Jesus As Mary's First-Born

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church ^

[Gamecock]

Question:

It is obvious that Mary had children after Jesus was born. As long as Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, why was it necessary that Mary have no previous children? I am not asking why it was necessary that Jesus be conceived by the Holy Spirit—I understand that. I guess my question is, Why would it matter that Mary had other children first, as long as Jesus was conceived by the Spirit?

Answer:

I agree with you that from what is said in Scripture, it appears to be "obvious that Mary had children after Jesus was born. " Take, for example, this passage:

2When the Sabbath came, he [Jesus] began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?".... (Mark 6:2-3, New International Version)

It has been argued (particularly by those who believe in the "perpetual virginity" of Mary) that the word translated "brother" (Greek "adelphos," as in "Philadelphia," "the city of brotherly love") might be taken as "cousin," but the context surely indicates that we are not talking about several households here, but one.

Incidentally, perhaps it should be noted in passing that although Jesus, James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon were all of the same household and all had Mary as their mother, Mary's husband Joseph was the physical father of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, but not of Jesus, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit (see Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35). Thus, technically speaking, Jesus and his "brothers" were "half-brothers," since they only shared the same mother, but it would certainly be understandable for those in Nazareth who personally knew of the family to regard the five sons as "brothers."

Consider, also, how this passage speaks of the birth of Jesus:

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him 'Immanuel' which means, 'God with us'." 24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (Matt. 1:22-25, NIV)

The words "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son" certainly seem to suggest that after Mary gave birth to Jesus, Joseph did have union with her and that, having given birth to one Child, she gave birth to other children as well.

But let's get to the heart of your question: "Why was it necessary that Mary have no previous children?.... Why would it matter that Mary had other children first, as long as Jesus was conceived by the Spirit?

Here's the simple answer: It was necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (Is. 7:14, NIV)

Speaking of the birth of Christ of a virgin, Matthew (as we have already seen) says this:

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel." (Matt. 1:22-23, NIV)

Although the exact meaning of the Hebrew word "'almah" in Isaiah 7:14 has been disputed (some—ignoring the context—take it as simply "young woman of marriageable age"), there is absolutely no dispute over the meaning of the Greek word "parthenos" in Matthew 1:23, which can have no other meaning than "virgin" (and Matthew 1:23 supplies us with an inspired interpretation of Isaiah 7:14).

Thus Scriptural prophecy found its fulfillment when our Savior was, in the familiar words of the Apostles' Creed, "conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary."

[metmom]

Prove those Greek words to be wrong and not the ones used in the Greek text used for our current translations.

This should be good......

[Iscool]

If Mary had other children, then Jesus would have given her to them. Instead, he gave her to John, the apostle at her side at the Cross.

Non Catholics are not limited with the burden of believing only what their religion demands...We see the scripture that tells that Jesus' siblings did not believe in him...They thought he was nuts...We know exactly why Jesus made the choice he did...

[metmom]

1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Galatians 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

[Iscool]

Jer 16:1-4 - Jeremiah told notto take wife & have children

Apples and oranges...You indicated it was 'couples' who chose to forgo sex to please God...

[Salvation]

Now you are thinking in present day terms instead of Israeli terms where the family lineage of was utmost importance.

[metmom]

You are probably correct...It's a relief to know that God has numerous brothers and sisters as well...If he's too busy, we can go to another one...

FOTFLOL!!!

[Iscool]

Was Timothy really Paul’s and somebody’s else’s brother? LOL!

Yes he was...In the context of the Greek word used for brothers...LOL...

[Iscool]

True — Who founded Marriage Encounter, anyway?

Who cares...God created the real marriage encounter...

[metmom]

If a single person wants to dedicate their life to God, people accept it, right?

Nobody has a problem with that. However, sex is not an option for a single person.

Well the same thing is true of several saints and their spouses, so why can’t that be accepted too?

Sure married people can commit themselves to the Lord as a married couple, but that does not preclude them having sex.

Say, about those questions I asked earlier about Catholics and their attitudes about sex. They still haven't been answered.

Here they are again to refresh your memory.....

2)Do Catholics think that it pleases God to deny themselves something He gave mankind?

3)Do Catholics think God hates sex?

4)Or that He considers sex between a husband and wife as a bad thing?

5)Or sin?

6)What makes Catholics think that foregoing a God given gift pleases Him?

7)Essentially, Catholicism teaches that sex is a bad thing, sin, or somehow displeasing to God. What is it with Catholicism’s warped view of sex anyway?

New question raised in response to first answer.....

8) A married couple abstaining from sex pleases God HOW?

9) How is giving up sex showing that a married couple *loves God more*?

The first one got answered so I didn't include it. But I guess y'all got busy and forgot to answer the rest.

[ravenwolf]

There’s already the weight of Scriptural support FOR His having brothers.

---

I did not really expect this of you but it appears that you are putting brothers here as if i were saying that Jesus had no brothers.

I have agreed several times that he had brothers
the question was not if he had brothers but if Mary had other children, totally misleading.

The fact that Jesus had brothers is no proof at all.

[ravenwolf]

After that, the prophecy was fulfilled and her continuing virginity is irrelevant to anything else Jesus did.

---

I agree, and i don,t know any thing about any one,s virginity.
or what it has to do with what i happen to believe.

[metmom]

Is there nothing that people will stop at rather than admit that Mary and Joseph had sex and had other children?

Aside from being a virgin when she got pregnant and gave birth, there is NO reason to expect her to remain one or concoct unbelievable stories about her and Joseph not consummating their marriage when Scripture says they did.

Joseph did not *know* Mary until AFTER she had given birth. It could not be any clearer; after she gave birth to Jesus and went through the period of cleansing required by the Law for a woman having given birth, Joseph had sex with her.

[ravenwolf]

Mary and Joseph had sex and had other children?

---

please tell me where that scripture is, maybe i missed it.

[Iscool]

3. Show us anything from before 100ad that demonstrates that Mary had no children after Jesus’ birth. If you don’t have it, it is made up out of whole cloth later in history to try to portray Mary as a virgin for all time. Heck, they go so far as to say Mary’s birth didn’t break her hymen. It is all bogus.

There is no biblical or logical reason to believe any of these man made fabrications about Mary unless your religion is pagan in nature...Outside of paganism, there is no need for a virgin mother of God...

[Iscool]

Also if these were literally brothers of Jesus they would also be brothers to each other but Joseph is not mentioned as the father.

There is no reason for Mary to have stayed a virgin...There would be no legitimate marriage without consummation...The bible lists the names of Jesus' brothers, and mentions his sisters...

That evidence alone far, far outweighs anything biblical that even hints that Mary stayed a virgin and did not have more children...In fact, there is nothing that even hints at Mary staying a virgin and not having children...It's a fabrication without any merit...

[Iscool]

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

Here is more from the site that you plagiarized which is here...

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" and did not use adelphosin one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what "brethren" or "brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

First off there are no insuperable problems because all of your (religion's) problems result from what the scriptures didn't say...You know, like the bible doesn't say Mary wasn't a continuous virgin, so she must have been...And the bible doesn't say she wasn't dragged to heaven while still alive, so she must have been...That's your insuperable problems...

So what's all that incoherrant mumbo jumbo above, adelphos and anepsios??? Mary called her cousin Elizabeth suggenēs, not anepsios...It's the word cousin...Because, Elizabeth was a cousin...

[Iscool]

You are looking at this through the eyes of man, not through the eyes of the Holy Spirit and God the Father.

You've got that exactly backwards...Here's the proof...Paul is talking about sexual relaitions here...

1Co 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

If you have sex, God says you are joined as one...MARRIED...If Mary was married, she was no longer a virgin...

Don't worry about what your religion tells you to believe...Read the scriptures...

[ravenwolf]

there is nothing that even hints at Mary staying a virgin and not having children...It’s a fabrication without any merit...

---

You are kidding me right? did i say anything about any one staying a virgin, God forbid, if you told anyone who knows me that i said something like that they would laugh you right out of town.

[boatbums]

It’s remarkable to watch you jump through hoops to avoid 2000 years of historical teaching based on theology. It’s like the teen son who shuns his father’s wisdom, proclaiming him to be out of touch with contemporary society.

That's funny...I'm not the one jumping through hoops or jumping to conclusions that have no basis in Holy Scripture. It is unavoidable that prophecy certainly DOES speak about Jesus and includes:

Because for Your sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. I have become estranged from my brothers And an alien to my mother's sons. For zeal for Your house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me. (Psalm 69:7-9)

A passage that WAS used to refer to Jesus in the New Testament (i.e., John 7:5; John 2:17). Now what hoops do Catholics have to jump through to avoid what the clear and historic teaching of God's word says?

[boatbums]

Or a bigamist, at least! ;o)