Refutation of Matt Slick's Did Mary Have Other Children?
Matt's words will be in blue; mine will be in black.
One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510).
While Jesus' brothers could've been His cousins, they didn't have to be; they could've been step-brothers. The apocryphal Protoevangelium of James says that Joseph had children from a previous marriage (while this book isn't inspired, it does give historical support), and this view is popular among the Eastern churches. This mistake will prove useful in refuting his first argument.
Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph 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 carpenter's father? In other words, 'mother' here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though 'carpenter's 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.
Like I said, Jesus' brothers could've been step-brothers, and step-brothers would fit into this context perfectly.
Actually, even though step-brothers would fit perfectly into this context, I believe that Jesus' brothers were really His cousins. While the New Testament was written in Greek, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Since there was no word for "cousin" in Aramaic, the Jews referred to cousins as brothers. When the evangelists wrote in Greek, they incorporated the Aramaic way of speaking into their writing, which is what the Septuagint writers did. The Septuagint writers translated the word for "brother" as "adelphos" (the Greek word for brother) even when referring to people other than siblings. Because of this, the people in Matthew 12:46-47, 13:55 probably used the term "brothers" to refer to cousins, and Matthew translated their words literally.
If we look at the accounts of the crucifixion, we can see that Jesus' brothers were not his blood brothers.
"Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." - Matthew 27:55-56
� The James and Joseph mentioned here have to be the same as the brothers of Jesus in Matthew 13:55; otherwise, there would be no reason for Matthew to indicate that this Mary was the mother of some people he had never mentioned before nor ever would mention in his Gospel. If they, along with Simon and Judas, were Jesus' literal brothers, why did Matthew not refer to Mary as Jesus' mother, as he always did (Matthew 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, and 2:21)?
� "After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb" (Matthew 28:1). This "other Mary" (also mentioned in Matthew 27:61) is certainly the mother of James and Joseph. However, if she was Jesus' mother, why does Matthew here demote her to such a minor role?
� From Matthew's account, it is clear that Jesus' brothers James and Joseph were not His blood brothers.
"There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem." - Mark 15:40-41
� Again, we see that the mother of James and Joses is not referred to as the mother of Jesus. Joses is Joseph (in Mark 6:3, the parallel to Mathew 13:55, Joses replaces Joseph); their names are the same in Hebrew.
� "When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him" (Mark 16:1). Here we can more clearly see that "the other Mary" mentioned in Matthew's Gospel is the mother of James and Joseph (she is called the mother of Joses in Mark 15:47). If she is Jesus' mother, why is she treated as a background character (especially evident in Matthew's account) and not called Jesus' mother?
"Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother�s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." - John 19:25
� Again we see this "other Mary" popping up, this time as the sister of Jesus' mother. Since they were relatives (probably cousins, because it's extremely unlikely that two sisters would have the same name), James and Joseph would also be Jesus' cousins, explaining why they are called His brothers. Since James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins, then Simon and Jude and all His other brothers probably were also.
There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus' siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, 'They hated Me without a cause.'"
He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."
Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.
Stop right here. Just because two verses of this Psalm are quoted as prophecies means that the WHOLE Psalm Is a Messianic Psalm? This may seem to make sense at first, but we'll soon see why this isn't so.
To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother's sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."
This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." God's will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.
Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?
As I said before, the whole Psalm isn't a Messianic Psalm. Let's take a look at three verses:
"O God, you know my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you." - Psalm 69:5
"Draw near to me, redeem me, set me free because of my enemies." - Psalm 69:18
"But I am lowly and in pain; let your salvation, O God, protect me." - Psalm 69:29
Here, the Psalmist tells God that he is a sinner (verse 5) in need of redemption and salvation (verses 18 and 29). Does this sound like Jesus? Hardly. This whole Psalm is NOT a Messianic prophecy, and since verse 8 isn't quoted anywhere as being a prophecy, there's no reason to believe it is. Protestants have to go so far as to sacrifice their Christology just to try and prove that Mary was not a perpetual virgin!
Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.
The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says bother "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.
First of all, we don't say that "my mother's sons" refers to cousins; we say that "my mother's sons" DOES refer to siblings, but not Jesus' siblings.
Was Jesus estranged by His brothers? No, He wasn't. All Scripture tells us is that they didn't believe Him. Is that what Psalm 69:8 means? No, it isn't. If we read the whole Psalm, we see that it is a plea for deliverance from persecution; the Psalmist was being persecuted by his brothers. Did Jesus' brothers PERSECUTE Him? All Scripture says is that they didn't believe Him, which hardly qualifies as persecution.
Now, Matt said, "There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus' siblings," but he didn't mention (much less respond to) any arguments in SUPPORT of Mary's perpetual virginity. Since Matt didn't do it, I will.
"Then he said to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." - John 19:27
After Jesus died, John the apostle took Mary into his home with her. If Jesus had brothers, why didn't they take her in with them?
"Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I am a virgin?'" - Luke 1:34
This is Mary's response to the angel Gabriel when he tells her that she will conceive a son. Now, Mary was going to marry Joseph, so why didn't she just assume that she would conceive a son after they got married? She was probably already a consecrated virgin and remained celibate for the rest of her life.
It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.
No, it is sad to see Protestant apologists go to such lengths to disprove Mary's perpetual virginity, even sacrificing their Christology!
