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.

[D-fendr]

Yes, I thought I was wrong once, but I made a mistake.

Article 19 says the Church of Rome erred. Article 21 says Anglican authorities can err - “unless...”

All Protestants authorities agree on the first one - tis what makes them Protestants.

What you won’t find though is Protestants saying *their* beliefs, statement of faith, confession, etc. is fallible.

[Cronos]

MD: 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.

Yet pnsm says only we have it. I wonder if that means that he doesn't have the Y chromosone? Is that what the post means?

[Cronos]

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

The same guy who has a tag line Biblical Unitarian

cool, so now the sola scriptura guys are here to prove that there is no trinity?

[OLD REGGIE]

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???

Ah, and there is the rub. According to the CCC Revelation is complete.

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

Of course the standard disclaimer applies. 'Revelation is complete but we don't yet "understand" it fully.' That's where the Magisterium comes in.

When you are dealing with the Catholic Church remember this: There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear it cannot be denied, modified, or re-interpreted as required.

[Natural Law]

"Ah, and there is the rub."

Alright, you don't accept Trinitarian Christianity and have a particular heartburn over Catholicism, we get it. That places you at odds with 99+% of all Christians who have ever lived. That makes you insignificant, unimportant, and irrelevant to this Forum. Now go bother someone who cares.

[OLD REGGIE]

Petros

1. Have you read Matthew? You don't see the part where Jesus gives Simeon a different name -- Petros/Kepha/Piotr/Pierre? And don't you know that Petros/Kepha/Pierre means ROCK? Simeon was his original name and is from Hebrew שִׁמְעוֹן Šimʻôn, meaning "he [God] has heard." Yet in

Matthew 16:18And I tell you that you are Kepha/Petros/Petra/Rock/Peter,[c] and on this kepha/petra/rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven

Jesus did not give Peter a new name in Matthew 16:18.

The very first time Jesus met Simon He said "you shall be called Cephas."

I have taken the liberty of posting the appropriate verse from three Catholic Bibles.

John 1:42
(Douay-Rheims)And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

(RSV - Ignatius Edition) He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter *).

(NAB) Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; 30 you will be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).

Matthew 16:18 is not a new event, simply a repeat of the name He had already given to Peter.

How much did the "Rockyness" of Peter mean to Jesus? Consider how He addressed Peter the last time recorded in Scripture.

(NAB) John 21:
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16 A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Is it that Jesus never considered Peter as the ROCK in the first place?

[smvoice]

Not only that, but look at Acts 15:14. James the president of the first general council of Christians at Jerusalem, refers to him as Simeon.

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying Men and brethren, hearken unto me:" Acts 15:13.

"Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles..." Acts 15:14.

Pope Pete 1 had just finished his magnificent argument at the council, a great and mighty speech, and ...James...half-brother of Jesus...called him...Simeon. WHAT?!?! Call Pope Peter, the ROCK, Simeon? What was going on there? TRUTH. Truth was going on there. Truth B.C.E. (Before Catholic Editing)

[OLD REGGIE]

"Ah, and there is the rub."

Alright, you don't accept Trinitarian Christianity and have a particular heartburn over Catholicism, we get it. That places you at odds with 99+% of all Christians who have ever lived. That makes you insignificant, unimportant, and irrelevant to this Forum. Now go bother someone who cares.

Brilliant response!

If you can't deal with the truth your only recourse is ignorant insult. Keep up the good work!

Time to go back to your day job.

[Natural Law]

"Time to go back to your day job."

What makes you think I am an attorney? As for your profession I see you have many of the skills to be a pretty good aphodiinae.

[D-fendr]

Of course the standard disclaimer applies. 'Revelation is complete but we don't yet "understand" it fully.'

Of course. How could anyone understand it fully until Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Unitarians, Duplantis, Hinn, Crouch, Old Reggie, etc. etc. came along.

[D-fendr]

No rocks, no solid ground, Christian or anything or nothing, it's all the same. It's your church's way.

As there is no official Unitarian Universalist creed, Unitarian Universalists are free to search for truth on many paths.

We welcome people who identify with and draw inspiration from Atheism and Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, Judaism, Paganism, and other religious or philosophical traditions.
UUA Source

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Romans 3:
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

Great Scripture, Old Reggie.

Since Roman Catholics don't read either the Old or New Testaments, it's no surprise they miss this truth.

There's a deep anti-Semitism in Rome and it's centuries old.

"The Popes Against the Jews:
The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism"
by David I. Kertzer

[Mad Dawg]

I don’t understand the significance of the use of name v. cognomen. I just always figured it was like a Russian novel.

[Natural Law]

"THE POPES AGAINST THE JEWS"

This really is like playing Whack-a-Mole. No matter how many times the lies are refuted they find a way to pop up again from the same old holes.

How many times are Luther and Zwingli cited as antisemitic sources? How about those Protestant paragons of Nazi virtue Bishop Martin Sasse or Reichbishop Ludwig Müller.

Better yet, let's cite that beacon of light and tolerance John Calvin who said in his "Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio,":

Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.

[presently no screen name]

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

I'll tell you why you don't know and why you can't rise above this foolish - intellectual dishonesty, intellectual laziness, or intellectual limitations and as - an attempt to belittle - which is the catholic way - you don't know why because His Word is spiritually discerned.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned".

So all your "intellectually" - being wise in your own eyes - is leaning unto your own understanding.

And you know what that is called? DISOBEDIENCE!

’”but it had not yet been put to paper,

You think The Word became The Word when it was written?

"It is written" obviously means something other than putting quill to parchment, pencil to paper or chisel to stone

OBVIOUSLY? - More leaning unto your own understanding - and MORE disobedience. Don't strain the peanut brain - the things of God need spiritual discernment.

Get this - when God says HIS WORD is spiritually discerned - that's what HE MEANS. You've shown foolishness and lack of understanding - for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them.

[johngrace]

I just read the original post. Well, I have been reading you for years even when I did not join. I think since 2004 0r 2005 the years can be so long to get it right. Then joined later. Since joining I have got to know you and many others on both sides of issue. I am Happy to know all. I found some beautiful Godly people. I want to say on freepers you are our Quix on this site.

I have grown to understand you better through messaging. Out of all the others with different views you will explain with patience your view privately like a gentleman. I do not think too many have done that with opposing view. Your Bold letters can be scary. LOL!! I would not want be on a politically correct site either. We can all have differences of opinion in Christ( 1John4). Ultimately its his Divine Mercy not mine or yours but His our savior. I also use to believe the views you had in my Indy church period. I believe God sees what with all the enemy throws at us. He will meet us. "A humble and contrite heart he will not ignore." Never mind your wrong I am right.

I always had the Holy Spirit either way. We see things darkly as if thru a mirror at times.(1 Corinthians 13:12) Some of us more than others- of course a matter of opinion. LOL!!

Praise Jesus! Amen!!

[Mad Dawg]

It's really just silly.

You know the saying, "No man is a hero to his valet." Someone who was clearly a snob, but not without reason, said, "The reason is not that he's not a hero, but that the valet is a valet."

Everyone should read "Pilgrim's Progress". It is a lesser classic of the Western World and a delight.

It from that great work that we get the term "muckraker." Bunyan describes a character who is so intent on raking filth that he has lost interest in anything that is not filth.

I have the honor of working (in a VERY minor way) with a genius poet on a collection of poems about disabled veterans. She has the gift of looking at what could seem repellent and dreadful and helping us see the beauty of heroism. She is a pagan, avowedly, though sometimes I think she's just tweaking me.

How embarrassing to turn from a pagan with a piercing eye for true beauty to Christians who, if they cannot find filth, will invent some, or look with filthy vision until everything looks dirty!

[Quix]

Well put.

Thanks for your kind words.

I cherish you and the dialogues, too.

[Mad Dawg]

FR REALLY needs a ‘like’ button.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Why not buy the book and read it? Or get it used from Amazon? Or check it out of the library?