You can interpret it the way you like but the NT says otherwise and so does the lexicon:
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli thought otherwise.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
Sorry, but your lexicon states that. Brother is used numerous ways in the Bible, and it does not always mean blood brother. Nowhere does it say that those were Mary’s Sons.
St. Jerome in his work against Helvidious, goes against the view that Mary had other children. He was the greatest bible scholar in the history of the Church, fluent in Hebrew, Latin and Greek and lived in the 4th century.
Now, going even further back, with respect to Mary’s perpetual Virginity, there was no Church Father, Bishop of Church Council that interpreted the NT in way that led to the conclusion that Mary had any other children besides Christ. In fact, as early as Origen [185-254], in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew states that Mary was ever-virgin and the tradition that was passed down was that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were Joseph’s children by another woman as again, nowhere does it state that Mary was their Mother. Even before Origen’s time, St. Irenaus in his work “Against Heresies [circa 185 AD]” refers to Mary as “Mary the Virgin” and before that, St. Justin Marytr in his work Dialogue with Trypho [circa 155AD] refers to Mary as the “Virgin Mary” and St. Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Church at Ephesus [circa 107AD] speaks of the Virginity of Mary.
Now, it is interesting for the Fathers of the 2nd century to describe someone as a “Virgin” if they were not one as that is a “binary” description [either one is a Virgin or not]. One could refer to Mary as something other than “Virgin” and still maintain the doctrine of the “Virgin Birth” by clearly stating Mary conceived Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit. So what we have is clear teaching from Apostolic Tradition from a large consensus of the Church Fathers affirming the perpetual virginity of Mary.
So the notion of Mary as ever-virgin was well established in the 2nd/3rd century. As we move to the 4th century, we see more clear statements from all the orthodox Church Fathers of the West and East. For example, St. Athanasius [295-373] in his work “Discourse against the Arians{360AD}” speaks of Mary as “ever-virgin.” St. Gregory of Nysaa [335-396] in his work “Virginity {370AD}” speaks of Mary and her perpetual virginity. St. Ephiphanius of Salamis [315-402] in his work “The Well Anchored Man {374AD}” speaks of Mary as the “Holy and Ever Virgin Mary”. St Gregory of Nazianz in his work “Oratation on Holy Lights {381AD}”speaks or Mary as the “Virgin Mary”
St. Ambrose of Milan in his work “The consecration of a virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary” written in 392AD is a treatise defending Mary’s perpetual virginity.
St. Jerome [347-420] writing against the heretic Helvidius [which I alluded to earlier] “blasts him” for proposing Mary was not ever-Virgin and Helvidius reliance on Tertullian, who had left Catholic Orthodoxy for the Montanist heretical group is clearly articulated by Jerome that Tertullian’s embracing of the Montanist meant he was no longer a man of the Church. Jerome also clearly states, nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we ever read that Mary had other children.
St. Augustine’s writings [354-430] are filled with statements affirming Mary’s perpetual virginity. For example, in his Sermons [391-430] he speaks of Mary as “Virgin conceiving, Virgin bearing, Virgin pregnant, Virgin bringing forth, and Virgin-perpetual”. In another works entitled “On Virginity” written circa 401 AD, he writes in reference to Christ and Mary that in being born of a Virgin, who chose to remain a virgin, Christ wished to affirm Virginity without imposing it. In another work entitled “Heresies” written in 420 AD, he writes “heretics called Antidicomarities are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined with her husband”.
St. Cyril of Alexandria writing around the time of the Council of Ephesus (431AD) in a work entitled “Against those who do Not wish to confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God” writes that Christ kept his Mother a Virgin even after her child-bearing, which was done for none of the other saints”
So while the need to Define Mary as the Mother of God resulted in that being clearly dogmatized at the Council of Ephesus, as it related to a Christological heresy [Nestorianism], the clear teaching of the Church Fathers on the perpetual virginity of Mary was so well taught that it was never challenged that it needed to be hammered out at a Council, although it is clear the Council of Ephesus in using the title of “Holy Virgin” clearly is a dogmatic statement implicit in the Council of Ephesus 431AD.
In addition it seems to me that perhaps Luther and Calvin were well versed enough in Church History and the Fathers to realize that the only groups to challenge Mary’s perpetual virginity were the Anticicomarites that St. Augustine referred to [the name literally means against-Mary] and that sect evolved from the Ebionities, a 2nd century sort of Gnostic sect that ST. Ireneaus wrote against and folks like Tertullian in his Montanist period and Helvidius who St. Jerome wrote against.
So while Luther and Calvin did not put Mary’s perpetual virginity into their respective Confessions, they nevertheless did not refute Mary’s perpetual virginity since it was so clearly taught by all the orthodox Church Fathers who read the same NT texts that you and I read.
.
Brothers are cousins - Yo bro”
If Jesus had a sibling line we wou;ld know about it for sure