We know that Jesus was an only child, but some people disagree. The reason they disagree is that they deny the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, something that has always been believed by Christians. In this article I'll be looking at some of the common arguments used.
Before we get to the Biblical arguments, though, I'll just put forward two historical arguments.
If Mary had had children other than Jesus, it would have been impossible for the Church to teach that Mary was always a virgin. After all, if you were descended from Jesus' mother, you'd know it and be proud of that fact - if anyone thought that Mary were a virgin, you'd set them straight. And yet, the Church did teach early on that Mary was ever-virgin; despite this, no Christians denied the truth of this teaching. So it would seem that Mary didn't have any descendants besides Jesus.
If Mary had had children other than Jesus, then how would Jesus appear to the people of that time? He would just be the first of many children, nothing special. His conception by the action of the Holy Spirit would be disbelieved, and people would naturally assume that, for instance, Joseph was the father - note that Joseph took her into his home at the same time that Jesus was concieved. So the prophecy of the Messiah's mother being a virgin (Matthew 1:22-23) would appear to have been unfulfilled in Mary; and so Jesus would not appear to be the Messiah.
On the other hand, though, if Jesus were an only child, something rather unusual at that time, his supernatural conception would be more likely to be believed. His birth would plausibly appear miraculous, Jesus being the only child of an otherwise infertile couple.
Here's a proof that Jesus was an only child:
John 19:26-27
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, "Woman, behold thy son!" Then saith he to the disciple, "Behold thy mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
If Jesus had brothers and sisters, there would be no need to put His mother
under the care of John. In fact, it would probably be an insult to His siblings.
On the other hand, if we assume Jesus had no siblings, the way He provided for
the care of His mother makes perfect sense.
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee...
The language used here to describe how Jesus would be conceived ("the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee")
indicated that there was a union of marriage between Mary and the Holy
Spirit. Since that's the case, it would be adulterous for Joseph to have
sexual intercourse with Mary.
Mary couldn't have had any children besides Jesus, since she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity; she had gotten engaged to Joseph with the understanding that they'd never have sex. We can see this from the first chapter of Luke.
Luke 1:30-33
And the angel said unto her, "Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He 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: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."
If Mary intended to have a normal marriage, including sexual intercourse, one would have expected her to react in the following manner: "How wonderful! Joseph and I will be the parents of the Messiah!" But instead, what she said is:
Luke 1:34
"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
If Mary had intended to have sexual intercourse with Joseph, what she says here makes no sense at all. Thus, she intended to remain a virgin even in marriage.
Some people claim that the following verse shows that Jesus had
brothers:
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.
First, note that James, Joses, Juda, and Simon are called the brothers of Jesus, not the sons of Mary. No one in the Bible, besides Jesus, is ever called a natural son of Mary. So this verse doesn't show, at all, that Mary didn't remain a virgin - the "brothers" of Jesus could have been his cousins (as I'll be arguing below), or they could have been His brothers by adoption (that is, they could have been adopted by Joseph and Mary), or they could have been Jesus' half-brothers (for instance, if Joseph were a widower and had fathered those children with his previous wife). All of these cases are possible and are in complete harmony with the above Biblical verse.
|
In the Bible, the term "brother" is used in a more general sense than is common today; it would be better translated as "kinsman" or "relative". There are several Biblical examples of this. The reason for this is that Hebrew didn't have a word for "cousin", so the word "brother" was used to include cousins. The people who wrote the Bible were of Jewish culture and were accustomed to this usage, and so they applied it when writing in other languages as well, such as Greek. The Greek Old Testament used by the Evangelists, called the "Septuagint", was translated into Greek by Jewish scholars about a century before Jesus' time, and it refers to cousins and other close relatives as "brothers" in exactly the way I've described. In the following examples, I'll provide the verses in English, and also a transliteration of the Greek Old Testament used in Jesus' time. The first example concerns Abram and Lot.
This verse tells us that Abram is the uncle of Lot: Abram is the brother of Lot's father. But in another verse, Abram is called Lot's "brother":
Similarly, the Bible tells us here that Laban is Jacob's uncle:
However, two verses later, Laban calls Jacob his brother:
In the following, the cousins of the daughters of Eleazar are called their "brethren":
In the following, the "brethren" of Ahaziah include at least 42 men, who were not his brothers - his brothers were all killed before he became the king (2 Chronicles 22:1) - but rather his cousins or other similar relatives: 2 Kings 10:13-14 So we see that the term "brother" in the Bible can refer to family relationships other than the one to which we usually apply it. |
Now that we know that the word "brother" in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean a sibling, we shall proceed to look at what else the Bible has to say about the "brothers" of Jesus (James, Joses, Juda and Simon).
The Bible shows us that James and Joses had a different mother than Jesus did.
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;
Obviously, Mary the mother of James and Joses is not the mother of Jesus. The context here is the crucifixion of Jesus, and if the Mary in question here were Jesus' mother, this would have been stated. Therefore, the mother of James and Joses was not Mary the mother of Jesus.
Now, let us look at Mark 6:3 again:
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.
We've seen that James and Joses were not Jesus' brothers as we understand the term, but rather cousins at best. But what about Juda and Simon? Are they Jesus' "real brothers"? Clearly they are not, because it would be absurd to name Jesus' cousins first, and then His "real" brothers.
So it would seem that Mark 6:3 does not give any evidence at all that Jesus had any siblings. In fact, it proves that He didn't, when we take into account what the Bible says concerning James and Joses.
It is claimed that the following verse says that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus' birth:
However, what the Bible is actually doing here is underlining the fact that Joseph is definitely not Jesus' father, since he didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary before Jesus was born. But the word "till" in this verse does not imply that Joseph "knew" Mary after the birth of Jesus (that is, that they eventually had sexual intercourse). Here's a Biblical example to demonstrate this:Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Does this imply that we are allowed to sin after Jesus appears? Of course not.1 Timothy 6:14
"I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ."
In addition, note that if Joseph intended to ever have sex with Mary, why did he wait until after Jesus' birth? There was nothing to stop him. So this actually indicates that Joseph did not intend to have sex with Mary.
Return to The Bible Defends the Catholic Church!