Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[Don_Hepler]

I believe you are right, it refers to Jesus having several brothers and sisters this is correct. However If your catholic, we then have some problems, MARY is not a virgin and has not been since she conceived with our Lord. She is not a Virgin.she conceived again and again, except this time it was with Joseph her husband and not with GOD. So to bring in your own (name removed by moderator)ut I would suggest you find a living prophet and ask him to inturpit the scriptures I believe that Mary the mother of Jesus, bore other brothers and we don’t have to twist things around to fit our religion. But that is of course why we have so many religions isn’t it. Blind guides We can make these scriptures say just about anything, can’t we ministers. I can show you where, in the scriptures, that you are all going to HELL. But of course you already know that.

 

[Don_Hepler]

The church is the bride of Christ. He didn’t marry when He was on earth.

How do you know, were you there?

 

[Janet1983]

Now that we have established that Jesus had brothers and sisters, blood related that is. Now what about Jesus being married??? Let’s jump on that one.

There is no reference to that in Scripture… There is also absolutely no historical evidence for this.

 

[awantz]

How do you know, were you there?

No, but but neither were you.

 

[Janet1983]

I didn’t leave out of context. Mary did not have any other children. I already explain to you as well as other Catholics, who refuted your claims. You just ignore it. The ECF got it right and they live in an age much closers to the Apostles, and you expect me to believe that Mary had other children?

You still have not explain why Jesus gave John Mary at the foot of the cross, instead if his supposed “siblings.”

and the lack of evidence, in Luke that Mary and Joseph seeking Jesus showed that there were NO OTHER children. Mary remain a virgin, before, during, and after the birth of her Son.

And there is no Scripture in the passage that addresses, them, “Joses, James, as Sons of Mary and Joseph.”

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.

His brothers… and his parents… read it… that helps a lot.
“Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

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 yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."

Matthew 13:55 - " Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, 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 some theologians 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.

 

[FanChan]

Just going to offer my two cents…

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary, for the sake of the Incarnation, became one with the Holy Spirit in order to conceive. You expect that she is then to be torn away from that in order to become one with Joseph? Mary is the daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and bride of the Holy Spirit. Joseph took her into his home as her protector, as her legal husband so she could be cared for. Joseph was told in his dream not to fear to take her into his home, but that doesn’t mean he was free to take her completely.

And, ponder this - Would you have the guts to touch something that carried to birth the Son of God?

 

[freedomwriter]

No she didn’t. So me in Scripture where these so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus as being referred to as “sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph.” The so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus are merely his cousins. Even Lot is called brother by Abraham in the OT, and we know Lot is nephew of Abraham.

They are not cousins silly. The greek word is adelphos which means literal brothers and sisters. When the greek work Adelphos is used in the NT it is used in a family tense. Catholics can argue all they want but the Word of God doesn’t change. He had brothers and sisters.

 

[Janet1983]

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary, for the sake of the Incarnation, became one with the Holy Spirit in order to conceive. You expect that she is then to be torn away from that in order to become one with Joseph?

And now how are you going to put some weight behind that with scripture??

Joseph took her into his home as her protector, as her legal husband so she could be cared for. Joseph was told in his dream not to fear to take her into his home, but that doesn’t mean he was free to take her completely.

That’s baloney… Mary was engaged to Joseph. Back then this was part of the marriage. She was betrothed and that was a ceremony. After the betrothal a bride would go and make a dress for herself while he prepared a room for them (usually by extending his fathers house). This was so serious that there was no simple split up of the couple and those betrothals could only be ended by either marriage or divorce. That was the way things were handled back in that time of history. Why do you think it should have been different with the betrothal of Mary and Joseph?
After Mary gave birth to Jesus it was her duty as a wife to not deprave her husband and she had to consummate the marriage with him.

 

[freedomwriter]

The Word of God is Jesus Christ. I believe Him to be true. And the Church which he started, the Church which gave us the Bible, tells us Mary is ever-Virgin. Do you believe the Word of God to be true? I’ve not added anything to the Bible. You are attempting to limit the deposit of Faith to the Bible, which was written long after the Faith came to be.

Oh you must be talking about the church in the Book of Acts the Christian Church.

 

[freedomwriter]

First you declare that one needs to make sure that the appropriate meanings of the words are known and then you then leave it out of context… why?

Very well said Janet. God Bless

 

[freedomwriter]

And now how are you going to put some weight behind that with scripture??

That’s baloney… Mary was engaged to Joseph. Back then this was part of the marriage. She was betrothed and that was a ceremony. After the betrothal a bride would go and make a dress for herself while he prepared a room for them (usually by extending his fathers house). This was so serious that there was no simple split up of the couple and those betrothals could only be ended by either marriage or divorce. That was the way things were handled back in that time of history. Why do you think it should have been different with the betrothal of Mary and Joseph?
After Mary gave birth to Jesus it was her duty as a wife to not deprave her husband and she had to consummate the marriage with him.

Amen!! You go Janet. You can tell you have been studying the Word of God

 

[Don_Hepler]

The church is the bride of Christ. He didn’t marry when He was on earth.

O.K. I am taking you on…all you who are opened minded and have not been endoctrinated by the cunningness of so called wise men of the earth,for when they are learned they think they are wise but they harken not to the council of God" nor do they know the God whom they worship. I take the scriptures litteral. another words. when we read that Jesus walked on the water, I believe it. Now some of you because you are not to believe only what you are taught to believe, your minister will teach you…" Oh no, he was walking on a glass plate, you just couldn’t see it and we believe, Another minister will say No he was suspended on piano wires form a UFO and that is how it appeared that he was walking on water and we believe. Another will say : it appeared like that, from the boat but he was actually on shore. and we believe. First of all Black is Black, it is not white OK and If you don’t understand that you can never be taught and Hell waits for you. Remember the toughest part about your belief is if it is White don’t try to make it Black.
Next, what is the seed of your generation. It is the children of your body, we are the seed of our forefathers, we are the generation of our fathers. I am not the generation of a ape, monkey, snake, pig or goat I am the seed of the fathers and My Seed shall be my generation. Now hope I didn’t loose you… Now Isaiah is teaching us about Jesus in Isaiah 54:I have a heading under the chapter which speaks of the Messiah an offering for sin so I know that this chapter is about Jesus who is to come. verse 3 He is despised and rejected of men and a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (4) SURELY HE HATH BORNE OUR GRIEFS AND CARRIED OUR SORROWS: YET WE DID ESTEEM HIM STRICKEN,SMITTEN OF GOD, AND AFFLICTED. (5) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. * if you want to read on you can" but lets go to (8) He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare his generation?..now verse (10) Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him: he hath put him to grief when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall proper in his hand.
How can Christ see his seed save he has seed and who shall declare his generation, it is his children who were there at the cross who saw their father on the cross THEY shall declair it, which means he was married they called him rabbi a rabbi cannot be a rabbi except he be married. At the tomb Mary was there, the first to see the Savior, and what did she say My Lord and My master meaning My Lord and My husband. The Master bedroom that we all have means Husbands bedroom. Jesus was married, and had children he fulfilled the Law that was given to ADAM and EVE be fruitful and multiply. It is as it is. Why not ask God if his son was married, Is it not a clear understanding that God is the Father of his Son, Do you think him less of a Man of who he is, to think Jesus was single, Do you think that marriage and having children is a sin. Christ fulfilled the Law and I ask why did Jesus have so many women following him that’s kinda strange. No he was married which was awesome. He is not less of a man in my eyes, HE is greater.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Of the concept of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the genealogy and prophecies of Christ, and the conception and birth of the Son of God:

Consider Matthew Chapter 1. In the first verse the genealogy of Christ is attributed to David, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” What follows (Matthew 1:2-16) is actually the genealogy of Joseph-- even as verse 16 points out, “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” In verse 18 we learn that Mary, while a virgin, conceives Christ ‘of the Holy Ghost’, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Verse 19 shows that Joseph, although considerate of Mary and Christ, had initially decided against marrying her, “Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.” Verses 20 & 21 indicate that Joseph was not necessarily always completely aware that Mary was pregnant with the Christ as an angel was sent to him in a dream, “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.” Verses 22 & 23 reference the Old Testament book of Isaiah to indicate the fulfillment of prophecy inherent in Christ’s conception and Mary’s pregnancy, “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (From what I understand this is an excerpt of Isaiah 7:14 which is part of a revelation that Isaiah was relating to the then king of Judah, Achaz, whom also is an ancestor of Joseph. However, the excerpt is followed by a dietary and time requirement that would seem to disqualify it from pertaining to the Christ, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.-- Isaiah 7:14-16” Also, another pertinent excerpt may be Isaiah 9:6-7, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.”)
Finally, in verses 24 & 25 Of Matthew chapter 1 Joseph is depicted as awaking from his dream, taking Mary as wife, and abstaining from sexual relations with her “till” Christ is born (and presumably for, at least, the purification period required in the Old Testament for post-partum uncleanliness), “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” Take note also of the words, “her firstborn son,” as these words may indicate or infer that there may be other sons and/or children.

Afterword:
I have found the Gospel of Matthew helpful in other situations such as the claim that there is not an eternal punishment. Matthew 25:31-46 appears to disprove the notion that, according to Christ, there is no punishment greater than death. This is, in my opinion, a great issue, and one for which I have found no scriptural grounds for the resulting variance in some secular Christian doctrines.

Scriptural quotes are taken from the King James Version of the Holy Bible

Disclaimer:
I am not hereby intending to replace the authority of the Pope, malign the tenets of Catholicism, vitiate the glory of Mary, or justify Protestantism. However, it is my intention to provide scriptural insight for reflection.

 

[Louie1983]

And now how are you going to put some weight behind that with scripture??

**If you insist!

• Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” This refers to Jesus (the “emnity”) and Mary (the “woman”). The phrase “her seed” is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.
• Luke 1:35 - the child will be called holy, the Son of God. Mary is the Mother of the Son of God, or the Mother of God
• Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth’s use of “Mother of my Lord” (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used “Adonai” which means Lord God) is the equivalent of “Holy Mary, Mother of God” which Catholics pray in the Rosary.**

That’s baloney… Mary was engaged to Joseph. Back then this was part of the marriage. She was betrothed and that was a ceremony. After the betrothal a bride would go and make a dress for herself while he prepared a room for them (usually by extending his fathers house). This was so serious that there was no simple split up of the couple and those betrothals could only be ended by either marriage or divorce. That was the way things were handled back in that time of history. Why do you think it should have been different with the betrothal of Mary and Joseph?
After Mary gave birth to Jesus it was her duty as a wife to not deprave her husband and she had to consummate the marriage with him.

**Back then there was no engagement! They were married straight away, you are correct in saying that Joseph prepared a room or a house. Yes Mary was Joseph’s wife however she had a special role that God had prepared for her and that was to raise Jesus! St joseph understood this when it was revealed to him that Mary concieved of the holy spirit.

Here are some scripture passages to back this up:

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

• Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.
• Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.
• John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.**

 

[Mannyfit75]

They are not cousins silly. The greek word is adelphos which means literal brothers and sisters. When the greek work Adelphos is used in the NT it is used in a family tense. Catholics can argue all they want but the Word of God doesn’t change. He had brothers and sisters.

True, but note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi).

When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as “the brethren of the Lord.” The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

No Word for Cousin

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

 

[Mannyfit75]

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the “normal” way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Fundamentalist Arguments

Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born,” and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the “first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Holy Family

Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such marriages “unnatural” arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one’s family, and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child. The Holy Family was neither an average family nor should we expect its members to act as would members of an average family.

The circumstances demanded sacrifice by Mary and Joseph. This was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that.

Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the “brothers of the Lord” were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a “novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” At length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times.

So, if it is established that the “brethren of the Lord” were not Jesus’ brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?

Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: “I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl” (4:9).

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed—but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.