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]

Then we get into the battle of the scholars. LOL.

[Cronos]

pnsm: Lots of confusion there.

judith -- the Trinity can be confusing to a lot of folks. hence the retreat back to saying Jesus was just a good man or the second-last prophet. Simplicity and submission

[Titanites]

"I saw Him! I saw Elohim, Jehovah God, Yahweh" vs. "no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see".

I know which I believe. It is WRITTEN.

[Cronos]

pnsm: they only exist to go against His Word and honor man.

His Word, the Word of God is Jesus Christ and yes Jesus Christ was 100% man and 100% God -- that's what we Christians believe. Don't you?

[Natural Law]

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

Your denial aside, the Holy Traditions of the Church comprise a lot of it. Were all that is necessary containable in a Book God would have repeated the Mosaic process and sent the Gospel on Stone Tablets. Instead He sent His Son to establish a Church.

[Cronos]

pnsm: So it seems you are implying that the Adam/Eve Disease is contagious

So, don't you believe in Original Sin/Original Stain? really?

[Quix]

Some seem to forget or be unaware . . .

that their absurd convoluted manipulations of Scripture coupled with their posting history results in more obnoxious silly tedium than is remotely attractive at this point in the process.

They may convince themselves that their manipulations are brilliant and even applicable.

They may even think that their Alice-in-Wonderland-thought processes are logical, practical, functional, accurate.

However, I don’t know of anything short of HOLY SPIRIT’S ENLIGHTENMENT IN LEADING THEM INTO THE WHOLE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE that can break through their denial and rationalizations.

And, with some, given their hop-skip and jump hermeneutics . . . it’s not remotely attractive to bother with them any more. There must be some salty river rocks they can go suck on somewhere.

I’ve given in their behalf at home and at the office fairly endlessly. They have no more claim on my assistance, imho.

[Titanites]

AND HE referred NOT TO HIMSELF, NOT EVEN TO THE FATHER BUT TO SCRIPTURE AS THE ISSUE SETTLING AUTHORITY

Here're some more, in addition to those I posted previously:

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves."

Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you

So that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.

We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

[Mad Dawg]

You said:
... how's that for preservation?

I said,as quoted by you :Perseveration is neither evidence nor argument.

You wrote about:	P R E S E R V A T I O N
I wrote about:	P E R S E V E R A T I O N

You can see that they are different words. So I don't see how your response relates to my remark.

[D-fendr]

Jesus is the Word and was the Word made flesh, not a book.

Some here seem incapable of distinguishing between the two. Blatant bibliolatry - and proud of it.

[Mad Dawg]

It’s my impression from years of RF combat (wanna see my medals?) that there are some who think that original sin (or the curse of Adam or whatever you want to call it — the result of the disobedience, in any case) is actually transmitted by the ‘Y’ chromosome, and that that’s part of why Jesus, if he were to be sinless had to have NOT had a human father.

[wmfights]

They have bet their eternity on trusting fallible men to be faultless based only upon those very men's proclamation of infallibility.

Great insight, thanks.

[Judith Anne]

That is so bizarre. As if Mary didn’t need Christ as her Savior and Lord.

[D-fendr]

True.

And this explains the internet prayer:

“Y not me, Lord.”

[Mad Dawg]

Well, let me pick a nit.

Vatican I, in which papal infallibility was ‘defined’ was not one guy saying,”I’m infallible”, but a bunch of guys saying, “We’re infallible when we say that he’s infallible.” That’s a little different.

But still, we find in scripture talk of a gift of teaching. I guess it would be good to look at how good that gift can be if what is taught is not reliable.

And I guess your side has to say that the Council of Acts 15 could have been wrong when it said, “IT seems good to the Holy SPirit and to us,...” OR that that was the last council. And where would you find that in Scripture?

The idea CAN be expressed to make it look completely off the wall. But it can also be expressed to show its Biblical roots which make it a tad less bizarre.

[Mad Dawg]

LOL.

I HAD wondered ....

[D-fendr]

I haven’t checked, but I heard that the last line of the Westminster Confession of Faith is:

“But we could be wrong about all this.”

[Natural Law]

"'God's Word is not enough'"

I don't know if it is intellectual dishonesty, intellectual laziness, or intellectual limitations that have prevented you from grasping that "God's Word" is much more than the portion that was written. Jesus said: "It is written, ‘ MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’”, but it had not yet been put to paper, so "It is written" obviously means something other than putting quill to parchment, pencil to paper or chisel to stone. It means "contained within the Word of God", not necessarily the written Word.

You bibliolaters really need to get off the backs of Christians and look to your own salvation.

[OLD REGGIE]

"Prove it."

Prove the Scripture is true? Faith does not require proof.

The art of misdirection???

Here is what I asked you to prove:

"...Remember no bishop exists, or has ever existed who has not had the hands of a bishop placed upon him during ordination."

The above is not Scriptural. Again, I ask you to prove it.

[Mad Dawg]

Oops. Mad Dawgs can err too, and frequently do!
I should have said that I was referring to the Anglican “Articles of Religion” when I said the following.

Articles 19 and 21 aver that councils can err.

So what you’re left with is, “This is our best guess.”