Brothers and Sisters?

OSV.com ^ | 05-01-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Brothers and Sisters?

Q. I know that the Church believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but what are we to make of the passages in the Gospel that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters?

Rose, via email

A. There are a number of places in the New Testament (see Mk 3:31-34; 6:3; Mt 12:46; 13:55; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12; 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; and 1 Cor 9:5) where Jesus’ kinsfolk are mentioned using terms such as “brother” (adelphos), “sister” (adelphe) or “brethren” (adelphoi). But “brother” has a wider meaning both in the Scriptures and at the time they were written. It is not restricted to our literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother in the sense of sibling.

Even in the Old Testament “brother” had a wide range of meaning. In the Book of Genesis, for example, Lot is called Abraham’s brother (see 14:14), but his father was Haran — Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-28). So, Lot was actually a nephew of Abraham.

The term “brother” could also refer widely to friends or mere political allies (see 2 Sm 1:26; Am 1:9). Thus, in family relationships, “brother” could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended. We use words like kinsmen and cousins today, but the ancient Jews did not.

In fact, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word meaning “cousin.” They used terms such as “brother,” “sister” or, more rarely, “kin” or “kinsfolk” (syngenis) — sometimes translated as “relative” in English.

James, for example, whom St. Paul called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), is identified by Paul as an apostle and is usually understood to be James the Younger. But James the Younger is elsewhere identified as the son of Alphaeus (also called Clopas) and his wife, Mary (see Mt 10:3; Jn 19:25). Even if James the Greater were meant by St. Paul, it is clear that he is from the Zebedee family, and not a son of Mary or a brother of Jesus (in the strict modern sense) at all.

The early Church was aware of the references to Jesus’ brethren, but was not troubled by them, teaching and handing on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is because the terms referring to Jesus’ brethren were understood in the wider, more ancient sense. Widespread confusion about this began to occur after the 16th century with the rise of Protestantism and the loss of understanding the semantic nuances of ancient family terminology.

[Elsie]

Now I will make a statement. Jesus was not a sinner. He did not inherit Original Sin, which is to say,m a sin-damaged nature, nor did He commit sin. But although sinless, sin offerings were made for Him. Although sinless,He submitted even to John's baptism, which was a baptism of repentance. Did He have any sins to be freed from? No. Did He have anything to repent? No. But He participated in these actions as an example, and that all the Law might be fulfilled.

 

Now I will make some statements.

The Bible's Mary WAS a sinner.  Rome claims that IT's Mary was not.

She DID inherit Original Sin, and,  she DID commit sin.

And, being sinful, sin offerings were made for HER.

Did SHE have any sins to be freed from?  You betcha!

Did SHE have anything to repent? Sure; she was ONLY human.

SHE  participated in these actions, BECAUSE SHE WAS A SINNER, and; being a good JEW; that all the Law might be fulfilled.

[daniel1212]

We can line up every Greek scholar on the planet to explain this and the Catholic will still disregard the lesson. Their indoctrination is very strong. When your assurance is based upon the premise that, like God, your church cannot err, and her declaration guarantees and proves something is true, then indeed, all contrary evidence is made to bow before this source of security, as in a cult.

[Elsie]

I asked you a question.

Of COURSE you did; but SURELY by now you know that I do NOT go chasing after the bunny down the hole; right?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks, this is actually very good.

Here's a note of interest. The variant of charitoo (grace) used in Ephesians is echaritosen, in what is called in Greek grammar the "indicative active aorist." There's a sense of continuing action:

"That the glory of his grace may be praised, that which overflows upon us by his Beloved One." (Ephesians 1:6)

In a related yet contrasting way, Kecharitomene --- what Mary is called by the angel --- is a finished thing, a perfect passive participle, meaning "having been" or "have already been" graced, a past action, done to her by someone else, and fully completed in the past.

It's beautiful how the Angel's unique-in-all-of-literature word, Kecharitomene, fits so perfectly.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“is a finished thing, a perfect passive participle, meaning “having been” or “have already been” graced but by God’s choice.

You are only chosen to bear Messiah once.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hello again, Elsie. I like the simple approach: answer the question. It’s civil and respectful, and it advances the dialogue. Questions are not answered by insults.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Although sinless,He submitted even to John’s baptism, which was a baptism of repentance. Did He have any sins to be freed from? No. Did He have anything to repent? No. But He participated in these actions as an example, and that all the Law might be fulfilled.”

And yet by framing it this way you still assume that which God never said - and you did it again.

Mary was a sinner, favored by God to bear Messiah.

[metmom]

Abraham didn’t.

[metmom]

All believers are pure in God’s eyes.

She did not need to be purified to carry a sinless Jesus.

If that was the case, then who purified Mary’s mother so as to carry her, who you claim was without sin?

[metmom]

Sure.

She was sinless her whole life, pledged to God for perpetual chastity, enters a marriage contract with Joseph, and is PUZZLED by the angel’s greeting and announcement.

[metmom]

Magic Thinking allows such a range of thoughts, that it allows two or even three opposing facts to be held valid simultaneously.

And they explain it away as a "mystery of the faith".

[ealgeone]

Here's a note of interest. The variant of charitoo (grace) used in Ephesians is echaritosen, in what is called in Greek grammar the "indicative active aorist." There's a sense of continuing action:

Your information on the Greek of the verbs in question is incorrect.

The verb in Eph 1:6, ἐχαρίτωσεν, is an aorist, indicative, active.

It should be translated as "He has freely given us".

The aorist tense describes an undefined action that normally occurs in the past. The aorist is always undefined. It tells you the action happened, but nothing more about the aspect of the action. (Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, p195).

The indicative mood refers to the relationship between verb and reality. A verb in the indicative is describing something that is. It is indicating a truthful statement.

The active is the voice. This refers to the relationship between the subject and verb. If it's active, as in this case, the subject does the action of the verb. In this case, it is Jesus Who has freely given us His grace.

I'll post more regarding the passage in Luke but suffice to say you're incorrect on that one as well.

I do commend you for trying to use the Greek though.

[metmom]

But, he looks the part, so he must be real.

Right???

[metmom]

Basically, Mary had the right pedigree and was born at the right place and time to fulfill prophecy.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“But, he looks the part, so he must be real.”

Got to “dress for the job you want!”

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Basically, Mary had the right pedigree and was born at the right place and time to fulfill prophecy.”

God never says why He chose Mary - or Abraham or David, etc.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I wrote: "... what is called in Greek grammar the "indicative active aorist."

You wrote: "Your information on the Greek of the verbs in question is incorrect. The verb in Eph 1:6, ἐχαρίτωσεν, is an aorist, indicative, active."

Yes. Take another look at that. That's what I wrote.

Coffee coffee coffee.

[ealgeone]

I’m providing the correct way to identify the verb.

[editor-surveyor]

.
To a blinded unbeliever like you, perhaps, but Michael is dressed as a disciple of Yeshua would have been dressed in the early centuries AD.

The garment is called a Talit, and is the one to the corners of which the blue threads of the tassles would be attached. (the tassle that the woman with an issue of blood touched to be healed)

Since you have chosen not to be a part of that assembly (definitely not a ‘church’) it is no concern of yours.
.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's not that Mary needed to be purified to carry a sinless Jesus (although an argument can be made for that) but, more to the point, she needed to have an undamaged-by-sin human nature in order engender a sinless Jesus: to be the source of her natural Son's undamaged human nature.

Before the advent of modern genetics and embryology , there were debates about when life begins. Thus "begins" can be a tricky concept. I'd say human life is "transmitted" from one generation to the next, every time a new baby is conceived.

Mary's human nature, like yours and mine, began when she was conceived.

Thus it is a reasonable inference from evidence, that the purification was accomplished at her conception.

We know that some prophets were called and prepared while they still in their mothers' wombs (Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist) because they needed that for their subsequent roles. Mary's role was far more fundamental: she had to pass on a perfect human nature. It was both fitting, and foreshadowed in Scripture that this exceptional passing-on of human nature would entail exceptional preparation.

Reasonable people could argue on both sides of the question "When?" (either at Mary's conception or shortly thereafter), but Mary's sinlessness (accomplished at some point prior to the Angelic Salutation) is found in the belief of the Church as far back as we can go on liturgical evidence ("Panagia" and so forth.)

Here's a research project: find me the first Christian theologian who dissented from this and labeled Mary a sinner. I bet you a pound cake and a quart of strawberries you can't find any before the 16th century.