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]

Why the Roman Catholic Church choose the title and gave it to Mary is what is in question.

Why... it's Satan of course !

Now, back to the comic books..

[Mad Dawg]

Why the Roman Catholic Church choose the title and gave it to Mary is what is in question.

And here's the answer:

(1)She is mother of the King of Kings. In that connection it is somewhat like the "courtesy title" given to the late mother of the Queen of England.

(2)All the blessed will be kings and priests. Mary is, we hold, pre-eminent among the blessed. And the form of address for kings of the extreme opposite sex is "Queen."

[Mad Dawg]

Well, thanks for the question and thanks for the generous response to my babbling. Here's an attempt at an answer:

First, what does "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" mean?

(1) On the theological level, it means that, before the eschaton you can't leave the Church, because the Church will not give up on you. And we do not think of the Catholic Church as a "denomination". We don't think that the whole Church is confined to the Catholic Church of coterminous with it.We DO think that the plene esse the full being of "churchyness" (well mixed with tares, chopped and stirred) is found among those in communion with the Holy See. And that Church won't give up until the end. It's like that book we used to read to our daughter, I think it was "The Runaway Bunny"?

(2) It means that a person who received all those sacraments 'n stuff does not have to be RE-initiated to "come back". On the ground, we usually have a couple of people in RCIA who quit going to Mass and/or started going somewhere else, but they don't HAVE to go to RCIA. They're there because they want to get their head back into it. But if they go to confession and get their accounts current, then they're back receiving Communion.

SORT of related: I was enjoying the idea this AM that I am NOT a member of "the Church of Rome!" If you want to get all technical, I am a member of "the Church of Richmond (VA)," which is in communion with the Church of Rome.
====

As to the bigger questions: I know we come across legalistic and certainly we are thought of as legalistic. But I think your approach to the question of the anathemas is, um, legalistic. So try this:

First, sins have (at least) two aspects, the deed itself and the intention of the sinner. Take artificial birth control (hereinafter ABC). I think that there are objective spiritual, physical, and societal harms which result from the use of ABC. That's about "the sin itself."

But if I, being all smart and things and having thought about the issue, were to use ABC, say because I REALLY wanted to have sex NOW with such and such a person, that would be a very grave matter. My conscience says it's wrong, my teachers say it's wrong, I AGREE that it's wrong, and I'm throwing all that overboard because I'm, uh, riled up. I think that pretty much makes it over the bar for "mortal sin" with inches to spare.

But take some person who is baptized, etc. Catholic and knows the teaching, but is a survivor of modern public edumication and a reader of Time or Newsweek and not much else and whose family were "Christmas and Easter Catholics" or even became, as often happens, Episcopalians because they wanted to use ABC.

Clearly, there are some spiritual matters to be very concerned about. (Can you say "lukewarm?" I thought you could!) I'm kind of thinking if I were the local go-to guy on spiritual stuff, my first concern with such a person would not be ABC but "Why don't you jump up and down because of what IHS has done for you?" That is, my first goal would be more evangelical than anything else. (It's my pet theory that most of our spiritual problems arise from forgetting, or not knowing, that Jesus loves us and failing to consider how earth-shakingly amazing that is.)

So in this second case there are serious spiritual problems but ABC is not one of the first ones.

So with the Marian dogmata. I REALLY think that agreement with those definitions enhances one's understanding of and joy in and 'consolation' derived from the Salvation wrought by Christ. So I think there is objective harm done (or objective good NOT done) when the dogmata are not believed.

But again, the intentional "surround", the context of the will, provides such important and 'qualifying' information that what would be mere (and dreadful) stubborn pride and disobedience "in the first degree" in one person is, while still objectively harmful, not at all as grave in another.

Did I get somewhere close to your question?

[OLD REGGIE]

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.

I have no theory, novel or otherwise. I simply quoted Jerome.

Your argument is with Jerome and/or the accuracy of the document "Against Helvidius".

Is it possible to limit the scope of this discussion to the accuracy of the quote in question? Smoke bombs are useful in combat, not this discussion.

[OLD REGGIE]

"...The truth is that the Protoevangelium was circulated and read widely amongst Christians and formed much of the traditions that developed before NT Scripture was compiled."

Simply one more forgery which was read and circulated. False Tradition is still false, pious or not.

[Iscool]

Sounds like a commune of sorts, with the Apostles as heads of a benevolent theocracy. I doubt that that would go over well with most Westerners. So we have the point where the Church, in Scripture was given authority and we can accept that, or else we have the individual picking not only the Scripture that he wants, but then puts his own interpretation on it.

You're calling the Apostles, the clergy, the hierarchy the Church...

You couldn't be further from the truth...

[OLD REGGIE]

Alexandria was a great base for the early Church. Remember that Augustine was from Hippo, in the area. Irenaeus was from Alexandria, as well as Athenasius and Cyril. The Septuagint was written in Alexandria, by the way.

There is no such thing as The Septuagint.

[bkaycee]

"...The truth is that the Protoevangelium was circulated and read widely amongst Christians and formed much of the traditions that developed before NT Scripture was compiled."

Simply one more forgery which was read and circulated. False Tradition is still false, pious or not.

The TRUTH? The truth is that this was a forgery, NOT written by James. Condemned by the Church!

AND yet this apochryphal fabrication is BELIEVED more than the actual WORD of GOD!

[Iscool]

Tell me again what your explanation of the keys are, and what binding and loosing on earth and heaven mean?

I don't think you'd believe it if you knew...But what's more important is that I posted the verses that show there is no physical, Catholic, human Kingdom of God on Earth...

So Jesus is gonna pop up from behind a wall one of these days and say "Just fooling"?

Nope...He isn't foolin'...But he is coming back one day soon and He's going to pluck a bunch of you people off the earth and when you bow on your knees, Jesus is going to ask you why you didn't study the words, the voice of God in the scriptures, why you didn't believe Him...

You're admitting me? Does that mean I get to sit in the LaZBoy Throne in the Hall of Sunday Sports Theology at least once?

I don't do sports...I do Bible...You should try it sometime...

[Iscool]

Which Apostles gave us the Scripture and when?

The Apostles and the Disciples gave us the scriptures orally when they were taught them from God and then in written form when the Disciples put their teaching to papyrus...

Sure, at Councils such as Nicea, Constantinople and Hippo.

No, long before that...God had nothing to do with your man made councils...

I don't have a religion. I follow the Faith handed down to us from the Apostles who got it from Jesus. That is outlined in the NT Scripture.

No you didn't...We have a written record of what the Apostles taught and they didn't teach anything like your religion puts out...That's how we know yours is not the real church...We have the written record...

[Iscool]

Christological definitions have been around for 1700 years

So what???

You don't believe in the Christian God as decreed in Nicea, you don't approve of the Theotokos, you don't believe in the Eucharist. If you don't mind me asking, just what makes you Christian?

Jesus Christ does...There's absolutely nothing I, you, or anyone else could do to become a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ, the church...

I've seen the Catholic literature and the personal posts that claim you Catholics are going to end up at the Great White Throne Judgment with the confidence that you've done enough good to pass the test...

I've already passed the test...Jesus stamped an A on my paper and I didn't even have to take the test...I'm good to go...

Probably won't get much in the way of rewards...I'm running the race for the rewards but I stumble over the hurdles quite a bit...

Jesus will save you, and give you assurance if you ask him...

[Scythian]

Well said (I am a former Catholic, now I’m a Christian)

[daniel1212]

You might appreciate post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2734217/posts?page=503#503 on interpretation

[D-fendr]

Your argument is with Jerome

What? Your theory that James was the blood brother of Jesus is the same theory as Helvidius, which St. Jerome refutes.

[D-fendr]

You can call yourself whatever you wish. However, most would say if you don’t believe Jesus is God, you aren’t a Christian.

[Iscool]

Well said (I am a former Catholic, now I’m a Christian)

Amen...

[OLD REGGIE]

You might appreciate post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2734217/posts?page=503#503 on interpretation

Interestingly, or not, there is no Catholic Teaching which lists the "Infallible" declarations of the Popes or, for that matter, of the "Ecumenical" Councils.

[OLD REGGIE]

Your argument is with Jerome

What? Your theory that James was the blood brother of Jesus is the same theory as Helvidius, which St. Jerome refutes.

Frankly, I believe Jesus had younger brothers and sisters as was to be expected of a normal Jewish marriage.

However, I did not state this in my post #869.

James - older or younger than Jesus?

I did raise some questions which you made no attempt to answer.

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

I stated no theory. To the contrary, I stated a fact.

Jerome believed Joseph was also a Perpetual Virgin!

[MarkBsnr]

E-gip-shuns! (Don’t get them started on the Syrians.)

Or like a certain friend of ours who doesn't believe what he believes, yet knows that Tarsus is in Syria.

[HarleyD]

Who made you the arbiter of anyone’s religious beliefs?

I'm not sure exactly of the exchange that took place but I was pinged to it as of possible interest.

From my perspective it is of great importance that one comes to a "correct" and right understanding of the truth. We are commanded in scripture to sharpen one another like iron sharpens iron. If I felt that you were holding erroneous beliefs (which I do believe Catholics to be in severe error) then I would be remiss to God in not proclaiming the truth and corrective action. Think of Paul discussions with the Judaizers. Clearly he would not have said (and never did), "Well, I'm not an arbitrator of anyone religious beliefs so it doesn't matter what you believe." Paul was very clear how important right teaching was. In my opinion, it is just as important for Christians to come to a right understanding as it is for someone to come to a knowledge of God. It is shocking the laisse faire attitude many Christians take in getting to know God through His holy scriptures.

Correct teaching is not something to be taken lightly. God commands in many places that we study and teach correctly the word of God. We bring down judgment on our head and others when we fail to do so. I have suggested on a number of occasions out here that the reason society is breaking down is simply because Christians fail to uphold the teaching of scripture. Besides doctrinal issues, when you have the Pope kissing the Koran or trying to get along with other faiths there are some serious issues. It doesn't matter how appalled, outrageous or offensive you might find others to be. A question you might ask yourself is whether you were appalled, outraged, or offended by the Pope kissing the Koran? If not, why not?

I would recommend an independent examination of the scriptures.