Did Mary Have Other Children?

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry ^ | Unknown | Matt Slick

[HarleyD]

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510).

As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

• Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
• Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
• Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
• John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
• Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
• 1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
• Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother."

An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

• Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
• Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm

There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, they hated Me without a cause."

He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Fathers house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."

Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.

To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."

This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." Gods will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.

Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?

Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.

The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.

[Quix]

NO!

JESUS THE CHRIST,
CREATOR GOD HIMSELF

DELCARED

"IT IS WRITTEN . . . "

AS A POINT
!!!!OF AUTHORITY!!!!

MORE THAN
30 TIMES!


HOW MANY TIMES
Do RC's NEED
to
????GET THE POINT????

Paul emphasized
that the Bereans
GOT IT
2000 years ago!

CHRIST CREATOR GOD was standing there right in front of them--The Creator of all that is. AND HE referred NOT TO HIMSELF, NOT EVEN TO THE FATHER BUT TO SCRIPTURE AS THE ISSUE SETTLING AUTHORITY.

I honestly don't see how much plainer it could be--short of a burning bush experience declaring it bluntly so.

And yet, I can't recall a single RC on FR ever dealing with the facts of the above, much less the logic, context, implications. All we've gotten have been rationalizations and worse.

[presently no screen name]

Not every word, deed, and teaching example of Jesus is recorded in the Bible.

He gave us what we need. Catholics have faith their church gives them truth with man made doctrine but NO FAITH in God that He has given ALL He knows we need.

With that teaching, the Vatican/RCC and catholics suffer from the Adam/Eve Disease - believing God has held back on them.

Where did listening to satan get them? Why are you mimicking Adam/Eve and the Vatican/RCC promoting the lie of satan - God held something back we need?

Further, your notion that Paul supersedes Jesus with respect to the Gentiles and the Word is replaced, "rightly divided", and relegated to a one dimensional shell removes the Christ from your Christianity.

It's your notion that man made doctrines supersedes God's Word as the Final Authority. There is no Christ in a 'I'm all your's, Mary' church nor in a 'God didn't give us everything we need' teaching. That's idolatry and doctrine of demons teaching.

Fortunately, the adherents of your heresies are dying off or converting. As the Church established by Jesus grows the fringe Protestantism crowds shrink. Your church of one is a perfect example.

So it seems you are implying that the Adam/Eve Disease is contagious and those not protected by the Holy Spirit Inspired Word roams around unprotected and are open to every doctrine of heresy that blows their way. Holy Spirit filled believers already know that and pity those that don't HEAR and OBEY IT.

Catholics are carriers of the Adam/Eve disease and their hierarchy demands they go out and spread it with their 'Jesus, The Word, is not enough' for God held back on us.

Jesus established His Church on "Who He is" - The Christ, the ANOINTED ONE, the Messiah, the Son of the living God. and His members are those who believe HE is ALL they need and He gave Himself FULLY and willingly.

[Quix]

Most parts of that maze seem intractable to me, given all the givens.

Thanks for your kind words.

[Mad Dawg]

Perseveration is neither evidence nor argument. It is no more (or no less) true the umpteenth time you say it than it was the first time.

[presently no screen name]

"IT IS WRITTEN . . . " AS A POINT !!!!OF AUTHORITY!!!!

Where would that leave their men who crave authority with their bow and kiss the ring mentality and their demands on believing your confessor even when you don't want to.

There would be no Vatican/RCC if they believed God's Word as The Final Authority - they only exist to go against His Word and honor man. But the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church based on Who He is - the Messiah, the Son of the living God, The Word, alone.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, two comments then:

The Original Post mentions none of those three things, but adduces the relevant verse of Ps 69 as dispositive.

Therefore it seems to me that the whole method is indistinguishable from a projective technique. Those who think the “perpetual virginity” of Mary is not true will find proofs here and elsewhere. Those who think it is true will do ditto.

I’m not saying it IS a projective technique. I’m just saying I don’t see what one can point to to show it isn’t.

“You know my methods, Watson.” ;-)

[Quix]

Plenty True.

[Quix]

LOL.

I know. Have seen that so much.

[presently no screen name]

Perseveration is neither evidence nor argument.It is no more (or no less) true the umpteenth time you say it than it was the first time.

Pity a man who serves a God would cannot preserve His Own Word but believes only man can preserve His Word.

God's Word always was and always will be - how's that for preservation?

[Natural Law]

"He gave us what we need."

And you reject so much of it. The Holy Scripture is indeed important and God breathed, but it is NOT the entire Revealed Word. Jesus, not a book, is the Alpha and the Omega. He is the Word incarnate, yet you marginalize Him in favor of the misinterpreted writing of one of His servants. Where is the Christ in your Christianity?

[Judith Anne]

Catholics have faith their church gives them truth with man made doctrine but NO FAITH in God that He has given ALL He knows we need.

WRONG! This Catholic has complete "faith in God that He has given ALL He knows we need." Evidently, there is a huge mistake in your post.

[presently no screen name]

Which translation? Which edition? Which books included? According to whom?

Lots of confusion there.

"For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work".

[OLD REGGIE]

It says nothing about giving the keys to anyone other than Peter.

I asked a question, you can’t give me a direct answer. Makes me believe that there’s nothing in scripture to support your position.

I’m all for sola scriptura, just it doesn’t back your position.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The "keys" gave Peter the authority to "bind" and "Loose". Exactly the same authority to all the disciples mentioned in Matthew 18.

Where do you find in Scripture that Peter was given any authority or any superiority ovev any of the Apostles?

[Cronos]

The Bereans -- ah, now that is a good point, did you know that the Bereans rejected Sola scriptura?

<
The Bereans as an example of the errors of Sola Scriptura	The Bereans Acts 17:11 "... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.[1]", and many of them believed. --> these "scriptures" were the Septuagint only and maybe the Gospel of Mark and Matthew. The Gospel of John wouldn't be written for some more decades, and Acts hadn't been written yet, and neither any of the epistles. So, in short, these folks were OT alone -- and nothing else. Is that only what's in your bible? Furthermore, context, context, context, read the preceeding and following lines 10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. So, they did rely on a man's word initially -- two men, Paul and Silas who spread the Good News amongs them. Then they checked the OT to see if the references to the Christ were correct. And also, the Berean Church included GREEKS -- who wouldn't have read the scriptures as they were not of Jewish origin, they took the Gospel for what Paul and Silas preached, tradition alone, not scripture. Furthermore, note what happened before -- in Thessalonia. There, "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" --> THESE THESALLONIANS were sola scriptura folks who disagreed with Paul and Silas' interpretation of scriptures (the OT) on the Christ. Remember, both the Thesalonians in the passages before this and the Bereans were Jews who studied the OT for the references of Jesus being the Christ. Why did they study this? because of the ORAL TRADITION that Paul and Silas brought, claiming Jesus Christ was the Son of God. The Thesalonians rejected this as "it weren't in scripture, sola scriptura", while the Bereans accepted Holy Tradition, i.e. ORAL teaching by Paul and Silas. if anything, the tale of the Bereans shows the error of SOLA scriptura.
The Thesalonians	The key point about the jealousy of the Thesalonians is this: along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women It's clear that that was the reason for the "jealousy" -- yet also note that only "some" of the Jews were persuaded -- the others rejected the ORAL Gospel as being outside scripture. These were the early sola-scriptura-types. In contrast we have the Bereans who accepted non-SCRIPTURA information, namely the ORAL Gospel --> something that the sola-scriptura folks of today would reject.
The Bereans	As this article posted by bkaycee says The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul's new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded-not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280). And, as the article posted by bkaycee itself points out From the perspective of sola scriptura types, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.

[Iscool]

And you reject so much of it. The Holy Scripture is indeed important and God breathed, but it is NOT the entire Revealed Word.

What is the rest of the Revealed word and to whom and when was it revealed???

[presently no screen name]

WRONG! This Catholic has complete "faith in God that He has given ALL He knows we need." Evidently, there is a huge mistake in your post.

'Ya think? Who follows man made doctrine? Who believes God's Word is not the Final Authority. Not one who has COMPLETE trust in God/His Word alone.

[Cronos]

quix: TO SCRIPTURE AS THE ISSUE SETTLING AUTHORITY.

yet, you, Quix, say "Christ said lots of things that were NOT EnScripturated and not intended to be—2,000 years ago AND SINCE."

So, you believe "Christ said lots of things that were NOT EnScripturated and not intended to be—2,000 years ago AND SINCE." and you contradict yourself here? Why?

[Cronos]

quix: TO SCRIPTURE AS THE ISSUE SETTLING AUTHORITY.

yet, you, Quix, say "Christ said lots of things that were NOT EnScripturated and not intended to be—2,000 years ago AND SINCE. Truth from Christ is still truth from Christ"

So, you believe "Christ said lots of things that were NOT EnScripturated and not intended to be—2,000 years ago AND SINCE. Truth from Christ is still truth from Christ" and you contradict yourself here? Why?

[Cronos]

To quix

Romans 11:8 as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”
Exactly – this perfectly describes those who refuse to acknowledge Christ’s words about baptism for the remission of sins   Acts 2:38, 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 22:16; 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name. Rom. 6:1–4; 1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 1 Cor 6:11, 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God 1 Cor 12:13; 13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

[Iscool]

Not every word, deed, and teaching example of Jesus is recorded in the Bible.

What are the teaching examples put out by Jesus that we can not find in the Bible???