Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Mary perpetual virginity
The Catholic church teaches that not only was Mary a virgin at the conception and birth of Jesus but that she was also a virgin after his birth, for the entirety of her life. This is known as the perpetual virginity of Mary and Mary is known as the ever virgin. This belief of Mary remaining a virgin was made Catholic church dogma at the Lateran Council of 649 by Pope Martin I who proclaimed her perpetual virginity.
The CCC states.
The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin” (499).
The vast majority of Christians who are non Catholics will state that they believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. The Bible states so very clearly.
Although she was espoused to Joseph, Mary was a virgin when the Angel Gabriel came to her.
Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
After the angel Gabriel told her that she was to give birth to Jesus she asked the question HOW seeing that she had not known a man (known here is a reference to not having had sex with)
Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Matthew 1:23 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.
Most of those same Christians would also agree that Mary was still a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus as again the bible tells us that Joseph did not know her until after she had given birth to Jesus.
We are told that Joseph did not know his wife until she had given birth to Jesus
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
However, many non Catholic Christians do believe that Mary did not only have sex with Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus and so did not remain a virgin for the rest of her life but that she actually had other children with Joseph during her marriage. We are never told how, when or how old Jesus was when Joseph died, however, we are told that Joseph was still alive when Jesus was 12 years old. When Jesus was 12 he went missing for 1 day, actually having stayed in Jerusalem while Mary, Joseph and an unnumbered company returned to Nazareth. We are told his Mother and Joseph searched for him.
Luke 2:41Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. 43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. 44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among theirkinsfolk and acquaintance. 45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. 46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. 47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. 48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?
As Joseph is still shown to be alive at this point, Mary and Joseph had, at a minimum, 12 years after the birth of Jesus to have other children.
It must be stated that the Bible does not say that Mary remained a virgin.
Catholics will be quick to point out that while it is never stated that Mary remained a virgin in scripture it is also not actually recorded in scripture that Mary was not a virgin or that she had a sexual relationship with Joseph. If we require the bible to state one or the other then we can’t actually hold either view seeing the Bible doesn’t declare explicitly in a recorded verse that she either remained a virgin or did not. Therefore the only logical conclusion, based on this assertion, would be to reject both views. This obviously isn’t going to actually answer the question did Mary remain an ever virgin. As she either did or she didn’t. It is not at all possible for both to be true.
The Catholic church however, appeals not only to scripture to support its dogma but to tradition.
“The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin. “
catholic.com
“An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many. “
Catholic.com
They also make some very bold assumptions regarding her virginity such as Mary had made a vow of perpetual virginity, that she was spared the pain of birth because she was free from original sin and a whole heap of other claims that are non biblical attempts at explaining her ever virginity. As the CCC states, we can find some of these claims, amongst some other fanciful claims, in the non inspired Protoevangelium of James or otherwise known as the gospel of James, (Read the book here) the general consensus is that this was written in the second half of the 2nd century, but lets grant the Catholic church the date of 120 AD. It claims to have been written by James, the son of Joseph (the legal father of Jesus) but in reality , we do not know who wrote the book. While it does certainly allude to the fact that Mary was to be kept a virgin, it does not say that she actually remained a virgin for her entire life after the birth of Jesus. (I shall write a full argument against the claims made in this book in another study). If James did write this book and he was the son of Joseph then this would at least be partial support that at least Joseph had other children.
It is in this work that we find the idea that Jesus was born in a cave.
And Mary said to Joseph: Because I see two peoples with my eyes; the one weeping and lamenting, and the other rejoicing and exulting. And they came into the middle of the road, and Mary said to him: Take me down from off the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth. And he took her down from off the ass, and said to her: Whither shall I lead you, and cover your disgrace? For the place is desert.
18. And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a midwife in the district of Bethlehem.
Protoevangelium of James or otherwise known as the gospel of James
Notice that it also says, he left his two sons. This is used to support the belief that Joseph had children prior to his marriage to Mary.
I could spend some time in discussing the traditions of the belief, or how other goddesses of ancient mythology such as Isis, Persephone and Hera were also considered to be perpetual virgins, even in their cases after having sexual intercourse, Hera it was said would renew her virginity once a year by bathing in a spring called the Kanathos.
However, there really is not much point in actually doing so. Either you accept scripture as your authority or you accept scripture and tradition. If you accept tradition then really you do not need scripture. There are many different views held by many of the early church fathers on a wide range of subjects. If tradition is the basis for a dogma then we can find just about any dogma we wish to hold to in the traditions of the church.
It must be noted that while Mary is called virgin, parthenos in the Greek , the Greek word Aeiparthenos as proclaimed by the Catholic church is NEVER attributed biblically to Mary.
I do not simply accept tradition over scripture and rather focus on the scriptures themselves. I rather hold to the authority of the scriptures and what they proclaim. I will therefore be making an argument against the dogma of the Catholic church using scripture to support my argument. I believe that scripture alone offers a sufficient argument against the tradition of the church and provides ample evidence that Mary did not remain an ever virgin. We do not need to go beyond the Bible itself to disprove the claim, the Bible itself disproves the claim.
Remember, the Catholic Church doesn’t just teach that Mary might have remained a virgin or that she probably did, they teach it as dogma, that it is a fact, a fact that we can be as certain of as Jesus rising from the dead. It is Catholic dogma. This is a most serious claim. Such a claim, a claim that will lead to anathema from the church by its rejection, requires or at least should require evidence that puts the matter beyond any doubt. This, again, is not just a maybe, or it is a likelihood. This is Dogma, where should it not be accepted as fact, would lead to anathema from the Church and thus requires undoubtable evidence and certainly not inference. This is not dogma in the Greek Orthodox church, but you would run into serious problems if you were to reject it openly.
The Bible although not specifically saying Mary lost her virginity certainly would certainly allude to the fact that she did.
Mary knew Joseph
Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Non Catholics often highlight that the simple fact that the Bible states that Joseph knew her not UNTIL she had brought forth her firstborn implies that Joseph knew her after she brought forth her firstborn. There is actually quite a lot of information that we are given in this small passage, and we will break it down.
Firstly we have the clause “knew her not” in verse 25. “Knew her”, or “to know” is a Hebrew Idiom for sexual intercourse. It is used throughout the Bible to mean exactly that.
We see this 3 times in the 4th chapter of Genesis.
Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4: 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
The Greek word translated “to know” in Matthew 1:25 is γινώσκω ginóskó. This is the same Greek word that is used in all 3 occurrences in Genesis when it it is very clearly referring to sex.
In each occurrence it is inflected as ἔγνω
Genesis 1:1 Ἀδὰμ δὲ ἔγνω Εὕαν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ συνέλαβεν καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν Κάιν. καὶ εἶπεν Ἐκτησάμην ἄνθρωπον διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ.
Genesis 4:17 Καὶ ἔγνω Κάιν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ συλλαβοῦσα ἔτεκεν τὸν Ἑνώχ. καὶ ἦν οἰκοδομῶν πόλιν· καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν τὴν πόλιν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἑνώχ.
Genesis 4:25 Ἔγνω δὲ Ἀδὰμ Εὕαν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ συλλαβοῦσα ἔτεκεν υἱόν. καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Σὴθ λέγουσα Ἐξανέστησεν γάρ μοι ὁ θεὸς σπέρμα ἕτερον ἀντὶ Ἅβελ, ὃν ἀπέκτεινεν Κάιν.
Other translations of the Bible make this very clear that this “knowing” is a sexual act.
Genesis 4:1 Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.” NIV
Genesis 4:1 Now the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, “I have created a man just as the LORD did!”NET Bible
So Matthew is very clearly saying that Joseph did not know his wife, he did not have sex with his wife Mary.
Then we get the word “till”, which is just a short form of the word “until.
The English word until is a preposition, it means up to (the point in time or the event mentioned).
The until, is only up to the point of time that is in reference, namely the bringing forth the firstborn son. So Joseph is stated as having not known, had sex with Mary, up until this point of reference. The preposition until clearly indicates that it was only up to this point and did not continue after this point.
The Catholic church will argue that the term knew her not TILL, does not actually state that Joseph did in fact know her after she brought forth her firstborn. They claim this only states what happened up to the point of birth. Joseph simply did not know her till she gave birth and that is all the verse claims.
Seeing the Bible does not in fact state that Joseph continued to not know her after she gave birth the far more natural reading of this verse is that it was specifically claiming that Joseph did not know Mary only TILL she gave birth but the not knowing ceased once she had in fact brought forth her firstborn. It must therefore be asked as to the relevance of including the preposition until, if the not knowing continued after the point of reference. It would be more correct to simply state that Joseph did not know Mary if the not knowing continued on after the ringing forth of the firstborn.
The Greek word translated as “until” is Ἕως heōs. (preposition)
Catholics will often point to other verses that have “until” Ἕως heōs, in order to support their claim that “until” does not mean that what was “until” would cease but rather can continue on.
One such verse that is used in defence of the understanding that has been postulated by Catholics is 2 Samuel 6:23 Where Michal is said to have had no children unto (until) the day of her death.
2 Samuel 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
As it is clear by the death of Michal that she did not then have children after her death it is also claimed that this shows that after Mary had brought forth her firstborn it doesn’t have to mean that Joseph then knew her.
To compare the language used to denote the fact someone did not have a child while they were alive to that of the language used to show that someone did not have sex before they brought forth a child and compare the 2 is at best stretching the language to its maximum and being disingenuous or even out right deceitful at worst.
We must note that Samuel was originally written in Hebrew while Matthew is in Greek. The Hebrew word translated as unto in this verse is עַ֖ד aḏ. Therefore, cannot be a direct comparison between the 2. In order to compare the 2 Catholics will often appeal to the Greek Septuagint where the Hebrew aḏ is translated as the Greek word Ἕως heōs. Which is the Greek word used in Matthew 1:25 and it is this that is then used to link the 2 meanings together.
Anyone who is familiar with my writings may have read my argument against the reliability of the Greek Septuagint. I would therefore dismiss this argument based on the rejection of the authority of the Greek Septuagint.
Anyone who has not read my writing on this subject I would encourage them to at least do so.
We will also come back to this verse in a bit as we will have more evidence against this verse being used to support the claims.
Catholics will also cite New Testament verses. One such verse is Matthew 28:20 where Jesus says he will be with us until the end of the world.
Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The argument here is that Jesus doesn’t stop being with us after the end of the world and so clearly what was before up to the “Until” continues on after the “until”. The Catholic interpretation of this verse is incorrect. I fully agree, that Jesus will continue to be with us after the end of the world, however, not in the context of this verse that is referring to THIS world. It is not referring to the world to come.
The Greek word translated as world is αἰῶνος aiōnos (Age), it is in the SINGULAR. The reference point in this verse is the end of THIS world, or age. The age of THIS world. It is not referring to all the ages or all the worlds. Jesus is saying he will be with us UNTIL the end of THIS world. He will most certainly will continue on being with us after this age, this world, but not in THIS world/age. This world/age will cease to be and a new world/age will begin. Jesus will continue to be with us in the new age but will no longer be with us in THIS world/age. Jesus in no way is saying that the cessation is with him being with us but rather the cessation is with this world/age. The promise Jesus is offering is that in this world/age he will not leave us but is with us until the end of it.
Just like the verse in 2 Samuel 6:23, we will also revisit this verse.
Let’s take a look at another verse often cited by Catholics to support their doctrine 1 Corinthians 15:25 where it is stated that he (Jesus) must reign UNTIL he has put all enemies under his feet.
1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
The claim being that Jesus doesn’t stop reigning after the enemies have been put under his feet.
There are a couple of incorrect assertions when it comes to using this verse as support for the claim.
First, the Greek word translated as “till” is not heōs , it is actually ἄχρι achri and thus no direct grammatical link can be made.
Secondly, when we look at the CONTEXT of the verse we see that what is being referred to here is where Jesus hands BACK the kingdom to the father.
Literally in the verse prior we are told exactly that:
1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
The following context demonstrates that the son is subject to the father AFTER all things have been put under his feet.
1 Corinthians 15: 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Because it is the father who has put those things under him and the everything excludes the one that put all things under him. While the kingdom of Jesus is forever, the context is showing the subjection of the son under the father. Again the Catholics have incorrectly interpreted the verse because they have ignored the context and what the verse actually refers to.
When we look at more verses that use Ἕως heōs in the New Testament, we will see that the basic understanding of the word means a cessation of what happened before the “until”. There are many occurrences where this is demonstrably so, but I shall give just a few examples.
Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
Here, Ἕως heōs is also used. Jesus very clearly stating that there was an until, a point where the stated “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine UNTIL” would then cease. It was only UNTIL that point, the drinking of it in the father’s kingdom where the not drinking the fruit of the vine would end.
And what about Joseph taking Mary and Jesus into Egypt to escape king Herod UNTIL the angel brought word.
Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise,and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: forHerod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
In these 2 verses the Greek Ἕως heōs is used. It is very clear that Joseph took Mary and Jesus and went into Egypt only UNTIL the death of Herod but after his death, when the angel brought word, they returned. However, to remain consistent with the argument, it would have to be argued that this didn’t in fact mean that they returned at all. Rather after the death of Herod they stayed in Egypt. This we know is not the case. Clearly UNTIL does not always indicate that what was before would always be and that after the point of “until” the position changes.
We have clear evidence that UNTIL meant only until that point in time. But the Catholic MUST reject any possibility that UNTIL only meant until the birth of Jesus and not after despite the evidence to the contrary. Remember, this is Catholic dogma. It not only has to be a possibility that Mary did not have sex with Joseph, it MUST be held that Mary did not have sex with Joseph after the point of until, being the birth of Jesus. There is, however, no reason, unless you are holding to the already MUST be believed doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, to interpret the verse in the way the Catholic church has and then declared that it MUST be interpreted that way.
Furthermore, in Matthew 1:25, Matthew utilises the combination ἕως οὗ, heōs hou. This is a specific combination of 2 Greek words.
Matthew 1:25 Καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν, ἕως οὗ ἔτεκε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον· καὶ ἐκάλεσε τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἸΗΣΟΥN. (Textus Receptus)
He does this in 6 other verses in his gospel, each time there is a definitive meaning of a change in what happened before.
Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Matthew 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
Matthew 14: 22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
Matthew 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
Matthew 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Matthew 26:36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.
It is then evident, that when Matthew utilises the combination of heōs hou it should be understood it is in reference to something ceasing from what was before.
And so this is when we will go back and lok at the 2 verses cited as support by the Catholics.
In both verses the Greek reads ἕως τῆς heōs tēs.
2 Samuel 6:23 καὶ τῇ Μελχὸλ θυγατρὶ Σαοὺλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν.
Matthew28:20 Διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδού, ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. Ἀμήν
Therefore, we get a clear grammar distinction between Matthew 1:25 and the 2 verses. The Greek does not read the same and so we cannot draw a comparrision between them.
Acts 25:21 is sometimes used to counter this argument as in this verse we have the usage of heōs hou
Acts 25:21 But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar.
Acts 25:21 τοῦ δὲ παύλου ἐπικαλεσαμένου τηρηθῆναι αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν τοῦ σεβαστοῦ διάγνωσιν ἐκέλευσα τηρεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἕως οὗ πέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς καίσαρα
It is claimed that this verse shows that what had happened before, namely the holding of Paul, did not stop after the point of the “until”. As Paul was still held after he was sent to Caesar, this is evidence that the usage of heōs hou does not necessitate that something must cease after the point of until.
While on face value this argument may seem to work, when we just break down what the verse is actually saying we see that there IS a change that would happen after the “until”.
Paul had been held prisoner, but it was the custom of Romans not to hold a man prisoner until they had been charged. Paul had not been charged and so should not have been held. Paul was going to be sent to Jerusalem to face his accusers, however, Paul asked to be kept until his hearing with Augustus. Festus, the procurator of Judah, had declared that Paul would be held until Festus sent him to Augustus. Now, unlike the claim that the holding of Paul would continue after he had been sent to Augustus the until isn’t referring to the continuation of the action of holding Paul but rather the holding of Paul by Festus.
It is important to notice that Festus states “I” commanded that he be held until “I” send him to Caesar. While the holding of Paul would continue, it would not continue under Festus. The change here is not in the condition of the holding but rather from the holding of Paul by Festus, who would only hold him UNTIL he had sent him to Augustus in Rome, and the holding by Augustus. Paul, therefore, while still being held, was then no longer held in Judea by Festus, the procurator of Judea. It is THIS specific holding that then ceases after the point of “until”, not the holding altogether.
Psalm 72:7 is an Old Testament verse that is cited as support that heōs hou does not mean a change in what was before. The Septuagint reads heōs hou in this verse.
Psalm 72:7 In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.
Psalm 72:7 ἀνατελεῖ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ δικαιοσύνη, καὶ πλῆθος εἰρήνης ἕως οὗ ἀνταναιρεθῇ ἡ σελήνη
In the context of the Psalm, this verse is referring to the time of the Messiah, Jesus. It is, therefore, that his righteousness that will flourish, will not cease after the moon is removed. However, yet again, the claim is made based on an incorrect understanding of the verse. The verse isn’t talking about an end of righteousness at all. The context is clearly in reference to THIS world. Just as we saw in 1 Corinthians 15:25, this is not referring to eternity but specifically this world. The end point of this world is the removal of the sun and moon.
There is no requirement in the New Jerusalem for the sun and moon for the lamb is the light of it.
Revelation 21:33 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
It is again not a ceasing of righteousness, but a ceasing of righteousness in this world. The verse is specifically stating that the righteousness will not cease in this world until the moon is no more. That doesn’t end his righteousness, and neither is that the meaning of the verse. It is this world that again is the referent, the righteousness continues, but not in this word after the moon is no more. The point here is that the righteousness will not cease in this world until this world is no more.
We also need to look at the usage of the word firstborn in Matthew 1:25. Joseph did not know Mary until she brought forth her firstborn son.
Firstborn indicates a numerical position. Firstborn is the Greek πρωτότοκος prototokos which means firstborn or eldest. If Mary only had one single child, Jesus then we should ask why Matthew used this Greek word rather than only begotten son, μονογενής monogenés, which is a much better word to use to specify the only begotten son. The usage of prototokos would only serve to cause confusion if a singular son, singular child is in reference.
But there are even more scriptural problems for the Catholic interpretation and dogmatically declared belief.
The brothers and sisters of Jesus
The Bible states in numerous passages that Jesus had both brothers and sisters.
Matthew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
At least some of, if not all of the brothers of Jesus are actually named by Matthew.
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?
Matthew also mentions the sisters of Jesus, although he stops short of naming any of them individually.
Matthew 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
There are many other verses that would refer to the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
John 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. 4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. 5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
However, these verses are not in anyway offered as new evidence. The Catholic church is fully aware of these verses. In fact the Catholic church has devised counter arguments specifically against these verses. They have formulated a number of different defences against them in an attempt to explain away who these brothers and sisters of our Lord Jesus the Christ actually are. One such argument that the Catholic church postulates is that these brothers and sisters are not in fact literal brothers and sisters but rather they are other relatives of Jesus, likely being the cousins of Jesus.
“It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.”
Catholic.com
However, the word translated as brethren or brother in these verses is the Greek word Ἀδελφός, adelphos
This word is used throughout the New Testament to refer to literal physical brothers. Matthew himself uses this word to refer to literal physical brothers.
Matthew 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
Matthew 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
As does Mark
Mark 1:16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Mark 1:19 And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.
Luke also uses the word to mean a literal brother
Luke 6:14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
John used the word to mean a literal physical brother also.
John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
All four of the gospel writers can be shown to use adelphos in relation to literal physical brothers.
The word translated as sisters is the Greek Ἀδελφή adelphé. The feminine version of adelphos.
Again we have scriptural evidence that this was used of literal physical sisters.
Luke 10:38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.
John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene
Adelphé can refer to literal physical sisters.
When the writers of the Bible wanted to refer to, or convey more distant relatives or kinsmen, they used different Greek words. Such as Συγγενής suggenes.
As used in Luke 1:36 Where Elizabeth is referred to as Mary’s cousin
Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Elisabeth was not the sister of Mary but her cousin and so Luke here uses the female syngenis
We even have verses where both adelphos and suggenes are used together such as Luke 14:12
Luke 14:12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.
Brethren and kinsmen clearly being distinguished between. Brethren, adelphos, are a different class of relative than kinsmen, suggenes. They simply are not interchangeable words to refer to the same class of relatives.
We also have the Greek word ἀνεψιός anepsios which is used in Colossians 4:10 in reference to Marcus, Barnabas’s sisters son or in simple terms, Marcus the cousin of Barnabas.
Colossians 4:10 Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)
This is translated as cousin in the NIV
Colossians 4:10 My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) NIV
Adelphos is NEVER used by the inspired writers of the New Testament to refer to cousins or relatives.
The Catholic church therefore has to ignore the basic meaning of the words adelphos and adelphé and interpret the verses in a way they are never used elsewhere in the scriptures, as if they referred to that which is more naturally covered by suggenes or anepsios, namely cousin, other distant relative or kinsman. This is a totally unnatural reading and ONLY if one NEEDS to interpret adelphos and adelphé this way, as to not affect the already MUST be believed doctrine of the perpetual virginity, would this ever or could this ever be the true meaning of the words used by the INSPIRED writers of the Bible.
Therefore, it would seem, that those who see this very clear interpretational problem have postulated a rather different meaning to the Greek words.
It is claimed by some that brethren/brothers and sisters actually refer to not the distant relatives of Jesus but followers of Jesus, his disciples but yet again not the literal physical brothers and sisters of Jesus.
I am not going to argue against the very clear Biblical fact that adelphos has this usage. This most certainly is one way that adelphos can be used.
The bible is very clear that adelphos can mean followers of Jesus. It is used in this way many times throughout the New Testament. It can also refer to Israelites, ie, those of the same group of people who are “brethren” but not literal brothers.
Paul uses adelphos hundreds of times to refer to those that are in Christ or his fellow Israelites in his numerous letters.
I could simply list all those uses but I shall simply offer a couple as an example as that will be sufficient to demonstrate the clear fact.
In romans 1:13 he is addressing Israelites and calls them brethren adelphos. He is not in any way calling them his literal brothers.
Romans 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
1 corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
It is very evident that adelphos does not necessitate a literal brother.
Jesus himself uses it when he asks the questions who is my mother? And who is my brethren?
Matthew 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Jesus answered his own question by pointing to his disciples proclaiming THEM to be his mother and his brethren. Jesus very clearly stating that the disciples, those that do the will of his father in heaven, were his family and specifically uses the word adelphos. His spiritual brothers and not physical literal ones.
It therefore, cannot be argued, and neither do I do so, that adelphos has to mean literal brothers in every incidents of its usage. However, as we have already so plainly seen, it can, and demonstrably so, does have a meaning of literal brothers. So how can we distinguish when adelphos is being used to refer to literal physical brothers or to disciples. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. Context is the key and it allows us rather clearly to see which of the two is being referenced.
So let’s do just that and look at the context of the verses where the brothers of Jesus are referenced.
First we shall start with the passage in Matthew where the Mother and brothers of Jesus sought to speak with him. Notice the very clear statement, that before Jesus points to his disciples calling them his brethren, his mother and his brethren stood outside wanting to talk to him.
Matthew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
It is to this that Jesus points at his disciples and makes his claim that they are his mother and brethren.
Matthew 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Most Catholics will accept that the reference to mother in verse 46 and 47 is Mary the mother of Jesus. So Mary is a literal Mother, but then they will argue the brothers are not, which is simply inconsistent and could even be construed as dishonest.
If we are to take the first use of his brethren as meaning his disciples, his followers then this passage would actually say that his disciples stood outside wanting to talk to him but Jesus pointed to his disciples and said these are my disciples.
This is a literally absurd interpretation of this passage. The passage now makes no sense whatsoever. This is not the natural reading of this passage in any way shape or form.
Also if this was a reference to his wider family, such as cousins and other distant relatives then suggenes would be a much better word to have used.
It is very clear that his actual mother and his actual brothers were outside wishing to talk to Jesus but Jesus was making a point that it wasn’t his physical literal family who should be called his family but those that did the will of his father. The distinction here is between the literal physical mother and brethren waiting outside and the spiritual mother and brethren who were inside with him at the time. Very clearly showing that it wasn’t the flesh that made them his family. Just as we are told that it isn’t by flesh that we are the seed of Abraham but by the promise.
Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Those that are in Christ are heirs of Abraham through the promise and not the flesh.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Jesus always prioritised the spirit over the flesh.
When one man who Jesus had told to follow him asked to go bury his father first, Jesus denied him showing that those that follow him must also put spiritual family above that of the flesh.
Luke 9:59 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. 60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. 61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. 62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
Jesus himself put his spiritual family above that of his physical one. Jesus was making the distinction between the flesh and the spirit. His natural, physical, family according to the flesh were outside but his spiritual family was inside. This passage actually introduces us to the disciples, followers of Jesus and those that do the will of God being called brethren by comparing them against physical brethren.
This point is even more highlighted in another supporting verse in John 2
John 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
Here we have Jesus going down to Capernaum with his mother, brethren and his DISCIPLES.
Disciples here very clearly distinguished from his brethren and his mother. Jesus did not go to Capernaum with his Mother and brethren who were actually just his disciples and his disciples. This again makes the verse nonsense. In its natural reading Jesus went to Capernaum with his Mother Mary, his literal brothers and also his disciples. All individually stated and distinguished between by John.
We then come to another of John’s referencing of the brethren of Jesus.
John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. 4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. 5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
This passage totally destroys the brethren being “disciples” of Jesus argument. Here we have his brethren clearly stated as NOT believing in him. If his brethren are those that believe on and follow Jesus how could John state that his followers his disciples did not believe on him? We must also notice that his brethren told Jesus to go to Judaea so his disciples may see his works. So in this passage with this understanding, the unbelieving disciples of Jesus told Jesus to go to Judaea so his disciples could see his works. This usage of brethren not only lacks any sense it is also a contradiction in terms.
It actually shows why Jesus proclaimed his disciples as his brethren. The real brothers of Jesus, although likely not all of them, yet did not believe on him and so while they were physical brethren, brethren of the flesh, they were at this point at least, not his spiritual brothers.
This also explains why Jesus told Mary to behold John as her son and John to behold Mary as his Mother.
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
It is claimed by many in the Catholic church that the reason Jesus made this statement was because Mary had no other children to take care of her after the death of Jesus. It was Jewish tradition that if a man’s Mother had no husband to look after her then the eldest child would take the responsibility of doing so. If the eldest child died then the second eldest would take on the responsibility of looking after their mother. As Jesus passed that responsibility to his disciple this proves that Mary had no other children.
This under examination doesn’t hold up.
Actually, what it rather does is further illustrate the importance that Jesus placed on the spirit over the flesh which Jesus taught throughout his ministry.
As we just saw the brothers of Jesus, or at least some of them, did not believe in him. Therefore, Jesus passed on the responsibility of his mother’s care to his spiritual brother. Not just any of his spiritual brothers but the disciple he loved the most, John. Jesus prioritised his spiritual family over his flesh family. Passing on the responsibility in the spirit. Jesus himself said that the flesh profits nothing.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Interestingly, after the resurrection of Jesus, Jesus calls his disciples “brothers”
Matthew 28:10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
This is the first time that Jesus refers to the disciples directly as brothers.
In a Messianic Psalm, a psalm about the Messiah, it is stated that the Messiah would be a stranger to his brethren, an alien (a sojourner) to his MOTHER’S CHILDREN.
Psalm 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.
This verse alone demonstrates that the Mother of the Messiah who we know is Mary, would have children that would reject him. The verse claims that Mary would indeed have other children. Not only does the Bible support Mary having other children it actually clearly prophesied that she would.
This then would be perfectly supported by and fulfilled by the passage in John 7.
We are told that the brothers of Jesus did, however, come to believe in him once he had risen from the dead. As we are told about in the verse in Acts.
Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
These are clearly his literal brothers as his disciples are distinguished from his brothers in the previous verse where all 11 remaining disciples are named.
Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
The brethren in this verse do not refer to the disciples and in fact cannot refer to the disciples as the disciples were stated as being with the Mother of Jesus AND his brethren.
In another passage in Matthew there are 4 brothers of Jesus specifically named, so this means that there were at least 4 brothers of Jesus. It does not rule out there being more, although as 4 are named specifically it is likely that there were 4.
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?
Matthew also mentions the sisters of Jesus although he stops short of naming any of them individually. What is clear is that there are at least 2 sisters as the plural sisters is used.
Matthew 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
However, Matthew also used the word ALL, the Greek being πᾶς Pas. If there were only 2 then all is a rather strange word to use here. It is far more likely that the word both , ἀμφότεροι amphoteroi in the Greek would have been used. All, although not conclusively, would at least indicate more than 2.
It is therefore likely that Jesus had 4 half brothers and at least 2 half sisters but probably more. Half brothers and sisters from his Mother, with Joseph not being his father. It would mean that Mary had at least 6 other children and at least 7 children in total.
In these verses it is very clear that Joseph the supposed father of Jesus is mentioned, “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” Catholics will acknowledge that this is a reference to Joseph. Then his mother is mentioned, “is not his mother called Mary?” A very clear and also acknowledged by Catholics to be a reference to his literal mother Mary. BUT they then deny that the mention of his brethren and the naming of such is a reference to his literal brothers. This is an inconsistent and rather disingenuous interpretation of this passage. The mother and “father” are referenced and then his brothers.
What also needs to be noted here is that this was at the hometown of Jesus, Nazareth.
Matthew 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
The people of his home town were astonished by his works and then mentioned his mother and (supposed) father and the rest of his family by name. Clearly the people of his own town knew who he and his family were. They referred to his literal “father”, Joseph, who they believed to be his father and his literal Mother and then his literal brothers who are known by those in Nazareth and are named. To argue against this being the literal brothers of Jesus despite the clear reference to the literal family of Jesus has no support in context nor logic.
However, Catholic Apologist William Albrecht, does actually argue against this understanding, and he cites the parallel passage in Mark 6:3-4 as his evidence.
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.4But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
This is the same account that we already saw in Matthew 13:54-56
Williams claim that in Marks account, Jesus refers to the brothers (and sisters- Matthew) mentioned in verse 3 as being suggenes, and thus demonstrating that suggenes can refer to those called adelphos
In verse 4, the word translated as Kin ( Relatives NIV,ESV, NASB, NET), is suggenes. William links the kin, suggenes, of verse 4 with the brothers , adelphos, (and the sisters, adelphé, Matthew) of verse 3. Therefore, Jesus identifies his “brothers and sisters” as being relatives and not literal brothers and sisters.
However, this just is not the case. William has completely misrepresented the referents of the passage and made a connection that simply does not exist.
Jesus actually refers to 3 different class of people in this verse. Jesus says that a prophet is not without honour, except those in his own country. This is the Greek πατρίδι patridi, meaning hometown, Nazareth. Jesus then refers to his relatives, suggenes, which William links with the adelphos of verse 3 (and adelphé, Matthew). BUT, Jesus then refers to those of his own HOUSE, the Greek οἰκίᾳ oikia, which means a household. Jesus distinctly separates his relatives, suggenes, from his house, oikia, making it clear that the two referents are not the same. The relatives of Jesus would not be his household. His household would be his mother, father and siblings, brothers, adelphos, and sisters, adelphé. Jesus is thus, actually connecting his Household, oikia, with his brothers, adelphos, and sisters, adelphé, which are distinct and separated from his relatives, suggenes.
William appeals to Numbers 1:2 to demonstrate that households can include relatives and not just direct family.
Numbers 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
Here, William claims that these households included extended families, relatives.
The Greek Septuagint reads:
Λάβετε ἀρχὴν πάσης συναγωγῆς Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ συγγενίας, κατ᾽ οἴκους πατριῶν, κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἐξ ὀνόματος, κατὰ κεφαλὴν αὐτῶν·
Here, we have the Greek word suggenes used alongside oikia
However, yet again, William has misrepresented the meaning of the verse. Again he incorrectly connects the two together. The relatives are not all in the same house.
The Hebrew translated as “by their families” is לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֖ם lə-miš-pə-ḥō-ṯām, means by their clan or a GROUP of families connected via blood. It in no way indicates a SINGLE household, but a group of households. By the house of their fathers, means that each of the households that made up the clan were counted individually. Each house which contained the smaller individual family were counted, amongst the clan, the group of households. Fathers is Plural. Each household having an individual father over the house. While relatives are being grouped together as a family, they are not being referred to as all living in one house.
William, also cites Romans 9:3 as evidence for his claims:
Romans 9: 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
In this verse, Paul uses both adelphos, brethren, and suggenes, Kinsmen (countrymen). William argues that this demonstrates these two words are interchangeable. However, yet again William has misrepresented this verse. We have already seen that adelphos CAN is is used of non literal brothers, but rather spiritual ones. Paul is NOT using adelphos to refer to his literal brothers but rather his spiritual brothers, these are his countrymen according to the flesh, meaning he is addressing Israelites. He is not connecting adelphos and suggenes via his own literal physical brothers but fellow Israelites who according to the flesh, are his brethren, not by birth of his own mother and father. this verse does not in any way connect adelephos and suggenes by way of literal brothers.
In Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians we have yet another verse where the brethren of Jesus are mentioned. Again we have them specifically mentioned while also mentioning other apostles and Cephas who both are distinguished from the brethren even though they would be considered brethren being followers of Christ.
1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
It is the natural reading for this to be referring to physical brothers and apostles with Cephas both being spiritual brethren. Otherwise yet again we have the apostles and Cephas who are disciples and his disciples.
None of these interpretations work when we take brethren to mean disciples and not physical brothers.
The brethren of the Lord had wives just as Cephas had a wife.
Lastly we have James specifically named again as the Lord’s brother by Paul.
Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Paul says he went to see Peter who was a disciple. He saw no other apostle except from James the Lord’s brother. Peter who would also be the Lord’s brother should the only meaning of adelphos be disciple, is not, however, called the Lord’s brother. If brother meant apostle then there would also be no need for Paul to have referred to James as the Lord’s brother after saying he saw none other of the apostles than James. With this understanding and interpretation Paul would actually have stated he saw none of the apostles except James the Lord’s apostle. This makes the usage of the Lord’s brother absolutely redundant. Rather Paul, by using both apostle and brother, is stating that James was an apostle but also a physical brother.
There is also Jude who in his letter proclaimed himself the brother of James who we saw was the Lord’s brother.
Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
Jude therefore, being the brother of James the brother of the Lord was also a brother of the Lord. Both Jude and James are named as the Brothers of Jesus back in Matthew 13:55
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?
Are the sons mentioned in Matthew 13:55, the children of another woman?
It is claimed that the sons mentioned, James, Joses, Simon and Judas are actually the children of a completely different woman and not the sons of Mary.
This is because James and Jonas are mentioned as being the sons of a different Mary
Mark 15: 40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
However, this is just an assertion. Just because we see similar names does not demand that they must refer to the same people.
One thing we have to notice is that James and Joses here are mentioned alone while we have James, Jonas, Simon and Judas mentioned as being the brothers of Jesus. Of course this could mean simply mean that Simon and Judas are not mentioned in Mark 15:40. we do see this often in the Bible where only certain sons are mentioned even though we know there are other sons but we will always get this information elsewhere.
Some assert that there are 2 different James’ who are called disciples. This causes a problem when we look at 1 Corinthians 15:5-7.
1 Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
Here we see that it is stated that Jesus was seen by Cephus, then by the 12 (the disciples) which would include both James the son of Zebedee and James the less, then he was seen by the 500 brethren and then after that he was seen by James, then all the apostles. So who is this 3rd James? This is James the bother of Jesus. As we will see.
The interpretation of disciples or followers in Christ when examined just doesn’t hold up and contextually it fails.
Another postulation that the Church has offered regarding the brothers and sisters are that they are the children of Joseph only, from a previous marriage and not through his marriage to Mary. They are therefore, the step brothers and sisters of Jesus.
While this is unlikely and most certainly not in anyway scriptural seeing there is nothing that even remotely indicates or alludes to such an interpretation there are a couple of passages that would would at least seem to refute such an understanding.
Firstly Luke records Joseph as being the SUPPOSED father of Jesus.
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
We know that Joseph was not the literal physical father of Jesus and we are very clearly told that Joseph was only the supposed father of Jesus.
If the brothers and sisters of Jesus were not in fact the literal physical brothers of Jesus but only step brothers through his supposed father then it would seem strange that we are not also told that they were not the actual brothers and sisters only the step brothers and sisters through his supposed father. While this is not conclusive proof it at least offers more scriptural support than the baseless claim that the children were only of Joseph. We certainly have no scriptural support that would allude to Joseph having another wife by whom he had other children.
We also have further scriptural evidence during the census of Caesar Augustus, just after Jesus was born. This was where everyone went back to their home city to be registered. However, we are told that only Mary, who was ready to give birth, and Joseph went.
Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Mary and Joseph went alone. None of the children of Joseph went along with him.
When the shepherds came to see the baby Jesus we are told that they found Mary, Joseph and the baby Jesus.
Luke 2:16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
Now obviously it can be argued that the children lived with their mother and not with Joseph and of course this is a possibility. Jewish law regarding custody of children must, however, be noted.
General Rule
The general principle by which the Rabbinical Court operates is that for children up to age six, whether boys or girls, custody is given to the mother.
For children over the age of six, the sons would generally be placed in the custody of the father, since he has the primary obligation to educate the child and to raise the child as a Jew. The daughters are generally placed with their mothers, since the daughters will become better educated in the ways in life that are indigenous to them through the more intimate relationship they would have with their mothers.
chadbad.org
This isn’t in anyway unequivocal proof either way but it must at least be taken into account.
The simple fact is the context of the usage of brethren or brothers of the Lord demands that they be literal physical brothers and not disciples. To interpret these passages as disciples simply confuses the meaning and in same cases even creates contradictions in the scriptures.
The catholic church, in order to hold to its dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary must not only offer an alternative to the natural and more logical meaning of brethren in these verses and say that their interpretation is correct , but it also MUST condemn the more natural and logical reading as and declare it a heresy. The catholic church DEMANDS that this more natural and logical understanding is NOT believed and rather there is absolutely, undeniably no possible way that these verses can be referring to physical brothers of Jesus.
The Church cannot appeal to the Bible alone for this belief that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. They must also deny the most natural readings of the passages.
To offer a different interpretation to the verses is one thing but to declare in dogma, to simply demand that we adhere to those different interpretations or be cast from the church is another thing entirely.
To make the perpetual virginity of Mary a dogma, based on the evidence for the perpetual virginity, which is weak at best and virtually non existent inside the Bible, based mainly on tradition and extra Biblical sources is an abuse of the church’s power over its followers and is simply the church using its own self proclaimed authority to declare what is to be believed.
For the Catholic church to hold to its belief this natural reading has to be totally ignored and then proclaimed to not only be the better reading and understanding be other than physical brothers but that the natural reading CANNOT be understood this way
The Bible, if read without a preconceived must be believed dogmatic belief, teaches that Mary had other children and did not remain a virgin after the Birth of Jesus.
If you liked this study please subscribe here
You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here
Join our Patreon membership here or you can buy me a coffee through paypal
0 Comments