Did Jesus have brothers? Article dealing with the question of whether Mary was always "the Virgin Mary."

[mdgspencer]

This article is at http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/brosis.htm

This question is often raised by Protestants because of the passage in the Gospel of Mark, saying “Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, a brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Aren’t His sisters our neighbors here?” (Mk 6:3)

However, in the original text of the Bible, this article point out, the Greek word usually translated as “brother,” , described other relationships, like cousins, nephews, etc. The same is true for the word “sister.”

This article also goes through the Gospels to point out other evidence that Mary did not have other children.

 

[GospelOfMatthew]

The issue is the translation of “brother” and “sister” from Greek to English loses the correct connotation and preciseness of meaning. This brother and sisterhood is of the same kind of having a brotherly or sisterly connection with a close friend, it doesn’t imply literal bloodline siblings

 

[FranciscoN2001]

Jesus is always referred to specifically as the “son of Mary”
Furthermore, Ezekiel prophecises that no man shall pass through the gates in which the Lord will pass through (Ezekiel 44:2)
So all the non-Catholics saying Mary wasn’t a virgin are denying one of the prophecies and might as well deny the whole credibility of Jesus

 

[Cathoholic]

Ezekiel prophecises that no man shall pass through the gates in which the Lord will pass through (Ezekiel 44:2)
So all the non-Catholics saying Mary wasn’t a virgin are denying one of the prophecies and might as well deny the whole credibility of Jesus

Excellent point FranciscoN2001. Showing once again what Tim Staples often reminds us of.

All Marian doctrines have Christologic implications.

 

[Carmelite1983]

If Jesus had brothers, he would have never given Mary away to John as he was dying on the cross. He would have given Mary to one of his brothers, as was tradition back then.

It would have been unthinkable for Jesus to have His mother stay with John instead.

 

[FranciscoN2001]

This is the truth

 

[ATraveller]

This question is often raised by Protestants

Not by Lutherans and a good number of Anglicans!
Many Calvinists reject this Catholic doctrine but even Zwingli accepted this Catholic and Orthodox belief. Calvin wasn’t sure but did reject the idea that Mary had children other than Jesus.

 

[BartholomewB]

This is a recurring topic here at CAF. Here are just two among several recent threads on the same subject.

Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin" Sacred Scripture

I’ve heard the argument that the “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in scripture were not literal blood brothers, but were most likely akin to cousins and the like, because the language of the time didn’t have words for those other, familial terms. How is it then that elsewhere in the Gospel, it describes Elizabeth as being Mary’s “cousin”? Thanks in advance

Did Jesus have sisters and brothers or step brothers/sisters? Apologetics

Richard Bauckham, a British NT scholar, has examined the question from every angle in his book Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. On the “brethren” question (Mark 6:3), he concludes that the oldest explanation remains to this day the most likely: they were Joseph’s children by his first marriage. https://www.amazon.com/Relatives-Je...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514020569&sr=1-1

 

[Victoria33]

Jesus is always referred to specifically as the “son of Mary”
Furthermore, Ezekiel prophecises that no man shall pass through the gates in which the Lord will pass through (Ezekiel 44:2)
So all the non-Catholics saying Mary wasn’t a virgin are denying one of the prophecies and might as well deny the whole credibility of Jesus

Excellent as are most responses here. The part of Ezekiel, I had never known though, I have read up on this topic.

 

[Fauken]

Here it is clear he did not have sex with Mary UNTIL AFTER Jesus’ birth. Jesus had brothers, you people need to read the King James Bible and stop denying God’s word based on your religions.

You misunderstand the meaning of “until” in the Bible.

How to Explain the Perpetual Virginity of Mary | Catholic Answers Magazine

“Now, does Matthew’s use of “until” mean what your friend says it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for “until” (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.
When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.”

How would you like to explain Jesus’ action of giving Mary away to John, who is not one of His relatives, thus passing over his own blood brothers to take care of His own mother, assuming He had siblings?

 

[FranciscoN2001]

I just wrote something on the King James Bible and how it’s written as propaganda for the Church of England

 

[godisgood77]

It would have been unthinkable for Jesus to have His mother stay with John instead

Jesus did a lot of unthinkable things… so this argument isn’t really that strong

 

[BartholomewB]

It is even noted that King James himself ordered it to be written in favor of the English Church.

I just wrote something on the King James Bible and how it’s written as propaganda for the Church of England

This link will show the set of 15 instructions issued in the King’s name to the translators before they started work. Are you referring here to one of these 15 instructions, or to something else?

http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/kjv-instructions.html

 

[holytext]

Words mean what they mean in context​

Context is the most significant thing we must look at when determining the meetings of words. The context of Matt. 1:25 is,

“Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, 25 and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.” (Matt. 1:22-25).

The context deals with a virgin bearing a child. Virginity here is the important topic, and Matthew clearly wants us to understand that Jesus was not the result of normal sexual relations between a husband and wife. This is why Mary’s virginity is cited in prophecy in the Old Testament and its fulfillment in the New. The issue of her virginity is primary since Jesus is the son of God, the divine Messiah. Matthew then tells us that Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son. The most natural reading is to conclude that he kept her a virgin until Jesus was born; that is, she wasn’t a virgin after Jesus was born because she and Joseph had sexual relations.

 

[holytext]

Cont.

1. “But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled." (Matt. 26:56).
2. "Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.’” (Matt. 26:31).
3. “I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons.” (Psalm 69:8). Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm.
4. Matt. 13:55-56 says, “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
5. First, Jesus was separating himself from his mother, breaking the earthly ties (2 Cor. 5:16) and committing her to the one male disciple, John the Apostle, who was actually present and who apparently showed the greatest love for him by being there and possibly risking his own life in doing so. After all, everyone else had abandoned him.
6. In committing Mary to John, he was providing the best for Mary by not committing her to the siblings who had abandoned him. Also, he gave John a higher place than he gave to Peter regarding Mary. Notice that Jesus told Mary first to look to John–not John to Mary. This dispels any idea that Mary has any supremacy in the church. We later see in Acts that Mary took her place among (not over) the believers at a prayer meeting. “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.” (Acts 1:14).
7. Second, there is biblical evidence that Jesus had siblings.
8. Third, it is possible that because He desired to have John take care of Mary (due to his faithfulness) instead of his brothers who had abandoned him (Matt. 26:31, 56), it was necessary for Jesus to specifically declare what he wanted. This declaration can be seen as evidence that Jesus was speaking to make clear his intention that John take care of Mary, not his own brothers.

 

[Fauken]

The most natural reading is to conclude that he kept her a virgin until Jesus was born; that is, she wasn’t a virgin after Jesus was born because she and Joseph had sexual relations.

Except it’s not, for reasons I mentioned above. Funny how that “natural” belief of yours didn’t even exist for the first 1600 years of Christianity. If I’m not mistaken, even Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

“But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled." (Matt. 26:56).

Yes, “Disciples”. You’re assuming that because Jesus had siblings, they would be disciples, a conclusion that does not follow even if He did.

“Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

The word for “brother/sister” is the exact same word for “cousin” in Hebrew. Again, that’s not proof He had siblings.

First, Jesus was separating himself from his mother, breaking the earthly ties (2 Cor. 5:16) and committing her to the one male disciple, John the Apostle, who was actually present and who apparently showed the greatest love for him by being there and possibly risking his own life in doing so. After all, everyone else had abandoned him.

As you showed in Matthew, all the disciples fled. That includes John. Yes, he came back and was a witness to Christ’s death on the cross, but John too fled. In Catholic tradition (little t tradition, not big T tradition), John was present to protect Mary.

Also, he gave John a higher place than he gave to Peter regarding Mary. Notice that Jesus told Mary first to look to John–not John to Mary. This dispels any idea that Mary has any supremacy in the church.

Define “supremacy”. Why does watching over Mary act as proof as a “higher place”? Peter had a Church to lead, and would eventually die crucified upside down in Rome. All of the Apostles except John died horrible deaths as martyrs. St. Thomas made it as far as India. Does handing her off to any them sound stable? Do you think Jesus didn’t see that coming?

Third, it is possible that because He desired to have John take care of Mary (due to his faithfulness) instead of his brothers who had abandoned him (Matt. 26:31, 56)

So Jesus can forgive all sins, and forgive His Apostles for abandoning Him, but can’t forgive these alleged brothers for doing the same thing? He instead commits the major faux pas of passing up these brothers and gives their mother to a non-relative?

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus did a lot of unthinkable things… so this argument isn’t really that strong

You’re suggesting that He would have torn His widowed mother away from her last remaining relatives? C’mon, now…

No, it makes more sense that, since Mary was now both widowed and her only Son put to death, Jesus was making sure that there would be someone to care for her.

 

[Gorgias]

Virginity here is the important topic, and Matthew clearly wants us to understand that Jesus was not the result of normal sexual relations between a husband and wife.

Agreed. Therefore, the ‘context’ you’re referencing is the time prior to Jesus’ birth. Not the time following his birth – no, as you point out, Matthew’s context is the time leading up to the Nativity.

When you make assertions beyond that time, you’re the one stepping out of context.

The most natural reading is to conclude that he kept her a virgin until Jesus was born; that is, she wasn’t a virgin after Jesus was born because she and Joseph had sexual relations.

In English? Sure. That’s the way we use “until”. However, the Gospel of Matthew wasn’t written in English. In the Greek that you’re referencing, the word for ‘until’ speaks to a time leading up to an event. It doesn’t speak to what happens after. So, the most natural reading in Koine Greek is that Matthew is only pointing to the time up to the Nativity, and not beyond.

 

[Gorgias]

This declaration can be seen as evidence that Jesus was speaking to make clear his intention that John take care of Mary, not his own brothers.

The problem with this idea is that, once Jesus was gone, the care of Mary would be the responsibility of any remaining sons of Mary. Think about it for a second: in that culture, Mary wouldn’t have the ability to say “I"m going here” or “I’m going to do this, not that.” So, she couldn’t really say “no” to any other sons she might have. Moreover, if only Mary and John witnessed Jesus’ words, then all John could say is “Umm, I know that ya’ll have the duty and obligation to care for your Mom, but Jesus told me that I should do it.” You know what her ‘sons’ would have said to that suggestion, right? A woman living in the same house with a man who isn’t her husband or son? Ummm… no.

So, I get it that you don’t want to suggest that Mary didn’t bear other children… but your points don’t stand up to careful consideration.

 

[vincexjt]

I am not good at chapter and verse, but the OT people are moving the ark of the covenant, the ark appears to be falling, one Isrealite puts his hand on it tokeep it from falling and is struck dead by God because nothing unclean can touch the ark.
If the ark is that important, how much more important is the one who carried Jesus in her body.
I believe she was a virgin forvever.