A common disagreement between Catholics and protestants is over the “brothers” of Christ. Catholics argue that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children than Jesus, whereas protestants point to a few passages in the Bible to argue she did. Here are my five Biblical proofs showing that Jesus did not have actual brothers (each argument – in my mind – gets stronger). Let’s get started:
One: Brother doesn’t mean Brother
This is weak as a “proof,” but is an important Scriptural consideration. “Brother” – especially in the Bible – doesn’t necessarily mean brother in the English sense of the word:
From An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: Adelphos (the Greek word for “brother” in the New Testament): denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity or origin of life. It is used for:- male children of the same parents
- male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Hebrews 7:5
- people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Romans 9:3
- any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3
- persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
- persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
- mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
- the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10, John 20:17
- believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2)
So we can clearly conclude that Scriptural passages noting Jesus’ brothers aren’t necessarily “brothers” in the English sense of the word (children of the same parents). The Old Testament is full of examples where men are called brothers that clearly are not brothers (Gen 11:26-27, 14:14, 29:10, 29:15; Deut 23:7; 2 Sam 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32; 2 Kings 10:13-14, Jer 34:9; Amos 1:9).
You can argue that Jesus had brothers, but the reality of the Scriptural word “brother” must be taken into consideration. To further advance this argument, you can look at Matthew 12:49-50, 23:1, and 23:8. In all of these passages Jesus refers to obviously non-brothers as brethren.
At this point a non-Catholic is likely to point at Matthew 13:55 where James and Jude are referred to as Jesus’ brothers. However, if you add in your analysis Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, you’ll see that they are called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. Most argue that Clopas and Joseph, Jesus’ foster father, were related, which makes James and Jude Jesus’ cousins or other near relative. But not His brothers.
Two: Nowhere to be Found
We know from various sources that Joseph was an older man when he took Mary as his wife. Christian tradition teaches that Mary and Joseph were consecrated virgins, so Joseph was accepting Mary as his wife in order to simply provide her with a home, something unwed women at the time needed. It was not unusual in that time to see two consecrated virgins marry. Why does this matter? Fast forward to Luke.
In Luke 2, we have the story of Mary and Joseph searching for Jesus when He was lost at the temple. One notable oddity of this passage is the lack of other children. I think we can all agree that Jesus was the first child (otherwise Mary wasn’t a virgin), so at this point Jesus was about 12. Where are his brothers? Not one other sibling is mentioned or even referred to in this passage and with an elderly Joseph you have to call into question the potential brothers of Jesus.
Three: Subtle but True
As a more subtle argument (that is still valid), I would point to Mary’s reply to the Angel Gabriel:
Luke 1:34. And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no husband?”
When she was told she would bear the Christ Child her response was “How can this be, since I have no husband?” Clearly Mary was aware that she was about to get married. Why would she ask this if she were not a consecrated virgin? As St. Augustine famously pointed out, “if she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question!”
Was Jesus an only child? Yes, and His mother was a perpetual, consecrated virgin.
Four: A Mistake by God?
This is the classic response to the argument that Jesus had brothers:
John 19:26-27. When Jesus saw his mother [from the cross], and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his home.
In the times that Christ lived in, brothers would take care of their mother when the Father died. It was a strict practice among the Jews – the oldest brother would have been the first to take over. But if the eldest died, it would have naturally passed to the next eldest brother. You only gave your mother to another person if you had no brothers. It’s that simple.
So here Jesus gave John (a non-brother) responsibility for His mother. Some protestants claim that James (a follower of Christ) was one of the brothers of Jesus, which would invalidate any argument that Jesus had non-believing brothers (a typical response when you point this out). Even so, it would have been an odd mistake to give this responsibility away if Jesus had brothers. This is another clear Biblical example that He did not have brothers –this is much clearer and stronger than the two passages that suggest He did have brothers. Note also that this clearly suggests Joseph had died by this time (most put Joseph’s death around the 15th birthday of Jesus). This ties in with the point that Joseph was significantly older than Mary.
Five: An Odd Response
If Jesus did have brothers, this is the oddest response ever by Mary Magdalene:
John 20:16-18. Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that He had said these things to her.
If Jesus really had brothers, then Mary Magdalene disobeyed one of His last instructions to her. Clearly she was a very close disciple and would have known whether or not Jesus actually had brothers. And furthermore, John in writing this passage acts as if Mary did exactly the right thing – he does not explain why she went to the apostles rather than Christ’s brothers.
This passage is the clearest example that Jesus did not have brothers. He did have cousins, nephews, etc. and He had disciples that he considered His brethren.
Bonus: 2,000 Years of Christian Tradition
This isn’t Scriptural, so I add it as a bonus. From the earliest times of the Church, it was believed that Mary was an ever-virgin and Jesus had no brothers – these two beliefs are tied together. In Writings on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary we cite some of the many Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Virginity and Jesus’ lack of brothers. It provides some extra details that flesh out the reality of the situation.
Conclusion: Jesus was an Only Child
Let me quote a protestant source, Commentary on the Whole Bible:
The word till [Matthew 1:24-25] does not necessarily imply that they [Mary and Joseph] lived on a different footing afterward (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20); nor does the word firstborn decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, “The law, in speaking of the firstborn, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before.
And Dave Armstrong in
A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (a book I highly recommend) points out:
John Calvin used this very argument [cited above] to establish the fact of Mary’s perpetual virginity, which he believed (based primarily on Scripture alone), as did Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and many later prominent, theologically conservative, and scholarly protestants (such as John Wesley). No one ever denied this doctrine until the late fourth century, when one Helvidius tangled unsuccessfully with St. Jerome. Calvin appealed to St. Jerome in his own commentary on this issue, and the issue of Jesus’ supposed blood brothers did not come up again until the last few centuries, in which “higher criticism” has often been employed to question traditional interpretations of the Bible.
In terms of individual arguments, not all of these draw a perfect conclusion. However, when you combine these arguments together, you see the picture that Jesus was an only child. Outside of the Bible there is no evidence that Jesus had a brother. Recently, even the famous “Brother of Jesus box” was proven a forgery (it attempted to prove that Jesus has a brother, James). There is simply no reason to believe that Jesus had siblings.
God bless,
Jay
