1. Matthew 13:55 (ESV)
  2. Exposition

Did the Lord Jesus have actual (half-)brothers and sisters, or did Mary remain an undefiled virgin?

Matthew 13:55 (ESV)

55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Mark 6:3 (ESV)

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Interpretation 1:
No, Jesus did not have (half-)brothers and sisters.

Summary: 

No, Jesus did not have (half-)brothers and sisters. Where the Bible speaks of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, we should think of relatives, meaning they could also be cousins.

Arguments in favour of this view:

  1. In Hebrew and Aramaic, more distant relatives or compatriots could also be referred to as brothers and sisters (see, e.g., Exodus 2:11; Exodus 4:18; Deuteronomy 1:28). Jesus also called Simon Peter’s fellow apostles his brothers (Luke 22:32). And in the apostolic letters, church members are often addressed as brothers (e.g., Romans 1:13; Romans 11:25; 1 Corinthians 1:11, 1 Corinthians 1:26; Galatians 3:15).

  2. Joseph, after having been instructed by an angel to marry Mary, even though she was expecting the Saviour conceived by the Holy Spirit, did not have a sexual relationship with her (Matthew 1:24–25).

  3. In Mark 6:3 (also in Matthew 13:55) the names James and Joses (also called Joseph) are given for the first two brothers of Jesus. In Mark 15:40 (also in Matthew 27:56) they appear to be the sons of another Mary, married to Clopas, an uncle of Jesus (John 19:25).

  4. The chronicler Hegesippus was born in Jerusalem around 115 AD and died in 180 AD, thus he was someone of the first generation after the apostles. He wrote that after the death of James, the righteous one, a son of an uncle of Jesus was again (!) appointed as overseer, namely Simeon (the son) of Clopas, because everyone thought that as the Lord’s second cousin he ought to be the overseer (cited in Eusebius’ Church History, IV.22.4, ca. 260–339). So not only that Simeon, but James, too, was a cousin of the Lord and not a brother. The church father Hieronymus (= Jerome; ca. 347–420) taught the same thing.

  5. The Roman Catholic Bible translation Peter Canisius also concurs with this.

  6. In John 19:27 we read that Jesus, nailed to the cross, asks his disciple John to take care of his mother Mary as a son. If Jesus would have had (half-)brothers and sisters, this question would not have been necessary.

  7. The Roman Catholic doctrine is that Mary was born without original sin from her mother Anna and always remained a virgin, so she could not have had children other than Jesus.

Arguments against this view:

  1. It is correct that the designation brothers can have a broader meaning in the Bible, along with members of the same people of God or fellow believers. However,

    a. it always speaks of brothers only and not also of sisters, while the sisters of Jesus are highlighted a few times in the New Testament (Mark 3:32 in many manuscripts; and Mark 6:3).

    b. where brothers refers to a group of relatives, no names are mentioned, as is the case with Jesus’ brothers.

  2. Of Joseph we are told in Matthew 1:24 only that he did not have sexual intercourse with Mary until she gave birth to her firstborn son. It does not say that he did not have intercourse after Jesus was born. Moreover, Jesus is called Mary’s firstborn son. This implies that she gave birth to other sons after that. If Matthew had meant that this was her first and her last son, he would have used the word only or only begotten (in Greek monogenè), as in Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38; and Hebrews 11:17.

  3. In Mark 15:40, James, the son of Mary—not Jesus’ mother—is called James the younger. Mark had not identified the James referred to as Jesus’ brother in this way in Mark 6:3. From this we may conclude that this is a different James. He was in fact related, but not the brother already mentioned earlier. And it follows that the Joses mentioned in Mark 15:40 is also a different one from the brother of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6:3. Given the family relationships (their father was an uncle of Jesus), it is not surprising that these cousins were named after the same ancestors. This may also have been the case with Jesus’ brother Simon (Mark 6:3) and his cousin Simeon (see point 4 below).

  4. The translation of Hegesippus’ passage about James and Simeon is debatable. It does not say that another son of an uncle of Jesus—a cousin of Jesus—was again appointed. That word is an assumption, not a translation. And the word second in the Greek fits much better with overseer than with cousin. Simeon was to be the second leader of the council of churches in Jerusalem after Jesus’ brother James, the role James filled soon after Pentecost.

  5. The quote cited by Eusebius shows that Hegesippus did know the Greek word for cousin. He used it for Simeon, the nephew of the Lord. Earlier in his work, Hegesippus also wrote about James the righteous and referred to him there as well as the brother of the Lord. If he meant cousin here, why didn’t he use that word? 

  6. The Peter Canisius Bible translation translates fairly with brothers and sisters in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55. But in a footnote to this it is then noted that the writer must have meant: nephews, because Mary has always remained a virgin. Here a later introduced dogma influenced the translation

  7. On the cross Jesus did not ask his disciple John for material and social attention for his mother, but spiritual care. Because at that time Jesus’ brothers and sisters still did not believe in him as the Saviour sent by God (Mark 3:20–21, Mark 3:31–35; John 7:5). After his resurrection and before his ascension, Jesus also sought out his (half-)brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7). The result was that after Pentecost he becomes a mainstay in the Christian church in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9; Acts 15:13—this is after the death of the apostle James—Acts 12:1–2; Acts 21:18). The other brothers also apparently came to faith and—because of their testimony about Jesus from childhood—they played an important role in strengthening the faith of the young Christians (1 Corinthians 9:5).

  8. An appeal to Mary’s sinless state and her undefiled virginity is a clear example of reversing the burden of proof. The Roman Catholic Church did not establish by clear scriptural evidence that Jesus had no brothers and sisters, and then developed the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. No, first the Roman Catholic Church developed the doctrines concerning Mary (such as her sinlessness, her virginity even after Jesus’ birth, her ascension to heaven, her intercession for us in heaven) none of which is based on any scriptural evidence, and then adapted the interpretation of certain clear Bible texts about Mary and her other children accordingly.

Interpretation 2:
Yes, Jesus did have (half-)brothers and sisters.

Summary: 

Yes, Jesus did have half-brothers and sisters. In several places, the Bible recounts that Jesus grew up in a family of half-brothers and half-sisters. Therefore, the teaching about Mary as the undefiled virgin does not rely on scriptural evidence.

Arguments in favour of this view:

All the arguments against Interpretation 1.