How does the Church reconcile this passage ?
The word for brother in Mark 6:13 is translated 102 times in the KJV as "adelphos" brother as in actual kin relationship
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
This has been addressed repeated on FR.
Catholic Answers:
1. The Meaning of Brother
The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos) has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother.
Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not biological brothers but uncle and nephew:
“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8, NIV; see also 14:12).
Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
Catholic Answers:
2. Children of Mary?
These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
3. Other Women Named Mary
James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.
After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes:
“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
Is it possible that a man and woman might be married but not consummate the marriage? Isn’t that weird? Furthermore, doesn’t it negate the meaning of marriage? Yes, the normal understanding of marriage assumes that the couple will have sexual intercourse and produce children. However, this marriage was unique, and the idea that an older man might be marry a girl in order to look after her, but not have sexual relations is unknown in our society, but in the Middle East it is still accepted that a girl who is an orphan might be ‘adopted’ by an elderly relative or family friend through betrothal and marriage. This gave the girl security and a stable position in the society at a time when there were very few options for a girl other than marriage.
A marriage without sexual relations was accepted for these practical purposes, but there were also members of the Essene sect in first century Judaism who were married, but observed perfect continence within marriage. The husband and wife did not have sexual relations as part of their mutually committed religious vows. Therefore, a marriage without sex–while it seems so strange to us–was not out of the question in the time of Mary and Joseph.
It is difficult in our sex obsessed age to understand what the early Christians meant by perpetual virginity. This was not simply a negative definition. We tend to define this as “Mary never had sex.” The first Christians meant more than that, but not less. For them Mary’s perpetual virginity meant a fullness of goodness–an abundance of natural, simple wholeness and holiness. Mary was a virgin like a primitive forest is “virgin”. She was full and overflowing of natural, simple innocence and purity as a Spring morning or a mountaintop at sunset. The church has always tried to convey this sense of fullness of purity in this definition–not simply the fact that “Mary never had sex.” This is an adolescent, shallow and simplistic understanding. I discuss this idea of purity further in this article: Purity is Power.
Therefore the question which vexes so much of Protestant and Catholic discussion on this matter: “Did Mary have sex with Joseph and bear his children” rather misses the point. It focusses on the simple definition and debaters go around and around over the issue. The physical question is important because facts matter, but the meaning and implication of the perpetual virginity is much more important.
The physical virginity of the Blessed Virgin was preserved in order to retain and make obvious the Virgin Birth of Christ. If Mary had had children by Joseph everyone would have assumed that Jesus was his son conceived out of wedlock. Any idea of a miraculous virgin birth would have been inconceivable if Mary had had other children. Furthermore, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin is a sign–not that there is anything wrong with marital sexual relations, or that there is something “dirty” about sex, but because, by remaining a virgin Mary is identifying more closely with her Son, and showing a “better way” of celibacy for the kingdom.
To explain this doctrine to a Protestant we should say, “The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin show us the first person who has vowed herself completely and utterly to Christ. Her love is given to no other person. She shows the way of complete and total goodness and shows us what it means to be completely redeemed by Christ.”