Was Jesus an only child? Did Mary and Joseph have children after Jesus was born? Does it even matter? According to Catholic Tradition, Mary remained a virgin all her life; hence the title "Virgin Mary." Whether or not Mary remained a virgin all her life isn't that big an issue; rather, the debate is about whether or not the Church is right. If the Church can be proven wrong on this issue, then its claim to infallibility falls, which would prove that the Catholic Church is NOT the Church that Jesus founded. If the Church is proven correct on such a seemingly insignificant issue, then its claims to infallibility would have more credibility.
"When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." - Matthew 1:18 (King James Version)
Protestants use this verse to try and show that Mary and Joseph DID have marital relations after Jesus was born. They say that the phrase "before they came together" implies that they eventually DID come together. However, they read their own interpretation into this verse. All Matthew was trying to show is that Mary and Joseph did not come together before Jesus was born; he was not implying anything about what happened after Jesus was born. If I say, "Before my cousin repented, he died," that does not mean that my cousin repented AFTER he died. Again, if I say, "Before I had a chance to save my cousin, he escaped," that does not mean that I saved my cousin AFTER he escaped.
"And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" - Matthew 1:25 (King James Version)
Protestants focus on two words in this verse, "till" and "firstborn."
First, they say that this verse, by saying that Mary and Joseph did not have marital relations until Jesus was born, implies that they DID after He was born. While this may seem convincing at first, when the bible uses the word "till" (or "until"), it is often referring ONLY to the time BEFORE the event it specifies.
"The child [John the Baptist] grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day he appeared publicly to Israel." - Luke 1:80
"For he [Jesus] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." - 1 Corinthians 15:25
"Until I arrive, give attention to the public reading of scripture, to exhorting, to teaching." - 1 Timothy 4:13
"In the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep the commandment without spot or blame until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ�" - 1 Timothy 6:13-14
"But to the rest of you in Thyatira�only hold fast to what you have until I come." - Revelation 2:24-25
Did John the Baptist leave the wilderness after he appeared in public? No. Will Jesus cease to reign after all His enemies have been put under His feet? No. After Paul arrives, should Timothy cease reading Scripture in public? No. Should Timothy cease to keep God's commands after Jesus arrives? No. Should the "rest" in Thyatira cease to hold fast after Jesus returns? No.
So, the use of the words "till" or "until" in Scripture do NOT always imply a reversal of the condition.
Secondly, some Protestants say that since Jesus was Mary's "firstborn," she must've had a "secondborn," possibly a "thirdborn," and so on. This, however, shows an ignorance of Jewish culture.
In Jewish culture (and law), the first child born is always the firstborn. The parents don't have to wait to have a second child before their first one can be called the firstborn. This is evidenced by Luke 2:22-23:
"When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, 'Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord')�"- Luke 2:22-23
Here we see that shortly after Jesus was born, He was brought to the temple because He was the firstborn male. Mary and Joseph didn't have to wait until they had a second child; firstborn is simply a legal term.
"The first issue of the womb of all creatures, human and animal, which is offered to the LORD, shall be yours; but the firstborn of human beings you shall redeem, and the firstborn of unclean animals you shall redeem." - Numbers 18:15
Here, in the book of Numbers, God clearly states that the firstborn is "the first issue of the womb," without having to wait for a "secondborn."
"While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, 'Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.'" - Matthew 12:46-47
This is just one of the verses that mentions Jesus' brothers, and Protestants take them to mean literal brothers. However, they fail to see that in Aramaic, there was no word for "cousin," so they called their relatives "brothers." Even though the New Testament was written in Greek, the evangelists used the Aramaic way of speaking and translated it word for word into Greek. The Septuagint writers also did the same. To give two examples:
� Lot is called Abraham's brother (Genesis 14:14, KJV), even though he is really Abraham's nephew
� Jacob is called the brother of his uncle Laban (Genesis 29:15, KJV)
Also, the word brother can refer to kinsman and those of the same nationality (Deuteronomy 23:7, KJV; Jeremiah 34:9, KJV). The word "brother" by itself does not indicate siblings, so we must examine what the more descriptive passages say in regards to Jesus' brothers.
Plus, 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.
"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
Here, Jesus entrusts Mary to John, and he takes her in to care for her. Now, If Mary had other children, why would John take care of Mary? Why didn't she go to one of her other children's houses? The simple answer is that she didn't have any other children; Jesus' brothers weren't His siblings.
In fact, the bible implies that Jesus' brothers were older than Him. In ancient (particularly Eastern) cultures, older brothers gave advice to younger brothers, but younger brothers never gave advice to older brothers. However, in John 7:3-4, Jesus' brothers advised Him to go to Judea so that people could see the great works He did. If Jesus' brothers were older than Him, then they couldn't have been siblings because Jesus was Mary's first-born.
"I have become a stranger to my kindred, an alien to my mother's children." - Psalm 69:8
According to Protestant apologists, this verse is a Messianic prophecy regarding Jesus. Since it mentions "my mother's children," they say that Mary must've had other children. How do they know it applies to Jesus? Other verses of the Psalm are quoted in various parts of the New Testament:
� Verse 4 is quoted in John 15:25
� Verse 9 is quoted in John 2:17 and Romans 15:3
So, how do they get from those verses being Messianic prophecies to verse 8 being one also? They say that the whole Psalm is a Messianic Psalm. This may seem convincing at first, but let's see what else the Psalm says.
"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
Since the whole Psalm is (supposedly) a Messianic prophecy, we just conclude that Jesus was a sinner (verse 5) in need of salvation (verses 18 and 29), which we know He wasn't. So, is the whole Psalm really a Messianic prophecy? Hardly. Protestants have to sacrifice their Christology to "prove" (from the Old Testament, no less!) that Mary had other children.
"Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I am a virgin?'" - Luke 1:34
When the angel Gabriel told Mary that she would conceive a son, she asked how she would conceive. This is strange, considering that she was betrothed to Joseph and would've had marital relations with him after their marriage. How do we solve this dilemma? Mary was probably a consecrated virgin before the annunciation.
Actually, the Greek literally says, "I do not know a man," which provides further support for the Catholic position. If Mary just meant that she hadn't known a man yet, why didn't she say so? Why would she use the present tense if she was only referring to the past? By saying, "I do not know a man," Mary implied that she would never know a man.