Matthew 1:25

Matthew 1:25
New International Version
“But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”

In a Protestant Bible, the commentary refutes the idea that Joseph had children before he met Mary. Because if Joseph had children prior to Mary, then they would be the era to the Throne of David, not Jesus.

This makes sense to me at first read.

Question: Are Catholics wrong to argue that “brothers” in scripture refers to Joseph other children since doing so would mean Jesus would not be the 1st male in Joseph family to inherit the throne of David?

Thank you,

James

Here’s several articles that will show you the error of that stuff.
Mary: Ever Virgin
The Case for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
How did the Church Fathers explain the perpetual virginity of Mary? Video

Brethren.

“member of a fraternity,”

Get a better bible! Get a complete bible! Get a Catholic bible! The NIV is a fundametalist-evangelical, agenda-driven twisting (modification) of God’s word.

Here is the true-to-the-original-meaning translation from the Knox Bible:

**

“25 and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.”

** Why is it written like that? Because Jesus’ virgin birth was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, and Matthew 1:25 demonstrates that Jesus’ conception was not by man, but by God via the Holy Spirit.

Get a real Catholic bible. Read the Book of Tobit. See in there that anyone from one’s own tribe (in Tobit it was the tribe of Naphtali) was called brother and sister. In Tobit, a man called his wife “sister” because they were from the same tribe.

As Catholics, we do not stumble in the darkness, trying to reverse-engineer history by inferring things from scripture alone. The greatest Saints have passed on to us that Mary was ever virgin. The bible nowhere mentions or names any other children of Mary, and none is present on the journey to Jerusalem in Luke 2, at the wedding feast in John 2 or anywhere at the crucifixion in any of the four Gospels.

This fabricated attack against the Virgin Mary, Catholic doctrine, and against the scriptures themselves was conjured up by those who hate the Catholic Church. Don’t feed the haters!

:sad_yes:

Awesome answer! Amen.
Mary.

If someone says, “She didn’t have any children until her death”, it doesn’t mean she had children after her death. :wink:

That sentence from Matthew is to emphasize the supernatural conception, not to say Joseph and Mary had sex later.

Joseph understood, with this divine Child, Mary’s spouse was the Holy Spirit. He understood in God’s plan that Jesus and His mother needed a guardian. What a tremendous honor!

Well different people will interpret different passages differently regarding Mary and Joseph. Some will argue she was always a Virgin and some will say she wasn’t. But does it really matter? Is any ones salvation based on the fact that Mary was a Virgin or not?

Except for the fact that God has revealed this to mankind, no.

The entire “other children” argument is an attack on Mary’s holiness - it makes her a common wife and mother of many. Such attacks do not come from heaven.

So reading all the responses here tells me that Catholics should admit that Joseph (Jesus father) did not have any other children prior to a marriage with Mary, unless they were female? Because if so, they would be era to the Throne of David and not Jesus. Correct?

There is no defined teaching on whether Joseph was married before or not. That is simply unknown. As to ascending to the throne of David, that was reserved only for our Lord, as His Kingdom is never ending.

How in the world is it unholy for a married woman to give birth to children?

For your mother or mine, whose God-given vocation was to marriage and family life, it is its own holiness. But, are you really thinking this through? Jesus, through Whom all of creation was created (John 1:1-4), being an eternal part of the Godhead, was involved in the ideation of Mary within the Divine intellect as part of God’s plan for creation and the salvation of mankind. As part of bringing this plan to fruition, He created Mary for the specific purpose of being His mother - He created her flesh so that she could in turn give that flesh to Him for the salvation of all mankind. This was fore-ordained from all eternity. The fulfillment of a vocation is a perfect conformity with the will of God. Inasmuch as God conceived of Mary for the sole purpose (vocation) of giving her flesh to the Christ, and of accompanying Him from virgin womb to virgin tomb, her vocation was Christ Himself. Her own son was her Lord and Master, her vocation, and the very reason for her existence. She existed only because of Christ, and was fulfilled only in Christ. The annunciation changed everything, forever.

To this end, we see in Luke’s Gospel that Mary vowed before Gabriel that she was the handmaid - even the bond slave - of the Lord. That same Lord would take flesh, in a way which she could not comprehend (nor can we, fully) as the baby which she would deliver to the world. Since her purpose was to give flesh to the Redeemer, her vocation was fulfilled only in conforming herself and her life to serve that vocation. Her Lord and Redeemer - her own Son - spoke the words to us to lead us to understanding of His mother’s vocation: 'Man cannot serve two masters." During her conversation with Gabriel, Mary chose her Master - both in this life and in eternity: her own Son. Her service was dedicated solely to God, in perfect conformance with His will and His intended vocation for her.

To break this vow which she made before Gabriel; to then disregard her vow before God and seek her own pleasure; to choose the satisfactions of this world over the reward provided by God, was unthinkable to her and, if you know Mary’s character, impossible. We cannot impose our 21st century western civilization concept of a “normal” family life upon the only woman in all of history and all of creation, who was predestined to bring about the redemption and salvation of all mankind. We are then thinking as man does and not as God does. Mary answers directly to God for everything. She was aware of this even before, and especially after her vow. She could (and would) serve no other. The difference with Mary is that she knew this, while you and I seek to avoid this knowledge.

If we take the earthy and simplistic view of a man and a woman who are married, we can see only the earthly pleasures of marital union and the “norma” family life. That is how the flesh thinks - carnally, sensually. But, neither your family nor mine could redeem mankind. Neither your family nor mine was conceived of before creation for that specific purpose. But, one unique family, out of all that would ever exist, was. And, therein lies the difference.

I think you may be misreading God’s promise to David. It was that a descendent of his would sit on the throne forever.

Not that the laws of primogeniture would hold.

I don’t see why the laws of primogeniture would not hold in this situation. Kingship doesn’t just fall on any child, it’s always the first born. Unless God intervenes such as in Genesis with Isaiah > Ishameal, Israel > Esau, etc. But Joseph (Jesus father) did not give a blessing to Jesus to indicate he was his first born.

I’m probably thinking way too deeply into this whole matter, but the idea struck me and I felt a strong urge to think deeper into this. So I really appreciate the feedback and discussion.

I just read the Hadock bible commentary on Mat 1:16. It says Joseph begot Jesus. Don’t know if this helps ???

We don’t know Joseph was heir to the throne, but he was a son of David. Just as they gave Jesus the title Son of David.

To quote veggie tales: God’s ways are not man’s ways.

God fulfills his promises, but not in the way we expect. Jesus was the first born of all creation. So he was David’s first born, even before David’s birth. He was before David was.

You are right of course but I don’t think the commentary was going that far in saying he was in line. I took “begot” to mean that of being a “father”.
Thanks for your input to make it more clear.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.