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).
“Then you’d better be able to CONTRIOL her memory after you are gone.” You miss the point, Elsie. It is YOUR responsibility to show respect, but you chose to use the Mother of Jesus as your fob for your little insult to Catholicism’s misuse of the Mother of Jesus. It is you who have the responsibility to respect her memory enough to not use her as your fob. Just as you cannot take the responsibility of her memory, you cannot expect to show respect for her by disrespecting her memory in using her as your fob. I see that you in fact are not accidentally disrespecting her memory, you are consciously using it as your fob. And how is that above what you are presuming to rebuke?
My Bible tells me that Adam and Eve were designed to live forever, and that there was no death before the fall.
Genesis 2:17
“...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
They did. And just as sin entered the world, condemning all to death, Jesus entered the world and offered himself as the perfect Sacrifice for that sin so that all who call on him will be saved from that death.
This is talking about the second death. Everyone dies in the flesh (with a couple of notable OT exceptions).
I wouldn't lie about what scripture says. Scripture shows that Joseph and Mary had other children.
OK, now it’s your turn to tell me who gave you the idea that God would violate the law of death (even in the face of His gift of grace) that He imposed uniformly on mankind for the totality of Adam’s descendants through binding up death into DNA, excepting none? Even Enoch and Elijah are going to have to die, sometime, AFIK.
Regarding Enoch and Elijah, what has not died relative to other men is their flesh. Yet. Same is true with those who are caught up when Christ returns.
I wouldn’t lie about what scripture says. Scripture shows that Joseph and Mary had other children.
Big, BIG logical non sequitur. Mary was the host mother of Jesus' body, not His Personality, not His soul and spirit that preexisted the body given to Him by The Father:
"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:" (Heb 10:5 AV).
(That, by the way, is the First Christmas Carol, IMO.)
Mary was not the mother of The Jehovah that entered into that body. He existed before The Beginning of time, dimensions, and matter. Mary's predecessors were made in Elohim's image, not vice versa.
Your thoughts are so sad.
“Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.”
And:
“The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinctpersons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the “Nestorian” church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.
Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.
The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord. “
Check it out:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god
Greek - adelphoi
Same used here.
Matthew 22:25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
And here.
Mark 3:31 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.
And here.
John 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.
Why do you deny what scripture says?
Then you're going to have to give some reason why God's everlasting spirit was invested into the body of flesh called Adam, that it might be like Him, Who had not yet a carnal habitation, and from which the soul and spirit can be extracted and continue to exist. And also why that assembly God would imprison in the torment of a hot hell, yet others in a sort of Elysian Fields/Abraham's Bosom/Paradise until the Great White Throne Judgment.
But now we're off in another direction from the theme of the primary article, and you can treat this as a rhetorical question.
Now we see as though through a glass darkly, but then face to face.
Thing is, the only way the eternal suffering part is relevant is if some part of us that is not part of our human consciousness DOES understand the impact of eternal suffering. Otherwise, God would be like me saying to my dog that if he did not sit and stay I will beat him for five minutes every day until he dies. He can’t wrap his head around it and my threat falls on deaf ears, not due to the dog’s refusal to listen, but inability to understand.
Humans simply can’t wrap their brain around a “loving” God sending the unbelievers to unending and incomprehensable torture. So what is its function, exactly? In other words, to use the most important word in the english language: Why?
Hijacked
I'm not sure what this "but" is about, but my reasoning goes back to Post #57:
What it means to me is that Mary conceived a son via her egg being fertilized directly by the spirit of God.
which was somehow related to herself having been conceived immaculately. And that is a logical artifice of Romanists ducking the issue of Mary's own seed bearing the essence and stain of original sin, and instead inventing the concept that God fixed it at her own conception by somehow pouring on grace in a way not given to any other descendant of our federal heads, Adam and Eve, to obtain a sinless host from whom Jesus would be formed.
Then your supposition is that somehow the Holy Spirit fertilized Eve's egg (supposedly without original sin?). With what? Eve could at best only supply a haploid cell, and that could never produce masculine characteristics in the child-to-be. So where did the mating haploid cell with the Y chromosome come from? And was it, or was it not formed from a masculine repository of Y chromosomes, some male flesh, somewhere?
And why, if the mechanism of Mary's putative gracious immaculate conception from her father's and mother's seed(s) was real, why did Joseph have to be cut out of the picture? Why could God not have just gracified Mary's egg fertilized by Joseph's sperm to make it a good and sufficient source of a sin-free body receptacle for The Son of God' Spirit to occupy?
Well, this is all about the Romanist philosophers' Aristotlean "rational" solution to this spiritual conundrum at a time in history when they had no knowledge of the biochemistry of meiosis, mitosis, Y and X chromosomes, spermatozoas, oogenesis, recombinant DNA theory, nor of surrogate child-bearing of an baby not of the surrogate's own flesh; and when they simply did not have the humility and grace to just say, "I don't know," and meekly accept the Gospel story as it was presented, trusting in God's Word and not in their own intellectual powers to faithfully retell it.
In your reply I didn't see an answer to the issues I mentioned, and about which you previously asked.
I did not say that he had children, but if Jesus had half brothers/sisters they certainly could have belonged to Joseph through a prior relationship....I made no statement which requires biblical proof of anything....just posed a possibility..
they were step children, Joseph's children, could have been any age but certainly older than Jesus...
Prove it.
I am related to a recently wed widower, aged 52 who has a newborn son. His previous children are now 33 and 31, married with children of their own....one in California, one in foreign service in France.....
Might have had several...but not necessarily through their own relationship.....Joseph, much older than Mary, may have had children which any family would consider THIERS.
I’m not interested in your speculation.
Why don't you like me dissing the Catholic church's image they have created of Mary?
Is ANY other person in Scripture allowed to be analyzed to see what ROME has done to the actual recorded 'memory' of them?
I think this requires a vehicle of some kind.
Little Johnnie desperately wanted a bright red wagon for Christmas.
His friends were writing letters to Santa Claus, but Johnnie decided to go one better.
“Dear Jesus,” he wrote. “If I get a red wagon for Christmas, I won’t fight with my brother Hank for a year.” Then Johnnie thought, Oh, no, Hank is such a brat, I could never, ever keep that promise. So Johnnie threw away the letter and started again.
“Dear Jesus, if I get a red wagon for Christmas, I will eat all my vegetables for a year.” Then Johnnie thought, Oh, no, that means spinach, broccoli and asparagus. Yuck! I could never ever keep that promise.
Suddenly Johnnie had an idea. He went downstairs to the living room. From the mantel above the fireplace, he grabbed the family’s statue of the Virgin Mary. Taking the statue to the kitchen he wrapped it in newspapers and stuffed it into a grocery bag. He took the bag upstairs to his room, opened the closet and placed the package in the farthest, darkest corner.
He then closed the closet door, took a new sheet of paper and wrote, “Dear Jesus, if you ever want to see your mother again...”
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.