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

Aleteia ^ | April 7, 2015 | JOHN MARTIGNONI

[NYer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ealgeone]

Mary's vow of perpetual virginity is witnessed by Luke 1:34 “How is this to be, since I do not know man?” Note the present perfect tense. If you refuse to believe the Church, at least believe the Bible!

Please! Have you read the text??

This is not a vow of perpetual virginity....it's a question from Mary to Gabriel as to how she will have a child as she is a virgin.

The Greek reads as:

Εἴπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον, Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

The bolded word means come to know, especially through personal experience.

It is in the present indicative tense. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) indicates this may be a perfective present. It may be used to emphasize that the results of a past action are still continuing. This is always from the perspective of the writer.

Wallace also cautions on the perfect tense that the perfect tense denotes permanent results or eternal results. Context will tell us if it is true or not.

This means, from the perspective of the writer, in this case Luke, Mary was saying at this present time I have been a virgin and presently am and will continue. She is getting married so she knows this will change.

If we reference Matthew where it is noted that Joseph kept her a virgin until Jesus was born this means only one thing. After Jesus was born they consummated the marriage.

So how the context clears this up?

[af_vet_1981]

Did you even read what you posted ? Spurgeon ignores the sin staring at you in the verse. Surely you know the Hebrew and can look at it yourself. Is it still your assertion that all of Psalm 69, without direct New Testament references, applies to Jesus and his family ? If so, your line of attack on the perpetual virginity of Mary, who is the blessed mother of "God with us," according to the scriptures, has made him out to be a sinner, like David.

[Star Traveler]

I read this along with the rest ...

Verse 8. I am become a stranger unto my brethren. The Jews his brethren in race rejected him, his family his brethren by blood were offended at him, his disciples his brethren in spirit forsook him and fled; one of them sold him, and another denied him with oaths and cursings. Alas, my Lord, what pangs must have smitten thy loving heart to be thus forsaken by those who should have loved thee, defended thee, and, if need be, died for thee. And an alien unto my mother’s children. These were the nearest of relatives, the children of a father with many wives felt the tie of consanguinity but loosely, but children of the same mother owned the band of love; yet our Lord found his nearest and dearest ones ashamed to own him. As David’s brethren envied him, and spake evil of him, so our Lord’s relatives by birth were jealous of him, and his best beloved followers in the hour of his agony were afraid to be known as having any connection with him. These were sharp arrows of the mighty in the soul of Jesus, the most tender of friends. May none of us ever act as if we were strangers to him; never may we treat him as if he were an alien to us: rather let us resolve to be crucified with him, and may grace turn the resolve into fact.

[cport]

Very extensive list...might I add The Message:

But he did not consummate the marriage until she had the baby. He named the baby Jesus

[af_vet_1981]

You do not get to add to the verse any private interpretation you imagine, as if they were scripture, like Missler, who wrote "He was called illegitimate in order that I might be a legitimate son of God." Where, exactly, is that recorded in scripture ? So much adding to scripture to push an agenda by those who claim to be Sola Scriptura.

Meanwhile, you are still ignoring his sin in O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. There are other verses in the Psalm that do not conform with the entire Psalm, written by David, being all about the Messiah either. You need explicit New Testament references, not Slick interpretations, before trying to use it as a proof text.

[ealgeone]

Verse 8. I am become a stranger unto my brethren. The Jews his brethren in race rejected him, his family his brethren by blood were offended at him, his disciples his brethren in spirit forsook him and fled; one of them sold him, and another denied him with oaths and cursings. Alas, my Lord, what pangs must have smitten thy loving heart to be thus forsaken by those who should have loved thee, defended thee, and, if need be, died for thee. And an alien unto my mother’s children. These were the nearest of relatives, the children of a father with many wives felt the tie of consanguinity but loosely, but children of the same mother owned the band of love; yet our Lord found his nearest and dearest ones ashamed to own him. As David’s brethren envied him, and spake evil of him, so our Lord’s relatives by birth were jealous of him, and his best beloved followers in the hour of his agony were afraid to be known as having any connection with him. These were sharp arrows of the mighty in the soul of Jesus, the most tender of friends. May none of us ever act as if we were strangers to him; never may we treat him as if he were an alien to us: rather let us resolve to be crucified with him, and may grace turn the resolve into fact.

If you haven't noticed, catholics don't like context for this very reason.

[Star Traveler]

It’s not private, but is wide-open to public examination. The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make it private ... :-) ...

[af_vet_1981]

Of course it is a private, as in, personal, interpretation. You quote part of a verse and attach a personal commentary to it as if it had the same weight. You accuse “The Jews his brethren” of rejecting him, ignoring the fact that they comprised the bulk of the holy catholic apostolic church; with the apostles and prophets being the foundation thereof with Messiah himself as the chief cornerstone.

[Amendment10]

• Ezekiel 44:2 would be seriously compromised.

• Luke 1:35 compare with 1 Kings 8 verses 10 -11.

Yes, I suppose that the referenced passages can be symbolically construed that way.

Mary is the Ark of the new covenant.

Consider Acts 4:10-12.

[Star Traveler]

It’s no more “private” than you saying the opposite is private. We’re all talking pretty openly here ... :-) ...

The Bible speaks pretty clearly and forthrightly about the subject ... so with the very same verses ... you’ve got someone saying he has brothers and someone else saying he does not.

The ones who say he does not have brothers don’t match up to what the Bible says. They have to “explain further” to let people know why they can’t believe what the Bible says, and thus explain how it means something different than what it says ... LOL ...

What you’ve got going on here is a “theology” that you don’t want to go against ... :-) ...

[ealgeone]

>“...don’t see where biblical prophecy would be compromised if Mary did have more children...”<

Ezekiel 44:2 would be seriously compromised.

Nope.

Read 45:22 and 46:16. Keeps things in context. The prince is offering a sacrifice and has sons. This is not Messiah.

[stonehouse01]

“...Catholics don’t like context...”

This is a false accusation:

Catholics LOVE context!!

The 1859 Haydock commentary by priest and biblical scholar Rev. George Leo Haydock is our favorite and we not only like we love it!!

Also: The first concordance (Latin - from the Vulgate) was compiled by Dominican friars in 1230, long before the reformation.

The concordance is used as a key for referencing and cross referencing words to aid in understanding context in scripture passages in case you are unfamiliar with the concept. Catholics are HUGE fans!!

The problem isn’t that we don’t like context; the problem is that protestants don’t LIKE our context because we reference the passages that prove the need for the cooperation of free will for salvation rather than just repeating the sola fide passages. Catholics reference BOTH.

[af_vet_1981]

What you’ve got going on here is a “theology” that you don’t want to go against ... :-) ...

Speaking of a "theology that you don’t want to go against," you wrote "The Jews his brethren in race rejected him,"

Are you like other antiCatholics who exclude "The Jews his brethren in race" from being covered as the least of these my brethren in the Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew ?

[Star Traveler]

Here’s a short radio segment from The Berean Call, with Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon (about thirteen minutes) ...

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/did-jesus-have-brothers-sisters

Direct to the MP3 file ...
ftp://www.thebereancall.org/radio/2009/4509d.mp3

Dave Hunt is dead now, but this was from 2000, I believe. T.A. McMahon is still with the ministry, The Berean Call.

[Star Traveler]

Post #74 goes into it for you ... :-) ... it’s about a 13-minute radio clip.

[af_vet_1981]

The ones who say he does not have brothers don’t match up to what the Bible says. They have to “explain further” to let people know why they can’t believe what the Bible says, and thus explain how it means something different than what it says ... LOL ...

Do you mean like the modernists that have broken with almost two millennia to try to make the blessed mother of "God with us" conform to an image they can recognize in their own modern and evolving theologies ?

[ealgeone]

The problem isn’t that we don’t like context; the problem is that protestants don’t LIKE our context because we reference the passages that prove the need for the cooperation of free will for salvation rather than just repeating the sola fide passages. Catholics reference BOTH.

Well, apparently catholics don't as they would understand the passage cited is taken out of context.

Can you square away the context of the prince in the passage cited?

[Star Traveler]

I have no idea why those other people almost two millennia ago got it wrong, and I wasn’t around then to ask them. But I do have the Bible to look at, right now, and that’s what applies to me. That’s all I have to know.

[CynicalBear]

A couple of problems with this guys obfuscation.

First, there is not reference to Peter being the "chief apostle" in scripture. In fact when asked "who is greatest" He clearly indicated there was none.

Second, we know there were many women named Mary and many men named James. We also know that within the ekklesia men are referred to as brothers at times. Children on the other hand are never referred to as brothers other than blood brothers, so when Jesus was still a child and His brothers and sisters were referenced it would not be anything other than blood brothers and blood sisters. Nothing in the article can be used to prove Jesus did not have blood brothers and sisters.

Third, the writer of the article totally ignores the fact that scripture also tells us that Jesus also had sisters.

[Tzfat]

“Abi” is still today used in Middle East to mean brother, cousin, OR close friend.

What language would that be? Hebrew, Arabic, Assyrian, Farsi?