Posted on 04/07/2015 11:01:38 AM PDT by 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.
I've heard it but certainly didn't try to commit to memory. You have to have an agenda to ignore the easy interpretation and then criticize people who know how to read.
Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)
but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;[a] and he named him Jesus. (NRSV)
Footnotes:
Matthew 1:25 Other ancient authorities read her firstborn son
I think the latter is a proper Catholic translation. The footnote applies to it.
I always wondered if Jesus had Mary’s DNA or not. It is not important, but is a question I hope to get to ask the Authoritative Source one day.
Matthew 1:25, when he writes that Joseph “knew not” (i.e., was not sexually intimate with; cf. Gen. 4:1) Mary “UNTIK [Greek: heos hou] she had given birth to a son”, what is the plain meaning?
While the Greek expression heos hou does not absolutely demand that Joseph and Mary were intimate after Jesus’ birth, that would be the normal conclusion, unless contextual considerations indicated otherwise (see for instance, 2 Sam. 6:23).
In fact, elsewhere in the New Testament (see Matthew 17:9 24:39; and John 9:18) the phrase (heos hou) followed by a negative always implies that the negated action did take place later” .
There is no valid reason, for me, why Matthew 1:25 should be the exception.
Also, In Luke 2:7, Jesus is called Mary’s “firstborn” (prototokon) child.
While the term prototokon does not demand unequivocally that Mary had other children, this term “most naturally suggests” that she did.
Now If the perpetual virginity of Mary is such a crucial theological point, why did not Luke simply say that she brought forth her “only” son?
That certainly would have settled the issue.
Fathers of the Church
Church Fathers from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:
Athanasius (Alexandria, 293-373); Epiphanius (Palestine, 315?-403); Jerome (Stridon, present day Yugoslavia, 345?-419); Augustine (Numidia, now Algeria, 354-430); Cyril (Alexandria, 376-444); and others.
Teaching of the Universal Church
The Council of Constantinople II (553-554) twice referred to Mary as "ever-virgin."
Protestant Reformers
The protestant reformers affirmed their belief that Mary, while remaining every-virgin, was truly the Mother of God. Here are only a few examples:
Martin Luther (1483-1546), On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, wrote:
"In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. ... Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God." (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)
Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)
"When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." (That Jesus was Born a Jew)
"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. [...] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Sermons on John)
The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God.
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. ... Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God." (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)
Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary,
"The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned."
"This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ."
"He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers."
"Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."
...as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)
Even John Wesley, in 1749, wrote:
"I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." (Letter to a Roman Catholic)
Objections
There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.
1) The Bible frequently speaks of the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus.
First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary.
Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called "a brother (adelphos) of Jesus." In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)
2) A second objection to Mary's virginity arises from the use of the word heos in Matthew's gospel. "He (Joseph) had no relations with her at any time before (heos) she bore a son, whom he named Jesus" (Mt 1:25, NAB).
The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.
3) A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated 'first-born' in Luke's gospel.
But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.
The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the "first-born" of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.
Of course they are.
But, they're both extra-biblical beliefs about Mary, the mother of Jesus. And, as I said, there must be more where those came from.
And don’t forget that a stopped clock can be right twice a day.
Okay but, how does that apply here; who or what is the stopped clock here and, where is it correct?
Imagine being Jesus’s brother and having a Jewsih mother (I am assuming Mary was Jewish here).
“Look at your older brother he can make people rise from the dead, and look at you, have you turned water into wine yet, well have you?”
Having to grow up with that and not cracking up is the definition of a Saint!
The Greek proves Mary and Joseph had other children.
Catholic postings remind me of labels on shampoo. Apply, rinse, repeat.
Mary accepted the angel's proposal - Joseph agreed to honor the marriage after the fact.
Well, even then, we have to look at their rationale for believing what they believe. Did they refer to history? To scripture? If the latter, how valid are their exegesis?
Church Fathers are HUMAN and are not infallible. We respect them for their wisdom, but that does not mean that we read them without discernment.
And even if we look at the early church fathers we see DISAGREEMENT among them regarding to status of Mary as perpetual virgin and even when they do agree, their explanation for the disagreement conflicts with one another.
For instance, the early church father Tertullian denied that she was a perpetual virgin.
Then, over a hundred years later, church father Jerome argued that she was, and attempted to explain away the references to Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” in the New Testament by assuming that they were actually cousins. Did he explain away the term — ADELPHOS?
Then, even later, the church father Epiphanius, while agreeing with Jerome that Mary was a perpetual virgin, tried to explain away the “brothers and sisters” mentioned in scripture by assuming that they were children of Joseph from a former marriage.
So, for those who want to establish doctrine based on post-apostolic “tradition”, which view of Mary is to be accepted?
When three different church fathers give three different views, which one is to be followed?
The safest course is for SCRIPTURE TO SPEAK FOR ITSELF.
If the scriptures speak for themselves, the obvious conclusion is that while Mary was a virgin until Christ’s birth, she had other children later.
The New Testament writers were familiar with the Greek terms for “cousin” and “relative”. They used them. When referring to Jesus’ “brothers and sisters”, though, they used terms with a primary meaning of SHARED PARENTAGE.
Since people who want to believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin cannot find evidence for that belief in the New Testament, they try to find evidence in material written LONG AFTER Mary and the apostles had died.
So the New Testament evidence against Mary being a perpetual virgin is overlooked, as is the testimony of men like Tertullian, who didn’t support the doctrine.
People who want to believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin search through the writings of the church fathers until they find something they agree with, then they READ THAT DOCTRINE BACK into the New Testament, even if the New Testament actually doesn’t support it.
It is the opposite. the broader sense of brother is biological. The brotherhood Christ talked about was very specific to following his teachings. Thus having biological siblings was key to make His point that even if biological, if they do not follow His ways and are not trustworthy, they are not His brothers. Eventually God protected Mary from such rape, one must surmise, yet it does not prevent the Bible from criticizing Mary at times, with Jesus calling her woman.
Jews in the Sinai became bastards in the eyes of God and God cleansed them by making them wander, teaching the new generations the holy ways, saving them with spirit, bearing the new generation with positive spirit.
The Catholics might have a point that Mary’s virginity was protected, but that is not the point. Jesus Himself was crucified and others would be treated worse.
To make Mary more virgin than Jesus Himself was perfect is one of the strange feminism of catholicism which traps it to this day.
IMO, to “imagine” Mary imperfect in no ways contradicts the authority and perfection of Jesus.
Your #47 is off the laugh charts! Thanks. Needed that!
Either that, or people who do not want to accept the fact that Mary WAS a perpetual virgin READ THAT DOCTRINE BACK into the New Testament, even if the New Testament actually doesn't support it. Once you buy into the error of private interpretation, you can ascribe to any theory you want to and say "That's what the Bible says, and if you don't agree with me, you're wrong."
But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25).
As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.
The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the "first-born" of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.
The Greek word πρωτότοκος, first born or eldest, does not preclude Mary from having other children nor does it mean Jesus was her only child. In other instances of its use in the NT there is an indication that others followed. Though this does clearly give proof that Mary and Joseph had other children.
I am not able to find the reference you make in Colossians 1:25 to prototokos.
If Luke had wanted to note Jesus was her only child he could have used the Greek adjective μονογενής which means only, unique, one of a kind.
Recall that Luke was a doctor and that he had researched the story of Jesus's life. He was precise in his terminology.
If he had wanted to say Mary and Joseph had no other children he would have used the word μονογενής.
RE: Either that, or people who do not want to accept the fact that Mary WAS a perpetual virgin READ THAT DOCTRINE BACK into the New Testament
Personally, I want to believe in it and don’t mind believing in it. However, upon reading scripture, I find no warrant for it and have to IGNORE the plain reading of scripture to believe this doctrine.
And why is this private interpretation? As I pointed out before, the earliest church father, Tertullian did not believe in it, and even Basil of Caesarea commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).
This is GOOD FAITH, SINCERE interpretation and reading of the plain meaning of the text.
RE: “That’s what the Bible says, and if you don’t agree with me, you’re wrong.”
So, you are telling me that you are NOT saying that those who disagree with you are wrong?
Of course you are.
Perhaps this from Charles H. Spurgeon will help ... :-) ...
http://www.spurgeon.org/treasury/ps069.htm
Also, this from another source, in regards to the children ...
https://www.khouse.org/articles/2007/699/
And then the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecies ...
http://www.shalach.org/PropheciesTable/prophecieslst1.htm
More specifically, John 7:3-5
“...don’t see where biblical prophecy would be compromised if Mary did have more children...”
Ezekiel 44:2 would be seriously compromised.
Mary WAS the gate. Even the early protestants through the 1700’s retained this teaching that “the gate” would remain undefiled by man, including Zwingli and Luther.
Luke 1:35 compare with 1 Kings 8 verses 10 -11.
Mary is the Ark of the new covenant. The Blessed Mother contained the Holy of Holies (the Lord Himself) in the vessel of her womb. The pregnant woman is the bearer of the child in her womb and since Mary’s Child was God, She is the God Bearer. Mother of God and God Bearer mean exactly the same thing.
Jesus did not have brothers. This is a FACT. IF Mary had had other children, they would have been half brothers only; the bible would have used the accurate terminology by using the term half-brother since the bible is inerrant. The meaning of the adelphoi therefore HAS to be that of spiritual brotherhood only, not blood brotherhood. The concept of a spiritual brotherhood is a perfectly acceptable concept found in other places within the bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.