The questions that I envision being asked are as follows:
1. What about the New Testament passages that speak of Jesus’ siblings?
2. What about the passage that says Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary “until” she brought forth her firstborn son?
3. What about the term “firstborn?” Does it not imply that there are more “borns?”
To answer these questions appropriately, we need to establish a foundation first. There are some things that must be clarified before we can dive into the foregoing.
First, the people who wrote the passages in the last post did read the Bible. It was, for the most part, the same as the one we read. They are not relying on some other books nor are they relying on the English translation (as many of us must do). Many of them could read it in the original Greek. And to make it perfectly clear: theirs said essentially the same things as ours does today. So, the answer to the question of whether they had read those proof passages that are generally offered is a resounding “Yes!”
Secondly, these men were not trying to invent doctrine nor were they attempting to falsify the things that had been handed down to them. To say otherwise would be to level a vicious accusation at some of the people who gave us, for instance, the Nicene Creed. To say they were purposefully trying to change doctrine or deceive is too daring for any but the boldest gap theorist to attempt.
Now let’s deal with the issues raised by the questions above. It should be obvious that the word “firstborn” does not necessarily imply that there are more children. Regardless of whether one has additional offspring or not, the firstborn is still the firstborn.
All the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sits upon his throne, even to the first-born of the maidservant who is behind the mill; and all the first-born of the cattle. (Exodus 11:5 RSV)
It is clear that God was not referring solely to the people (and animals) that had more than one child but to all the persons who had even one child. The following verse gives us a definition of how the Scriptures define a firstborn.
"Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." (Exodus 13:2 RSV)
The use of firstborn when applied to Jesus does not necessitate that there be other children but Romans tells us about the other children of which Jesus is the firstborn.
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. (Rom 8:29 RSV)
So if there were no other children of Mary (as the Fathers teach) who are these brothers and sisters of which the New Testament speaks?
Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. (Luke 8:19 RSV)
The Greek word for brothers used here is "adelphos." The range of meanings for this word covers much more than two boys born with the same parents. It can mean a half-brother, someone of the same nationality, a fellowman, a person in the same employment or office, or a fellow believer. It can be cousins, brothers, or even just a kinsman. (Note that the range of the word sisters is much the same.)
While many believe these brothers are either cousins or children of Joseph by a previous marriage, it makes no difference either way. Since the semantic range of the word leaves the possibility open that there were no other children of Mary, it is unnecessary for us to say dogmatically that she had other children because it contradicts the clear teaching of the Church through the ages. The words used do not narrowly define a “brother” and neither should we.
If there were other reasons to think that we should narrow the range of this word, then we would do so. The weight of the ancient evidence and of the Church’s tradition, however, militates against it.
But what about the word “until” in Matthew 1? Surely that shows us that after the birth of her firstborn, Mary was engaged in sexual relations with Joseph. Well, certainly we can say that the semantic range of the word leaves that as a possibility. But again, as with the word “brother,” it does not necessitate it.
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:24-25 RSV)
But does the word until mean that it ceased being that way afterward?
Certainly not. For example, are we to assume that God the Father is speaking to Christ and telling Him to sit at His right hand only until His enemies are made His footstool and that thereafter Christ will be forced to get up or sit elsewhere in this verse?
But to what angel has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet"? (Heb 1:13 RSV)
Or that Christ will stay with us until the end of the age and thereafter is he will leave us?
Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to [same Greek word as until and till] the close of the age." (Mat 28:20 RSV)
The absurdity becomes clear. So why should we assume that there was some sort of change in the Blessed Virgin and Joseph’s relationship after she brought forth her firstborn? Let me say it again: the possibility exists within the words used but the necessity does not.
This makes me wonder why, then, do some insist that Mary had other children and that she had normal marital relations with Joseph. Is their reason Biblical or merely polemical? Do they reject the doctrine simply because the Catholic Church espouses it? Why if the semantic range of the words employed leaves us with ambiguity would we automatically gravitate toward the least historically attested way of believing? One needs to seriously question these things and come to some conclusions. Or maybe not. To do so, may very well change the way one believes irreversibly
