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.

[Iscool]

The word of God vs. the Vatican...

[Iscool]

Remember that Church tradition preceded the NT Scripture, not vice versa.

There wasn't any actual church tradition as your religion defines it before the apostles gave us the scriptures...

The apostles were starting the church...And God made changes along the way to counter the changing conditions on the ground...

What the apostles taught was ultimately committed to written scripture and that oral teaching was the only good tradition referred to in the scriptures...

You guys (including your popes, bishops and whoever) don't even know there is no physical Kingdon of God on earth but you act as tho you guys are biblical and Christian authorities...

You ought to 'chuck' everything you learned from your religion and open the word of God and start anew...

[Iscool]

The word of God vs. the Vatican...

[Iscool]

She is the mother of Jesus and therefore as the mother of the King; according to Biblical example, she is queen. Not wife/harlot.

You guys also tell us Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit/God...That makes Mary the Mother of God and the wife of God...

Yet, Mary's also a child of God...That makes her Jesus brother as well...

That's quite a deity you got going there...

Pagans worship the same Mary but they call her Ishtar...

[dangus]

Thanks. We all get hot-headed around here, myself included, and sometimes it’s very easy to not see how someone will parse a sentence in a way to find greater flaws than were intended. So I greatly appreciate when someone responds with other than more bombast! Because you asked, and not because I want to keep the issue alive, the specific quote was this one, from post 780:

Resorting to your typically juvenile insults is indicative of an [empty hat]. If you have no answer resort to loud stupidity.

[dangus]

The KJV pulls a little shell game, here. The name translated as “Joses” is the same name translated elsewhere in Matthew as “Joseph,” and the name translated as “Judas” is the same as the name translated elsewhere as “Jude.”

So, the question the Jews asked was “And his brethren, James, and Joseph and Simon and Jude?”

This brings to light two problems with interpreting “brethren” narrowly:

Jesus was certainly the firstborn. Why would a second (or likely third, since James was apparently also older) child be named after the father?

James and Jude are the names of his two apostles who are identified as sons of (or from) Alphaeus. Their mother is also called “Mary.” But this Mary is not the same Mary as was the mother of Jesus, for she is listed separately with Mary, the mother of Jesus.

The ancient Jews did not distinguish between “cousin” and “brother.” Someone translating from Hebrew to Greek might well use “adelphos” (brother) instead of “anepsios” (cousin), especially since “anepsios” also means “nephew,” and the Greeks did commonly use “adelphos” to refer to brothers, not cousins. In fact, “anepsos” is where we get the word “nephew,” and King James translated it as “sister’s son” in Col 4:10, the only place where it occurs.

[dangus]

I mean,
“and the Greeks did commonly use “adelphos” to refer to cousins, not only brothers”

[OLD REGGIE]

Thanks. We all get hot-headed around here, myself included, and sometimes it’s very easy to not see how someone will parse a sentence in a way to find greater flaws than were intended. So I greatly appreciate when someone responds with other than more bombast! Because you asked, and not because I want to keep the issue alive, the specific quote was this one, from post 780:

Resorting to your typically juvenile insults is indicative of an [empty hat]. If you have no answer resort to loud stupidity.

LOL, we're missing connections here. I was looking for the "correct argument" I called "loud stupidity".

"As for “resorting to typically juvenile insults,” it is ironic that OLD REGGIE is name-calling, posting silly pictures and referring to Cronos’ correct argument as “loud stupidity.”

[OLD REGGIE]

Jesus was certainly the firstborn. Why would a second (or likely third, since James was apparently also older) child be named after the father?

Jesus was not the son of Joseph, but of God, and He was named by God.

Matthew 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."

Further, if James was older than Jesus he would have accompanied his parents to the Passover.

Luke 2:
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom;

That is, assuming James was not so much older he was no longer with the immediate family. This leaves the whole nuther problem of the "much older James and his brothers accompanying Mary during Jesus' ministry.

(Of course this is assuming Joseph ever had any children and was also, as according to Jerome, a Perpetual Virgin.

[OLD REGGIE]

I note that he seems to have no issues with under handed non Christian tactics in lieu of any reasonable argument.

I think he's ringing up some sizable purgatory time with each slander :).

Not to worry. With enough monetary support from your friends? it is possible to purchase enough (free?) Indulgences from the Treasury Of Merit to get a free pass out of Purgatory.

[D-fendr]

according to Jerome

That would be St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church and translator of both Old and New Testaments. The treatise where he refutes the same views we see arising again more than 1,500 years later is Against Helvidius, c. 383. In it he covers the topics of this thread and notes the theory's novelty:

Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy? who thought the theory worth two-pence? You have gained your desire, and are become notorious by crime.

[OLD REGGIE]

according to Jerome

That would be St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church and translator of both Old and New Testaments. The treatise where he refutes the same views we see arising again more than 1,500 years later is Against Helvidius, c. 383. In it he covers the topics of this thread and notes the theory's novelty:

Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy? who thought the theory worth two-pence? You have gained your desire, and are become notorious by crime.

I'm afraid I miss your point. Do you take issue with my claim that Jerome thought of Joseph as a Perpetual Virgin?

Do you claim the following is not a direct quote of Jerome in the treatise "Against Helviduis"?

" You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin."

[D-fendr]

The purpose was to link the full document - which refutes most if not all of the questions on this thread; to note the novelty of your theory among early Christians, and to borrow the Doctor’s comments apropos same.

[boatbums]

does this mean that your group,Lera, would consider Jesus a pagan god because of titles given that are similar to pagan gods titles? So, does one say that because we use the term "God of Light" for Jesus, Jesus is some kind of pagan god? Just because there were pagan gods who used the same title? Really?

I don't think it should be any surprise at all that Satan uses ALL titles and ALL glory that belongs to God alone in order to deceive. Jesus Christ IS THE ONLY TRUE Lord of Lords, King of Kings, True God of True God, etc., alone. The point being made is NOT that satanic worship seeks to usurp the majesty and glory that is by all rights God's alone, it is that the very term "Queen of Heaven" was used by those who worshiped a false god. Nowhere in Scripture is Mary called the Queen of Heaven, however, all throughout Scripture Jesus, who is Almighty God incarnate, IS accorded those titles as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. There is no Scriptural warrant for attributing Mary the title of Queen of Heaven. Why the Roman Catholic Church choose the title and gave it to Mary is what is in question.

[boatbums]

To ME and to all of orthodoxy, we say "Big deal, the same title used", but to Lera's post which says "Pagan title used means the person is a pagan deity", this shows that her post has flawed logic

I also say Big Deal because, of course, we know Satan wants to take Almighty God's place, he has always sought to do that. What I understand from Lera's post is that no place in Scripture is the title Queen of Heaven used to describe Mary. It is only stated in Scripture that that title is used for a false god so it is understandable that it would draw into question WHY the RCC used such a title for Mary. But scripture is very clear the true God is the only one who deserves the titles of King of Kings, the Only Potentate, the Savior of mankind. It is also curious that the Hymn to Osiris says:

O thou great one, thou chief of thy divine brethren, thou prince of the company of the gods, thou establisher of Maat throughout the two lands, who placest thy son upon the great throne of his father Seb, the darling of his mother Nut.

I see that the Catholic Church never refers to Mary as "Nut". ;o)

It is also revealing that Osiris is called "prince of the company of the gods", because the true God states that there are no other gods but Him.

[boatbums]

Do tell your sect to throw away the false logic that Jesus is a pagan God just because He was given the same titles as them..

True to form. Exactly what I told you happens. Fail to answer in a way only acceptable to him, the dishonest person then assumes you ascribe to his false categorization and then proceeds to run with that to condemn everyone else who might be aligned with you. Ignoring that person is the only logical response. Sad.

[madison10]

That's quite a deity you got going there....

LOL

[boatbums]

I "practice" what was well known in the early church, what we now call Sola Scriptura.

Cyril of Jerusalem also practiced it. "Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures" Catechetical Lectures 4.17.

I do not kneel down and pray to the Bible. I do not light candles to the bible. I do not address the Bible as God. There is one God that I pray to.

Amen! I'm with you.

[boatbums]

We are told that the VERY WORD OF GOD is insufficient and we must believe apocryphal fables, forgeries, and lies starting with the Author who was certainly NOT James. Writings condemned by a Pope, now contain the real truth!!!

But of course! How else to control the sheep???

[boatbums]

The "Roman church" whatever it is invented nothing about Mary. It appears to have developed or at least been in common use in the Egyptian area and spread to the other areas. During the fourth century,

"It appears to have developed in the Egyptian area"... yep, that certainly explains the point Lera was making about the false gods like Osiris and Isis being transferred from the pagan religions into Christianity. Isis, Venus, Athena - all false goddesses whose legends and powers were taken and infused into a Christian faith under the guise of Mary which was taken over by false leaders who did not believe what they believed.