Apologetics 101: Why Does the Bible Say Jesus Had Brothers?

Aleteia ^ | April 7, 2015 | JOHN MARTIGNONI

[NYer]

Q:  What is this about the “brothers” of Jesus in the Bible?  Did Mary have other children besides Jesus?
 
A:  No.The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Yet, as you mention, the Bible does indeed mention the “brothers” of Jesus.  Mark 6:3, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon...”

The “brothers” of Jesus are clearly mentioned, and named, in the Bible. So, Mary must have had other children and the Catholic Church is wrong when it dogmatically teaches that she was a perpetual virgin, right? Well, not so fast.

First of all, let’s look at Matthew 27:55-56.  Here we see named some of the women who were at the Crucifixion. “There were also many women there, looking on from afar...among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses...”  It seems that the James and Joses identified in Mark 6:3 as the “brothers” of Jesus, indeed had a mother named Mary, but it was not the same Mary who was the mother of Jesus. 

Furthermore, let’s look at Galatians 1:19. Paul is talking about when he went to Jerusalem to consult with the chief of the Apostles, Peter, and while there, “I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

So, we have James, the “brother” of Jesus as mentioned in Mark 6:3, and James, the “Lord’s brother,” as mentioned in Gal 1:19. And this time James, the Lord’s brother, is identified as an apostle. So, if I’m a Bible-only believer — in other words, if the Bible is my sole rule of faith when it comes to all things related to the Christian Faith — then I have to admit that the James in Mark 6:3 and the James in Gal 1:19 are the same James; after all, how many brothers named “James” would Jesus have? 

But there’s a problem for those who would say this James is the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus. You see, this James is clearly identified as an apostle. Yet, of the two apostles named James that we find in the list of the twelve apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:1-4), one of them had a father named Zebedee and the other had a father named Alphaeus — neither one of them had a father named Joseph! Which means, neither one of them was Jesus’ sibling. Neither one of them had the same mother as Jesus. So, the James mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Gal 1:19 as a “brother” of Jesus, is a brother in a broader sense of the word, he was not a brother in the sense of having the same parents.

Now, Catholic tradition (small “t” tradition), often identifies the James in Galatians 1:19 as someone who was not one of the twelve apostles. However, someone who goes by the Bible alone and who does not put any stock in “tradition” cannot use the argument from tradition, because they only accept the Bible as the authority in matters Christian. So, using the Bible alone, one cannot argue that the James in Gal 1:19 is a “third” James who had at some point been named an apostle because the Bible nowhere mentions such a thing.

So, when we look at the “brothers” of Jesus in the broader context of Scripture, rather than just focusing on Mark 6:3, we see that the argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary has no foundation in the Bible.

[Elsie]

You quote part of a verse and attach a personal commentary to it as if it had the same weight.

While...

The 'church' quotes parts of verses and attach AUTHORITATIVE commentarys to them as if it had the same weight.

[Elsie]

Catholics LOVE context!!

"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."

[Elsie]

They are step brothers from Joseph being previously married and widowed, or they were kin possibly living in the same household.

Your chosen religion has ZERO data about these things you've just claimed.

OR???

[buffyt]

MY Bible never says she remained a virgin! Jesus had MANY brothers and sisters. Ever heard of his brother JAMES???? He IS mentioned in the Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[buffyt]

EXCELLENT COMMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[af_vet_1981]

But no, the exact term is not in scriptures.

It is therefore a modern custom to use "personal savior." Where did it come from ? It came from the same country that introduced another modern convention to the world, Mormonism. There are thousands of other modern inventions that America has introduced to religious expression, so "personal savior" is altogether American, and highly correlated to the "sinner's prayer," and the "Four Spiritual Laws." It is new, and at best, Extra Scriptura.

From one of your own, perhaps, though he is now beyond evangelical.
Today, I want to talk about this business of having a “personal Savior” and a “personal relationship” with the Lord. Actually, I’ve already spoken on this subject. Here it is.

As stated previously, the sinner’s prayer eventually replaced the biblical role of water baptism. Though it is touted as gospel today, this prayer developed only recently. D. L. Moody was the first to employ it.

Moody used this “model” of prayer when training his evangelistic coworkers. But it did not reach popular usage until the 1950s with Billy Graham’s Peace with God tract and later with Campus Crusade for Christ’s Four Spiritual Laws. There is nothing particularly wrong with it. Certainly, God will respond to the heartfelt prayers of any individual who reaches out to Him in faith. However, it should not replace water baptism as the outward instrument for conversion-initiation.

The phrase personal Savior is yet another recent innovation that grew out of the ethos of nineteenth-century American revivalism. It originated in the mid-1800s to be exact. But it grew to popular parlance by Charles Fuller (1887–1968). Fuller literally used the phrase thousands of times in his incredibly popular Old Fashioned Revival Hour radio program that aired from 1937 to 1968. His program reached from North America to every spot on the globe. At the time of his death, it was heard on more than 650 radio stations around the world.

Today, the phrase personal Savior is used so pervasively that it seems biblical. But consider the ludicrousness of using it. Have you ever introduced one of your friends by such a designation? “This is my ‘personal friend,’ Billy Smith.”

[af_vet_1981]

Conjecture. From all four Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, the only male close to Christ in attendance is John. This informs me Jesus trusted John and signaled He had little faith in His half brothers to see to Mary’s needs. This is what a body of believers will do. Mary was in the family of God and John the closest of His disciples.

Yes, your opinion is conjecture, while mine is a working hypothesis based on scripture, Catholic tradition, and Jewish custom.

[CommerceComet]

The passage in Numbers 27 deals with the disposition of physical property in an inheritance, not the care of a surviving parent. The assignment of the care of a parent as Jesus apparently did on the cross is not the same thing as the disposition of assets. Not surprisingly, His actions were perfectly consistent with "Honor your father and mother" whether physical assets were involved or not.

Why quote from a source on Jewish law when Jesus was not obligated to follow rabbinical tradition, only the Word of God? A review of Matthew 15:1-9 might be in order.

In another post, you claim that this was a working hypothesis. Perhaps, you should consider Occam's Razor. Redleghunter (and other) have suggested a far cleaner explanation for the data: Jesus gave Mary to John's care because he was in the body of believers and hadn't abandoned Him like his siblings had. Remember that Jesus held his spiritual brothers in higher regard than his actual siblings (Matthew 12:46-50). Going with the clear meaning of Scripture means no more linguistic gymnastics to explain away a myriad of verses of Scripture which speak clearly about Jesus' siblings.

[af_vet_1981]

The passage in Numbers 27 deals with the disposition of physical property in an inheritance, not the care of a surviving parent. The assignment of the care of a parent as Jesus apparently did on the cross is not the same thing as the disposition of assets. Not surprisingly, His actions were perfectly consistent with "Honor your father and mother" whether physical assets were involved or not. Why quote from a source on Jewish law when Jesus was not obligated to follow rabbinical tradition, only the Word of God? A review of Matthew 15:1-9 might be in order.

To this day, I detect a persistent antiJewish, as well as antiCatholic, bias in some branches and twigs of Protestantism. It affects and guides interpretations. The Jewish laws and customs of caring for parents are, and were, observed. The Messiah spoke against those trying to avoid righteous behavior, not those practicing it. There have always ben those seeking to cast off righteousness with a cloak of piety.

Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
First Timothy, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses three to eight
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

In another post, you claim that this was a working hypothesis. Perhaps, you should consider Occam's Razor. Redleghunter (and other) have suggested a far cleaner explanation for the data: Jesus gave Mary to John's care because he was in the body of believers and hadn't abandoned Him like his siblings had. Remember that Jesus held his spiritual brothers in higher regard than his actual siblings (Matthew 12:46-50). Going with the clear meaning of Scripture means no more linguistic gymnastics to explain away a myriad of verses of Scripture which speak clearly about Jesus' siblings.

More conjecture that does not pass a credible threshold with respect to the scriptures, Jewish law, and Catholic tradition.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Cute joke. Thanks for sharing. The Catholic obsession for celibacy is baffling to say the least. Certainly not based on anything which can be found in the Bible. God’s plan is clearly for Holy Matrimony and procreation. I don’t know why anyone would want to change that plan.

[redleghunter]

My previous post (which had a bit more data than you quoted) indicated that ‘yes the term ‘personal’ is not a written term in the scriptures. So I agree. I did however spend quite the internet ‘ink’ explaining that salvation as evidenced in Scriptures in both action, word and prayer demonstates that it is very ‘personal.’ The psalmist pouring his heart out to God in direct prayer is an example.

I agree that throughout history every culture and era has man-made traditions and add-ons trying to ‘explain better’ what the Scriptures clearly demonstrate in word, deed and power.

I personally see the modern American ‘altar call’ as akin to the unconscious ‘poof you are a Christian’ mass baptisms of the earlier centuries.

If more teachers and preachers emphasized the parables of the soils and the wheat vs. the tares then there would be a lot less folks returning to pews IMO. What I quoted from Romans 10 previously puts this front and center.

[af_vet_1981]

Do you then concur Mary is the mother of God ?

[redleghunter]

Yes, your opinion is conjecture, while mine is a working hypothesis based on scripture, Catholic tradition, and Jewish custom.

Why can't you just admit the text itself and circumstances given is not enough to be dogmatic? We can't conclude Mary is everyone's mother because Jesus commanded John to take care of her. Just as I can't claim the "brothers of Jesus" were lousy half-brothers (or cousins in your case) who didn't even escort their widow and now childless mother (or in your case aunt)at a dangerous site like a Roman crucifixion. Yet a child of God, John, did show up and provide some sort of overwatch for Mary and the other women. Easy choice IMHO no? If I was in a similar circumstance and a blood relative failed to be at my mother's side in a delicate situation and my best friend was there...guess who I would choose to tend to my mother?

I just take issue with a hypothesis that is needed to explain away a firm word as in "until" or "till." The burden of scriptural proofs is at your end. Until means, well 'until.'

[redleghunter]

Excellent clarification. Thank you.

[redleghunter]

Mary was the mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

What I wrote above is what the Holy Spirit inspired.

Frankly, any other title given to Blessed Mary would be going beyond what God revealed to us.

[CommerceComet]

To this day, I detect a persistent antiJewish, as well as antiCatholic, bias in some branches and twigs of Protestantism.

I suppose that you see what you want to see. Protestants are not Jewish nor Catholic. Protestants are under no obligation to accept their teachings uncritically. Disagreeing with a position is not bias against the people holding the position. If you wish to assign motives to people and take on the victim status, have at it.

The Jewish laws and customs of caring for parents are, and were, observed.

You have not shown that Jesus was obligated to turn over care of Mary to His brothers rather than to a close friend. The fact that Jesus honored His mother and made provisions for her is more important than if He followed some rabbinical guidelines (which you haven't shown existed anyway nor shown to be binding on the actions of Jesus).

1 Timothy 5 makes the point that the Church shouldn't have to take care of a widow if the family can. Mary wasn't a "widow indeed" or "truly a widow" (depending on the translation) because she had been provided for by her son when He assigned her care to John. Presumably, Mary was not going to become dependent on the Church because of the care of John.

More conjecture that does not pass a credible threshold with respect to the scriptures, Jewish law, and Catholic tradition.

I agree that is conjecture because Scripture doesn't say why Jesus did what He did. However, it doesn't conflict with any Scripture passage and provides a plausible explanation. The Catholic position creates far more difficulties in reconciling to Scripture. If you're going to be intellectually honest about this, the Catholic position is pure conjecture as well.

[lavaroise]

We all crucified Him, including His own mother when she distrusted Him and lost faith at the wedding when wine was lacking... For wine!

[jda]

What difference does it make? Does it change anything?

It only makes a difference if you worship Mary.

[Elsie]

Today, the phrase personal Savior is used so pervasively that it seems biblical.

Likewise...

Hail Mary, mother of GOD...

[Elsie]

To this day, I detect a persistent antiJewish, as well as antiCatholic, bias in some branches and twigs of Protestantism.

To this day, I detect a persistent antiJewish, as well as antiProtestantism, bias in some branches and twigs of Catholicism.