Posted on 03/26/2015 5:03:18 PM PDT by RnMomof7
">Did Jesus Have Fleshly Half-Brothers?
| by | Dave Miller, Ph.D. |
The usual word in the Greek language for “brother” is adelphos. It possesses the same latitude of application that the English word possesses. Hence, it can refer to a person who shares the same religion (a spiritual brother). It can refer to a person who shares the same citizenship—a fellow countryman. It can refer to an intimate friend or neighbor. All of these uses are self-evident, and do not encroach upon the literal use of the term.
By far the most prominent use of the term is the literal sense—a blood brother or half-brother, the physical son of one’s mother or father. With reference to the physical brothers of Jesus (i.e., the sons of Joseph and Mary conceived after the birth of Christ), the literal sense is clearly in view in the following passages: Matthew 12:46-48 (the parallel in Mark 3:31-32); Matthew 13:55-56 (the parallel in Mark 6:3; in both passages, “sister” also is used in the literal sense); John 2:12; John 7:3,5,10; Acts 1:14; and Galatians 1:19. Even a casual reading of these verses demonstrates that Jesus had literal, physical brothers. The only reason the face-value import of these verses would be questioned is to lend credence to the post facto Catholic Church doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
At least two assertions have been advanced by those who wish to discount the existence of Jesus’ brothers, and thereby defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. One attempt seeks to broaden the meaning of the Greek word for “brother” to mean “cousin.” According to this view, the “brothers” of Jesus were actually His cousins—the children of Mary’s sister. The assertion that “brother” has this enlarged meaning is made largely on the basis of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). The Septuagint translators sometimes used the Greek word for brother (adelphos) in Old Testament passages in which a near relative or kinsman, who was not technically a physical brother, was under consideration. This claim is true. The Hebrew term for brother (‘ach) occasionally was used to refer to a more remote descendant from a common father who was not technically a brother (Gesenius, 1979, p. 27; Harris, et al., 1980, 1:31; Botterweck, 1974, 1:190). For example, Laban, Jacob’s uncle, was referred to as Jacob’s “brother” (Genesis 29:12,15). Likewise, Abram’s nephew Lot was said to be Abram’s “brother” (Genesis 14:14,16).
However, it must be noted that the decision of the Septuagint translators to adjust to the nuances of the Hebrew term does not prove that the Greek term adelphos had the meaning of “cousin” in the passages referring to Jesus’ kinsmen. After listing a few Old Testament verses where a broader meaning than strictly “brother” is in view, Bauer noted that such passages “do not establish the meaning ‘cousin’ for adelphos; they only show that in rendering the Hebrew ‘ach, adelphos is used loosely in isolated cases to designate masculine relatives of various degrees” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 15, emp. added). In other words, no linguistic justification exists to support the notion that adelphoi could refer to the “cousins” of Jesus. The Septuagint translators employed adelphos for ‘ach in those passages where additional contextual evidence clarified the intended meaning. No such contextual evidence exists in the allusions to Jesus’ brothers in the New Testament, and is therefore an irrelevant comparison.
When we come to the New Testament, where the reference to the brothers of Jesus occurs, Von Soden correctly listed only two possible meanings for adelphos, namely, “either ‘physical brotherhood’ in the strict sense or more generally the ‘spiritual brotherhood’ of Israelites or Christians” (Kittel, 1964, 1:144). A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament. As Walther Gunther clarified: “In no case in the New Testament can adelphos be interpreted with certainty in this sense” (Brown, 1975, 1:256). That’s putting it mildly. McClintock and Strong explained: “[W]hen the word is used in any but its proper sense, the context prevents the possibility of confusion…. If, then, the word ‘brethren’…really means ‘cousins’ or ‘kinsmen,’ it will be the only instance of such an application in which no data are given to correct the laxity of meaning” (1968, 895, emp. in orig.). Lewis stated even more decisively: “ ‘Brothers’ (adelphoi) never means ‘cousins’ in New Testament Greek” (1976, 1:181, emp. added). Indeed, the Greek language had a separate and distinct word for “cousins”—anepsioi (e.g., Colossians 4:10). When a nephew was meant, the relationship was clearly specified (e.g., Acts 23:16). To summarize: “There is therefore no adequate warrant in the language alone to take ‘brethren’ as meaning ‘relatives,’ and therefore the a priori presumption is in favor of a literal acceptation of the term” (McClintock and Strong, 1:895).
Further, when referring to Jesus’ brothers, the expression “his brothers” occurs nine times in the Gospel accounts and once in Acts. In every instance (except in John 7:3,5,10), the brothers are mentioned in immediate connection with His mother, Mary. No linguistic indication whatsoever is present in the text for inferring that “His brothers” is to be understood in any less literal sense than “His mother” (see Alford, 1980, pp. 152-154). Likewise, the contemporaneous Jews would have construed the terms “brothers” and “sisters” in their ordinary sense—like our English words—unless some extenuating circumstance indicated otherwise. No such circumstantial indication is present.
Additionally, if the phrase “brothers and sisters” means “cousins” in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3, then these “cousins” were the nephews and nieces of Mary. But why would the townspeople of Nazareth connect nephews and nieces of Mary with Joseph? Why would the townspeople mention nephews and nieces at all while omitting other extended family relatives? The setting assumes that the townspeople were alluding to the immediate family of Jesus. Barnes noted that to recognize these brothers and sisters as the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary is the “fair interpretation,” and added, “the people in the neighbourhood [sic] thought so, and spoke of them as such” (1977, 1:150). As Matthews commented, “Joseph, Mary, and their children were recognized as a typical family of Nazareth, and when Jesus began his unusual career, they merely asked if He was not a member of this family mentioning their names. If these children were nephews and nieces of Mary, why are they always associated with her and not with their mother?” (1952, pp. 112-113, emp. added).
A second assertion maintains that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Of course, this alleged prior marriage is without any biblical support whatsoever. The New Testament is completely silent on the matter. To postulate its occurrence, at best, is to introduce a question regarding Joseph’s own marital eligibility in his relationship with Mary.
In addition to the verses that allude to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, a corroborative verse is seen in Matthew 1:25. When Joseph awoke from a dream, wherein an angel of the Lord explained the circumstances of his wife’s pregnant condition, Matthew wrote that Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son.” Use of the word “knew,” a common euphemism for sexual intercourse, means that Joseph and Mary abstained from sexual relations prior to the birth of Jesus. While it is true that the Greek construction heos hou (until) does not necessarily imply that they engaged in sexual relations after the birth of Jesus, the rest of the New Testament bears out the fact that where this phrase followed by a negative occurs, it “always implies that the negated action did take place later” (Lewis, 1976, 1:42, emp. added). Bruce observed: “Subsequent intercourse was the natural, if not the necessary, course of things. If the evangelist had felt as the Catholics do, he would have taken pains to prevent misunderstanding” (Nicoll, n.d., 1:69). Alford agreed: “On the whole it seems to me, that no one would ever have thought of interpreting the verse any otherwise than in its prima facie meaning, except to force it into accordance with a preconceived notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary” (1980, 1:9).
The insistence that Mary remained a virgin her entire life is undoubtedly rooted in the unscriptural conception that celibacy is spiritually superior to marriage and child bearing. In both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible speaks of marriage as an honorable institution that was intended by God to be the norm for humanity from the very beginning of the Creation (Genesis 2:24; Proverbs 5:18-19; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4). Mary’s marriage to Joseph, and their subsequent production of offspring after the birth of Jesus, had the approval and blessing of heaven. To engage in hermeneutical gymnastics in an effort to protect a doctrine conceived from a misassessment of the sacred and divine nature of marriage and family is the epitome of misplaced religious ardor.
M’Clintock and Strong well summarized the evidence which supports the conclusion that Jesus had literal, uterine brothers: “[S]uch a supposition is more in agreement with the spirit and letter of the context than any other, and as the force of the allusion to the brothers and sisters of Jesus would be much weakened if more distant relatives are to be understood” (1968, 1:895). It is reassuring to know that Jesus experienced familial and fraternal ties. He had four brothers and at least two sisters (Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). He experienced what it was like to have His own brothers reject God’s truth (Matthew 12:46-50; John 7:5). Fortunately, those brothers, especially James, later embraced the truth and became active members of the church of Christ (Acts 1:14; 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Corinthians 9:5). “We do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses” (Hebrews 4:15). “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same” (Hebrews 2:14).
Alford, Henry (1980 reprint), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Barnes, Albert (1977 reprint), Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren (1974), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Brown, Colin, ed. (1975), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gesenius, William (1979 reprint), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Kittel, Gerhard, ed. (1964), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lewis, Jack P. (1976), The Gospel According to Matthew (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co.).
Matthews, Paul (1952), Basic Errors of Catholicism (Rosemead, CA: Old Paths Book Club).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1968 reprint), Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Nicoll, W. Robertson (n.d.), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Maybe they were a LOT older, had families of their own, and traveled separately.
Some sure do!
Perhaps; but you could NOT bring yourself to type INACCURATE; could you.
You misunderstand.
That 'insult' was toward ROME's Mary - Not Jesus' mother.
I'll let the MOD decide.
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
When the bible says someones fate is eternal, it means it will not change. those that go on to eternal LIFE will be alive eternally. Those that go on to eternal destruction, death and perish, will in fact perish and their state will also be eternal. They are not coming back.
But I keep repeating myself in these threads. Just google eternal suffering vs annihilation. The argument is made ad-nausium all over the internet. Read the volumes posted by each side and be free to make up your own mind. No need for me to do anything other than link to those as the need arises. e.g. someone brings up Lazarus and the rich man in these discussions. I have several sites I simply link to that effectively explain what it is REALLY about. And it ain’t eternity.
Exactly as the bible says. It takes so much effort to work around that little word "until".
You are not arguing what the word of God says. You are arguing with your interpretation of it. Look at the full context. Look at the root greek. I’ve gotten in trouble hanging on a certain precise interpretation of a specific verse. The message here can also be interpreted, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
The verse is not about how long people will be judged, but that they will be judged. But even more importantly, when you add up the context of the whole bible and gain knowledge of the personality of God and how he deals with those that violate His instruction coupled with his Love of His creation, the harder it is to accept the “eternal, conscious suffering” meme.
Elsie, I should point out that as I debated this with people over the last couple of years (I came to this believe four years ago) and listen to my bible on my 3 hour daily commute, I started listening for any scripture, no matter how mundane or only slightly touching on this issue to see where the “general assumption of the fate of the lost” is presented (almost casually) in the bible.
It is EVERYWHERE. It is a theme almost as constant as the salvation theme. And it has absolutely solidified my position on the fate of the lost. It’s completely changed how I approach the lost.
It is much easier to take the “Tell them and let the seed either sprout or die” approach rather than feel that you must intellectually convince them at all costs. It is much easier to understand Paul’s words in Romans about Pharoh and his apparent “lack of free will” regarding his fate. When I started understanding the implications of the annihilation position, suddenly many stubborn questions about scripture were easily answered.
And that was another “beginning of wisdom” moment for me.
Oh?
The argument is made ad-nausium all over the internet.
I'll just read the Book and deal with what IT has to say.
If I can NOT rely on what the ENGLISH says; then a lot more than me are in big trouble.
It seems folks have ALWAYS found things that Jesus said 'hard to accept'.
Matthew 19:11
But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
Elsie. You post a scripture or two. I get that. But I’m talking about the WHOLE bible. The misinterpretation of scripture is done by everyone. Nobody has full knowledge.
I was arguing this very point with a gentleman in my church in KY and he finally got all red faced and held up his big KJV bible and said, “I believe what the bible says!” To which I said, “So do I. Where we differ is in our interpretation of it.”
I was then talking to a music director of a large church in Louisville about my frustrations in dealing with Christians that disagree with me on some issues. I was telling him that I’m trying to point out that neither of us can be absolutely sure about it yet the folks I try to debate with hava a “get thee behind me Satan” attitude if I disagree with them. And many of them really don’t know the bible all that well.
What he said was interesting. He said that a fair number of the members of his church (fairly large) were professors at a local Christian college. You’ll find that they are never “absolutely sure” about many of the teachings from the bible. Teachings like the fate of the lost, the rapture, stuff like that. He went on to say that he’s noticed that regarding many of those issues, the more sure of their position a person is, the less they know about the subject.
It’s kinda like arguing evolution and Global warming. The people doing the REAL science tend to avoid the confrontational stuff and admit that we have a lot to learn. It is the “lay people” like Al Gore, et al that argue the “science is settled”.
To quote from the article I posted, this is how I look at it (and why I posted the specific article I did even though there are actually far more scholarly ones that amplify his position):
Support can be found through the Holy Scriptures to back up the case for eternal torture as well as the case for annihilation in Hell. In coming to a conclusion, therefore, one must take this to heart and study all of God’s Word to find which model fits best with the overall thrust of Scripture. From my study of the Bible, it seems to say much more about the death of the wicked than about their torture. Numerous verses use the terminology of life and immortality only when depicting Heaven while reserving words such as death, perishing, and destruction to describe Hell. Furthermore, there is not even one verse in the entire Bible that teaches the supposed “immortality of the soul” doctrine so prevalent in most Christian theology. Instead, it is made very clear that only God has eternal life, and He bestows immortality only to those whom He chooses—not to everyone. In reading the Bible for its plain meaning, there is no reason to feel obligated to believe that human beings will be kept alive in a never-ending, torturous Hell.
If I can NOT rely on what the ENGLISH says; then a lot more than me are in big trouble.
I discussed this issue with a VERY intelligent theology student once regarding the bible. I asked her how one could really be sure of the meaning of all the scriptures in the bible. She paused for quite a while and finally said, that one would have to be very fluent in the original languages and the popular meaning of all the words within the context of the state of the original language at the time the words were penned. (I paraphrase).
IOW, Prayer matters when one reads the word. Regarding what the bible teaches, I fall back on Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
But the bible alone is not enough. And Jesus WITHOUT* the bible IS enough.
*Many have heard the gospel and followed Christ into eternity without ever reading or seeing a bible, but nobody has received eternal life without a relationship with Christ. The relationship trumps the bible, but it is better to have both.
Sorry, Elsie. This time you are taking out of context. If somone taught me that to accept Christ would mean I would be required to cut off the heads of my mother and father, I would say that is “hard to accept”. The person would then quote Matthew 19:11 to prove the “error” of my thinking.
It applies where it applies and doesn’t apply where it doesn’t apply.
If I can NOT rely on what the ENGLISH says; then a lot more than me are in big trouble.
He was using as an anaology a certain garbage dump. And things would get partially burned (but not destroyed) or partially decompose (via worms) but not fully consumed. He was using the “worm never die” analogy to point out that the “garbage dump” or “fire” where the lost are thrown will, in fact, utterly destroy them. It will do its job. They will be no more.
That is just one example of the interpretation thing that can be twisted depending on the person’s bias. And I was strongly biased in the opposite direction before I was motivated to study the issue thanks to this thread several years ago (and yes, it is based on the article I already posted): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2240648/posts
Before I happened onto that thread, I was an advocate of the eternal suffering interpretation, though I’d never really studied it. I just assumed it was the correct interpretation because everybody agreed. I thought.
Of course He had bothers and sisters. Catholics simply deny or change the words of scripture to fit their cultish beliefs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.