8:10–11 Brannan) (Rick Brannan, Greek Apocryphal Gospels, Fragments and Agrapha: Introduction and Translations [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2013], 15-19)

 

The Greek of the above texts read as follows:

 

Matthew 20:28 (Bezae)

 

²⁰ υμεις δε ζητειτε· εκ μεικρου αυξησαι και εκ μειζονος ελαττον ειναι. Εισερχομονεοι δε και παρακληθεντες δειπνησαι· μη ανακλεινεσθαι εις τους εξεχοντας τοπους μη ποτε ενδοξοτερος σου επελθη και προσελθων ο δειπνοκλητωρ ειπη σοι ετι κατω χωρει· και καταισχυνθηση. εαν δε αναπεσης· εις τον ηττονα τοπον και επελθη σου ηττων ερει σοι ο δειπνοκλητωρ· συναγε ετι ανω και εσται σοι τουτο χρησιμον.

 

Mark 9:49 (Bezae)

 

⁹ πασα γαρ θυσια αλι αλισθησεται.

 

Mark 16:14 (Washingtoniensis)

 

¹⁶ κακεινοι απελογουντο λεγοντες οτι ο αιων ουτος της ανομιας και της απιστιας υπο τον σαταναν εστιν, ο μη εων τα υπο των πνευματων ακαθαρτα την αληθειαν του θεου καταλαβεσθαι δυναμιν· δια τουτο αποκαλυψον σου την δικαιοσυνην ηδη εκιενοι ελεγον τω χριστω. και ο χριστος εκεινοις προσελεγεν οτι πεπληρωται ο ορος των ετων της εξουσιας του σατανα, αλλα εγγιζει αλλα δεινα· και υπερ ων εγω αμαρτησαντων παρεδοθην εις θανατον ινα υποστεψωσιν εις την αληθειαν και μηκετι αμαρτησωσιν ινα την εν τω ουρανω πνευματικην και αφθαρτον της δικαιοσυνης δοξαν κληρονομησωσιν.

 

Luke 6:4 (Bezae)

 

⁶ τη αυτη ημερα θεασαμενος τινα εργαζομενον τω σαββατω ειπεν αυτω ανθρωπε, ει μεν οιδας τι ποιεις μακαριος ει. ει δε μη οιδας επικαταρατος και παραβατης ει του νομου.

Luke 10:16 (Bezae)

 

¹⁰ ο δε εμου ακουων ακουει του αποστειλαντος με.

John 8:7 (Bezae)

 

⁸ ως δε επεμενον ερωτωντες ανεκυψεν και ειπεν αυτοις· ο αναμαρτηετος υμων πρωτος επ αυτην βαλετω λιθον.

John 8:10–11 (Bezae)

 

⁸ ανακυψας δε ο Ιη(σου)ς ειπεν τη γυναικει που εισιν ουδεις σε κατεκρεινεν κακεινη ειπεν αυτω ουδεις κ(υρι)ε ο δε ειπεν ουδε εγω σε κατακρεινω υπαγε απο του νυν μηκετι αμαρτανε. (Rick Brennan, Greek Apocryphal Gospels, Fragments, and Agrapha: Texts and Transcriptions [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2013])