John Calvin, the Reformers & Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

A great number of Protestants are unaware of the fact that their spiritual forebears, the magisterial reformers such as John Calvin affirmed the Perpetuality Virginity of Mary (PVM). Calvin especially scoffed at those who would use texts such as Matthew 1:25, Luke 8:19-21, etc., to argue for Joseph having intimate relationships with Mary after the birth of Christ, or that Jesus’ brother and sisters are the biological children of Mary.

 

Here’s what one author wrote in this respect:

 

The entire tradition of the Church has held to the perpetual ‘virginity of Mary as a sign of her dedication and of the fullness of God’s gift of which she was the object. The Reformers themselves respected this belief.

 

Luther preached the perpetual virginity of Mary throughout his life. On February 2, 1546, on the Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, he said: ‘… A virgin before the conception and birth, she remained a virgin also at the birth and after it.’¹⁶ 

 

Zwingli also was completely in agreement. He often speaks of Mary’s perpetual virginity. In January 1528, he declared in Berne: ‘I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize Mary as ever virgin and holy.’¹⁷

 

Finally, Calvin condemned those who would assert that Mary had other children besides Jesus. Helvidius had maintained at the end of the fourth century that the Virgin Mary, after the miraculous birth of Jesus, had had several children of Joseph, namely those who are referred to as the brethren and sisters of the Lord in the gospels. St. Jerome answered him in his treatise De perpetua virginitate beatae Mariae adversus Helvidium.¹⁸ As far as Matt. 13: 55 was concerned Calvin equally opposed Helvidius: ‘We have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called “brethren.” Still Helvidius has shown himself to be ignorant of this by stating that Mary had many children just because in several places they are spoken of as “brethren” of Christ.’ ¹⁹ In his commentary on St. Matthew’s gospel: 1: 25 Calvin writes as follows: ‘Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel says nothing . . . certainly it is a matter about which no one will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a pig-headed and fatuous person.’²⁰

 

Lastly Calvin’s thought is made even more clear in a sermon on Matt. 1: 22-5, which was published in 1562 in the shorthand notes of Denys Ragueneau: ‘There have been certain strange folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Matt 1: 25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS! for the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore NEVER dwelt with her nor had he shared her company. There we see that he had NEVER known her person for he was separated from his wife. He could marry another all the more because he could not enjoy the woman to whom he was betrothed; but he rather desired to forfeit his rights and abstain from marriage, being yet always married: he preferred, I say, to remain thus in the service of God rather than to consider what he might still feel that he could come to. He had forsaken everything in order that he might subject himself fully to the will of God.‘ And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to foolish subtleties would be to abuse Holy Scripture, which is, as St. Paul says, “to be used for our edification.”’²¹

 

For Calvin and the other Reformers accept the traditional view that Mary had only one son, the Son of God, who had been to her the fullness of grace and joy.²² 

 

In this same attitude of respect for the mystery of the divine predestination in regard to Mary, we are able to concede that the traditional doctrine of perpetual virginity is for the monk consonant with the unique vocation which is Mary’s, in that she is entirely dedicated to the work of God, exceptionally fulfilled with God’s grace, totally directed towards the Kingdom of God. Mary is in her virginity the sign of the preacher who is set apart and dedicated by the Lord, is filled with all the fullness of God, and has nothing more to await than the final completion when the Kingdom of God should be revealed, of which she already, in a hidden and anticipatory way, sees the fulfilment. She is the sign of the Holy Church which only awaits and looks for the return of Jesus Christ.

 

In a lovely ‘Prayer and Meditation on the incarnation and birth of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,’ the Reformed Pastor, Charles Drelancourt, in the middle of the seventeenth century wrote: ‘O Almighty God, who, by thine infinite and incomprehensible ‘power didst draw from man (Adam) the mother of the living (Eve) without the aid of woman, according to the rich treasures of thine inexhaustible wisdom, thou hast thought it fitting to fashion the Prince of Life in the substance of a woman without any work of man. A woman had borne for us the fruit of death and here we behold another who presents us with the fruit of life and immortality.

 

‘O Lord, whose will it was to be born of a virgin, but of a virgin betrothed, to honour thy one same act with both virginity and marriage, and to obtain for thy mother both a support and a witness and innocence….

 

‘There, O Lord, by a handful of virgin earth, thou didst form Adam in thy image and likeness and didst clothe him with justice and holiness, but here with virgin blood thou hast formed the new Adam, who is thy living image, the splendour of thy glory, and the graven record of thy person.’ (Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of All Christians, translated by Nevill B. Cryer [Herder & Herder, New York, 1963], Chapter 3: Poor Virgin, pp. 38-41; emphasis mine)

 

16 This belief is a constant one with Luther throughout his whole life; cf. W. TAPPOLET, Das Marienlob der Reformatoren Katzmann, Tubingen 1962, pp. 49ff.

 

17 Ibid., pp. 240ff.

 

18 P.L. 23, cols. 183-206.

 

19 Comm. in Matt. 13: 55; cf. Marriage and Celibacy, p. 71.

 

20 Comm. in Matt. 1: 25.

 

21 La Revue Réformée, 1956/4, pp. 63-4.

 

22 Invited by the Bishop of Belley, Mgr. Camus, to reply to certain questions concerning a former little work, Charles Drelincourt, a French Reformed Pastor (1595-1669), well represents the Reformed tradition of the seventeenth century and wrote a long treatise, De l’honneur qui doit étre rendu a la sainte et bienheureuse vierge Marie. He stated concerning perpetual virginity, ‘This happy Mother remained a virgin during the birth and after it.’ He went further than Calvin’s position in that the latter did not assert her virginity in partu. The important thing for him consisted in the Spiritual Virginity of Mary, in her virginity ante et post partum, and not in the physical fact of her virginity. (Ibid., p. 195)

 

In a post on Calvin’s views on PVM, Catholic Apologist David Armstrong cites several Protestant authorities affirming that Calvin upheld this ancient, universal teaching of the Church:

 

This 1562 sermon may be one reason why many Protestant (including Calvinist) scholars agree that Calvin adhered to Mary’s perpetual virginity, as I noted in my paper (alluded to and linked above) over four years ago now:

 

David F. Wright, in his book, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, pp. 173, 175), stated:

 

. . . his more careful biblicism could insist on only Mary’s refraining from intercourse before the birth of Jesus (i.e., her virginity ante partum). On the other hand, he never excluded as untenable the other elements in her perpetual virginity, and may be said to have believed it himself without claiming that Scripture taught it. . . . [Calvin] commonly speaks of Mary as “the holy Virgin” (and rarely as simply as “Mary” preferring “the Virgin”, etc.).

 

Thomas Henry Louis Parker, in his Calvin: an Introduction to his Thought (Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), concurs:

 

. . . the Virgin Birth, which Calvin holds, together with the perpetual virginity of Mary. (p. 66)

He is the author of several books about Calvin, such as John Calvin: A Biography (Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), and Oracles Of God: An Introduction To The Preaching Of John Calvin (Lutterworth Press, 2002), Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (S.C.M. Press, 1971), Calvin’s Preaching (Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), and several other Calvin-related volumes, and translator of Calvin’s Harmony of the Gospels in its 1995 Eerdmans edition.

 

Presumably, he knows enough about Calvin to have a basis for his beliefs about this matter and Calvin’s own position.

 

The article “Mary” (by David F. Wright) in theEncyclopedia of the Reformed Faith (edited by Donald K. McKim, Westminster John Knox Press,1992, p. 237), proclaims:

 

Calvin was likewise less clear-cut than Luther on Mary’s perpetual virginity but undoubtedly favored it. Notes in the Geneva Bible (Matt. 1:18, 25; Jesus’ “brothers”) defend it, as did Zwingli and the English reformers . . .

 

Donald G. Bloesch, in his Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2006, p. 87), joins the crowd:

 

Protestantism . . . remained remarkably open to the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among others, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wollebius, Bullinger and Wesley claimed that Mary was ever-virgin (semper virgo). The Second Helvetic Confession and the Geneva Bible of the Reformed faith and the Schmalkald Articles of the Lutheran churches affirm it.

 

Geoffrey W. Bromiley in his article, “Mary the Mother of Jesus” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P (edited by Bromiley, revised edition of 1994 published by Eerdmans [Grand Rapids, Michigan], p. 269), wrote:

 

The post-partum or perpetual virginity concept is held by some Protestants and was held by many Reformers (e.g., Calvin in his sermon on Mt. 1:22-25) . . .

 

Note that this refers to the sermon I cited above, not just Calvin’s Commentaries. And this is from the revised ISBE: not a source one can easily dismiss.

 

Derek W. H. Thomas, writing in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis (edited by David W. Hall & Peter A. Lillback; Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing [Calvin 500 series]: 2008, p. 212), makes a casual reference: “a perpetual virgin in Calvin’s view!”

 

He is a professor of systematic and pastoral theology at Reformed Theological Seminary.  His doctoral dissertation was devoted to Calvin’s preaching on the book of Job.

Timothy George concurs, with slight qualification:

 

To be sure, there is nothing theologically problematic about affirming Mary’s perpetual virginity. This venerable tradition, first given dogmatic sanction at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, was affirmed by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin during the Reformation, though Calvin was more agnostic about this belief than the other two reformers. (in Mary, Mother of God, edited by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co.: 2004;  p. 109)

 

Dr. George is the dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University, teaches Church history and serves as executive editor for Christianity Today. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Southern Baptist Convention, has written more than twenty books, and regularly contributes to scholarly journals. His book Theology of the Reformers is used as a textbook in many schools and seminaries.

 

J. A. Ross MacKenzie wrote: “Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary” (in Alberic Stacpoole, editor, Mary’s Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Connecticut: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, 35-36).  Dr. Mackenzie was a professor of church history at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, and has translated or written more than twenty theological books.

 

Robert H. Stein, professor of New Testament interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, also agrees:

 

If one believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary, a teaching held not only by Roman Catholicism but also by Greek Orthodoxy, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, then the Helvidian view must be rejected. (Mark [Commentary], Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic: 2008, p. 187)

 

Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza argued that Catholics and Protestants agreed on the perpetual virginity of Mary, at the Colloquy of Poissy in 1561 (see William A. Dyrness, Reformed Theology and Visual Culture: the Protestant Imagination from Calvin to Edwards, [Cambridge University Press, 2004], pp. 86-87). (Armstrong, Calvin Held to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (with Tim Staples) + Anti-Catholic James Swan’s Usual Obscurantist and Revisionist Nonsense)

 

And in his response to an anti-Catholic apologist, Armstrong provides a translation of Calvin’s French sermon on Matthew 1:22-25:

 

So we see that Steve believes that Jesus had siblings, but he thinks that Calvin didn’t believe that; only that Joseph and Mary were sexually active. But Calvin specifically denied that Joseph and Mary were sexually active after the birth of Jesus. The evidence comes from Sermon 22 on Matthew 1:22-25; found in the original French in Corpus Reformatorum, Vol. 74: John Calvin: All the Works That Remain [Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia], Vol. 46, pp. 259-272], which dates from 1562, two years before Calvin died, and seven years after Calvin’s statement cited by Steve. Google Translate renders the key text for our discussion as follows:

 

And specifically, it is stated that he did not know the Virgin until she had borne her first Son. By this, the Evangelist signifies that Joseph had not taken his wife to dwell with her, but rather to obey God and to discharge his duty toward Him. Therefore, it was neither out of carnal love, nor for profit, nor for any other motive whatsoever that he took his wife; rather, it was to obey God and to demonstrate that he accepted the grace being offered to him—a blessing, moreover, that could not be prized highly enough.

 

This is what we must bear in mind. Now, there have been certain fanciful individuals who have sought to infer from this passage that the Virgin Mary bore children other than the Son of God, and that Joseph subsequently dwelt with her; but such a notion is sheer folly. For the Evangelist did not intend to recount what transpired thereafter; he sought only to declare Joseph’s obedience and to demonstrate, furthermore, that he had received full and proper assurance that it was indeed God who had sent His Angel to him.

 

Thus, he did not dwell with her; he did not share her bed. And therein we see that he gave no thought to his own personal gratification, for he denied himself the conjugal life. He could have married another, inasmuch as he was unable to enjoy the woman he had wed; yet he preferred to relinquish his right and abstain from marriage—even while remaining, strictly speaking, a married man. He preferred—I say—to remain in this state so that he might devote himself to the service of God, rather than pursuing what might have been more pleasing to his own desires.

 

[French for the above paragraph:  Il n’a point donc habité avec elle, il n’a point eu sa compagnie. Et là nous voyons qu’il n’a point eu esgard à sa personne: car il s’est privé de femme. Il pouvoit se marier à un autre, d’autant qu’il ne pouvoit pas iouir de la femme qu’il avoit espousee: mais il a mieux aimé quitter son droict, et s’abstenir du mariage (estant toutesfois marié), il a mieux aimé (di-ie) demeurer ainsi pour s’employer au service de Dieu, que de regarder ce qui luy fust venu plus à gré.]

 

He set aside all such things in order to submit himself fully to God. Furthermore, our Lord Jesus Christ is referred to as the “firstborn”—not because there was ever a second or a third, but because the Evangelist is looking back to what came before. And this is how Scripture speaks: designating one as the “firstborn” even when there is no second.

 

We therefore perceive the intention of the Holy Spirit; consequently, to indulge in such foolish subtleties would be to misuse Holy Scripture—which, as Saint Paul tells us, is intended to be useful to us for edification. Moreover, when men become so restless—when they have “itching ears” and crave novel speculations—it is a sign that the Devil has taken such possession of them that their hearts have hardened. It becomes impossible to lead them back to the right path; indeed, they would sooner turn heaven and earth upside down than cease maintaining their errors and delusions with such diabolical obstinacy. All the more, then, must we exercise sobriety in receiving the doctrine given to us—in accepting the Redeemer sent to us by God His Father—so that, recognizing His power, we may learn to cleave ourselves fully unto Him. (my italics; my article, John Calvin: Sermon 22 on Matthew 1:22-25 (Mary’s Perpetual Virginity) [10-14-14] includes the entire sermon in French) (Proof That Calvin Affirmed Mary’s Perpetual Virginity; bold and underline emphasis mine)

 

A Wikipedia post on PVM also provides a list of Reformers that held to this belief:

 

Protestant Reformation

 

The Protestant Reformation saw a rejection of the special moral status of lifelong celibacy. As a result, marriage and parenthood were extolled, and Mary and Joseph were seen as a normal married couple.^[80] It also affirmed the Bible alone as the fundamental source of authority regarding God’s word (sola scriptura).^[81]

 

Mary’s perpetual virginity was upheld by Martin Luther (who names her ever-virgin in the Smalcald Articles, a Lutheran confession of faith written in 1537),^[15] Huldrych Zwingli, Thomas Cranmer, Wollebius, Bullinger, John Wycliffe and later Protestant leaders including John Wesley, the co-founder of Methodism.^{[82][12][83][84]}

 

In the Evangelical Lutheran faith, in addition to being taught in the Smalcald Articles, the Formula of Concord upholds the perpetual virginity of Mary.^{[15][85][86][87]} The Lutheran divine Melanchthon lambasted Osiander for his denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary.^[88] As such, many Lutheran divines have taught the perpetual virginity of Mary.^[5]

 

With respect to the Reformed tradition (Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, Reformed Anglican and Congregationalist denominations), John Calvin‘s view was more ambiguous, believing that knowing what happened to Mary after the birth of Jesus is impossible.^[83] However John Calvin argued that Matthew 1:25, used by Helvidius to attack the perpetual virginity of Mary does not teach that Mary had other children.^[89] Other Calvinists affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity, including within the Second Helvetic Confession—stating that Mary was the “ever virgin Mary”—and in the notes of the Geneva Bible.^[90][3] Theodore Beza, a prominent early Calvinist, included the perpetual virginity of Mary in a list of agreements between Calvinism and the Catholic Church.^[91] Some reformers upheld the doctrine to counter more radical reformers who questioned the divinity of Christ; Mary’s perpetual virginity guaranteed the Incarnation of Christ despite the challenges to its scriptural foundations.^[92] Modern nonconformist Protestants, such as the Plymouth Brethren, have largely rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary on the basis of sola scriptura, and it has rarely appeared explicitly in confessions or doctrinal statements,^[93][94] though the perpetual virginity of Mary remains a common belief in Lutheranism and Anglicanism.^[95]

 

Among the Anabaptists, Hubmaier never abandoned his belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary and continued to esteem Mary as theotokos (“mother of God”). These two doctrinal stances are addressed individually in Articles Nine and Ten, respectively, of Hubmaier’s work, Apologia.^[96] (Perpetual Virginity of Mary; emphasis mine)

 

To substantiate that Calvin denied that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the biological children of Mary, I now quote from his commentary. All emphasis will be mine.

 

Verse 19

 

Luke 8:19. And his mother and his brethren came to him. There is an apparent discrepancy here between Luke and the other two Evangelists; for, according to their arrangement of the narrative, they represent Christ’s mother and cousins as having come, while he was discoursing about the unclean spirit, while he refers to a different occasion, and mentions only the woman’s exclamation, which we have just now explained. But we know that the Evangelists were not very exact as to the order of dates, or even in detailing minutely every thing that Christ did or said, so that the difficulty is soon removed. Luke does not state at what precise time Christ’s mother came to him; but what the other two Evangelists relate before the parable of the sower he introduces after it. The account which he gives of the exclamation of the woman from among the multitude bears some resemblance to this narrative; for inconsiderate zeal may have led her to exalt to the highest pitch what she imagined that Christ had unduly lowered.

 

All the three Evangelists agree in stating, that while Christ was discoursing in the midst of a crowd of people, his mother and brethren came to him The reason must have been either that they were anxious about him, or that they were desirous of instruction; for it is not without some good reason that they endeavor to approach him, and it is not probable that those who accompanied the holy mother were unbelievers. Ambrose and Chrysostom accuse Mary of ambition, but without any probability. What necessity is there for such a conjecture, when the testimony of the Spirit everywhere bestows commendation on her distinguished piety and modesty? The warmth of natural affection may have carried them beyond the bounds of propriety: this I do not deny, but I have no doubt that they were led by pious zeal to seek his society. Matthew relates that the message respecting their arrival was brought by one individual: Mark and Luke say that he was informed by many persons. But there is no inconsistency here; for the message which his mother sent to call him would be communicated, as usually happens, from one hand to another, till at length it reached him. (Luke 8:19: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/luke-8.html)

 

And his brethren. Why the brethren of Christ accompanied him, cannot be determined with certainty, unless, perhaps, they intended to go along with him to Jerusalem. The word brethren, it is well known, is employed, in the Hebrew language, to denote cousins and other relatives. (John 2:12: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/john-2.html)

Verse 3

 

3. His brethren therefore said to him. Under the word brethren the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. He says that they mocked at Christ, because he shunned to be seen or known, and concealed himself in a mean and despised district of Judea. There is reason to doubt, however, if they were excited by ambition to desire that Christ should obtain celebrity. But granting this, still it is evident that they ridicule him, because they do not think that his conduct is rational and judicious; and they even upbraid him with folly, because, while he wishes to be something, he wants confidence in himself, and does not venture to appear openly before men. When they say, that thy disciples also may see, they mean not only his domestics, but all those whom he wished to procure out of the whole nation; for they add, “Thou wishest to be known by all, and yet thou concealest thyself.” (John 7:3: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/john-7.html)

 

In this next quote, Calvin affirms Petrine primacy as he attacks the Papacy!

 

Verse 5

 

5. Even as the other Apostles. In addition to the Lord’s permission, he mentions the common practice of others. And with the view of bringing out more fully the waiving of his right, he proceeds step by step. In the first place, he brings forward the Apostles He then adds, “Nay, even the brethren of the Lord themselves also make use of it without hesitation — nay more, Peter himself, to whom the first place is assigned by consent of all, allows himself the same liberty.” By the brethren of the Lord, he means John and James, who were accounted pillars, as he states elsewhere. (Galatians 2:9.) And, agreeably to what is customary in Scripture, he gives the name of brethren to those who were connected with Him by relationship.

 

Now, if any one should think to establish Popery from this, he would act a ridiculous part. We confess that Peter was acknowledged as first among the Apostles, as it is necessary that in every society there should always be some one to preside over the others, and they were of their own accord prepared to respect Peter for the eminent endowments by which he was distinguished, as it is proper to esteem and honor all that excel in the gifts of God’s grace. That preeminence, however, was not lordship — nay more, it had nothing resembling lordship. For while he was eminent among the others, still he was subject to them as his colleagues. Farther, it is one thing to have pre-eminence in one Church, and quite another, to claim for one’s self a kingdom or dominion over the whole world. But indeed, even though we should concede everything as to Peter, what has this to do with the Pope? For as Matthias succeeded Judas, (Acts 1:26,) so some Judas might succeed Peter. Nay more, we see that during a period of more than nine hundred years among his successors, or at least among those who boast that they are his successors, there has not been one who was one whit better than Judas. This, however, is not the place to treat of these points. Consult my Institutes. (Volume 3.)

 

One thing farther must here be noticed, that the Apostles had no horror of marriage, which the Papal clergy so much abominate, as unbecoming the sanctity of their order. But it was after their time that that admirable discovery was made, that the priests of the Lord are polluted if they have intercourse with their lawful wives; and, at length matters came to such a pitch, that Pope Syricius did not hesitate to call marriage “a pollution of the flesh, in which no one can please God.” What then must become of the poor Apostles, who continued in that pollution until death? Here, however, they have contrived a refined subtilty to effect their escape; for they say that the Apostles gave up the use of the marriage bed, but led about their wives with them, that they might receive the fruits of the gospel, or, in other words, support at the public expense. As if they could not have been maintained by the Churches, unless they wandered about from place to place; and farther, as if it were a likely thing that they would run hither and thither of their own accord, and without any necessity, in order that they might live in idleness at the public expense! For as to the explanation given by Ambrose, as referring to other persons’ wives, who followed the Apostles for the purpose of hearing their doctrine, it is exceedingly forced. (1 Corinthians 9:5: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/1-corinthians-9.html)

 

Verse 19

 

19. But I saw no other of the apostles. This is added to make it evident that he had but one object in his journey, and attended to nothing else.

 

Except James. Who this James was, deserves inquiry. Almost all the ancients are agreed that he was one of the disciples, whose surname was “Oblias” and “The Just,” and that he presided over the church at Jerusalem. ⁽³³⁾ Yet others think that he was the son of Joseph by another wife, and others (which is more probable) that he was the cousin of Christ by the mother’s side: ⁽³⁴⁾ but as he is here mentioned among the apostles, I do not hold that opinion. Nor is there any force in the defense offered by Jerome, that the word Apostle is sometimes applied to others besides the twelve; for the subject under consideration is the highest rank of apostleship, and we shall presently see that he was considered one of the chief pillars. (Galatians 2:9.) It appears to me, therefore, far more probable, that the person of whom he is speaking is the son of Alpheus. ⁽³⁵⁾

 

The rest of the apostles, there is reason to believe, were scattered through various countries; for they did not idly remain in one place. Luke relates that Paul was brought by Barnabas to the apostles. (Acts 9:27.) This must be understood to relate, not to the twelve, but to these two apostles, who alone were at that time residing in Jerusalem.

 

(33) “Qui estoit pasteur en l’eglise de Jerusalem.” “Who was pastor in the church at Jerusalem.”

 

(34) “Qu’il estoit cousin-germain de Jesus Christ, fils de la soeur de sa mere.” “That he was cousin-german of Jesus Christ, his mother’s sister’s son.”

 

(35) This is fully consistent with the opinion commonly held, that Alpheus or Cleopas was the husband of the sister of Mary, the mother of our Lord, and consequently that James, the son of Alpheus, was our Lord’s cousin-german. — Ed. (Galatians 1 https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/galatians-1.html)