Jerome wrote a response to Helvidius regarding the virginity of Mary. This post is the eleventh in a series of responses to what Jerome wrote.
Jerome wrote:
An ample reply has now been given to what he advanced respecting the words before they came together, and he knew her not till she had brought forth a son. I must now proceed, if my reply is to follow the order of his argument, to the third point. He will have it that Mary bore other sons, and he quotes the passage, “And Joseph also went up to the city of David to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered, and she brought forth her first-born son.” From this he endeavours to show that the term first-born is inapplicable except to a person who has brothers, just as he is called only begotten who is the only son of his parents.
Jerome does not seem to realize that it is valuable for the evangelists to mention Jesus' status as firstborn because it was known that he had brothers and sisters.
Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Luke 2:7
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
We acknowledge that the term can be used of an only child, but it is one of many Scriptural evidences, not in itself an absolute proof. Instead, we should consider the context of the comment, in an account written after Jesus had well-known brothers and sisters.
-TurretinFan
No comments:
Post a Comment