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 citizenshipa 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 sensea blood brother or half-brother, the physical son of ones 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 Marys 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 cousinsthe children of Marys 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, Jacobs uncle, was referred to as Jacobs brother (Genesis 29:12,15). Likewise, Abrams nephew Lot was said to be Abrams 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). Thats 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 cousinsanepsioi (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 senselike our English wordsunless 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 Josephs 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 wifes 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). Marys 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.
MClintock 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 Gods 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), Alfords 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 Expositors Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
A conclusion that Luther rejected.
A conclusion that Calvin rejected.
A conclusion that Jerome rejected ... with extreme vehemence.
A conclusion which Torah and logic, taken together, require either (a) that Jesus' "literal, uterine brothers" all predeceased him; or (b) that practically Jesus' last act on earth was to commit a sin, by absolving his siblings of their duty to obey Torah and take care of their mother.
A conclusion which requires us to speak where the Bible is silent, because absolutely no verse anywhere in Scripture says that anyone except Jesus is a biological son or daughter of Mary.
Yes.
Jesus brother James was pretty noteworthy.
Ref New Testament book of James.
What kind of smartphone would Jesus have if he were alive today? Apple?
Have you noticed that the Prots, on a whole, spend much more time attacking the Catholic Church then they do attacking each others’ “churches”?
Yet, all their “churches” are younger than the Catholic Church, the only one founded by Jesus Christ.
Mary needed the salvation provided by her son. She was a sinner. For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. That includes Mary. There is ONE mediator between MAN and God. The Man Christ Jesus. He says that He is THE Way THE Truth THE Life. No Man(woman or child) comes to the Father except by ME. If Mary could she would ask people to stop worshipping her and instead worship her son.
Mat 13;
54He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56"And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
Oh, for goodness sake...
I actually typed “virginity” and the iPad must have autocorrected it.
Apologies to all
Good observation.
Respectfully, (1) what do you think the Immaculate Conception is, and (2) why would Mary having other children in addition to Jesus negate the hypothesis of an Immaculate Conception?
Well, of course He did. After the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph had a normal sexual life as a married couple. After Jesus was born, they "did the deed" and the brothers of Jesus did not believe in Him either, until later, possibly after the resurrection. Jesus' brothers James and Jude wrote books in the New Testament. I can see heads exploding, but Elsie has been right all along. 😄😃😀😱😇
Only if they were sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage.
...where art thou?
There’s nothing like a little sibling rivalry to test one’s character.
Can you imagine how sick of hearing Mary say, “Why can’t you be more like Jesus?” His brothers were?
Can you imagine how they’d plot to try to set Him up to either disobey or compromise Himself, or just to frame Him and get Him in trouble?
Catholics will strangely say that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life and never had relations with her husband.
It’s like small children who learn about sex but cannot accept that their parents have participated in the practice. It’s a sign of arrested development and emotional immaturity.
No the immaculate conception addresses Mary being born without sin
You think "age of a church" means anything???
Jesus did start the church....just not the Roman catholic church and the false teachings it promotes today.
Obviously protestant churches haven’t been around as long as the Catholic church has. It took reformers like Luther to come along and take the stand that extorting money out of peasants and selling them salvation through indulgences was not only un-Christlike but corrupt to the core.
Luthers Mariology consisted of shattering the idol of the Virgin Mary with justification by faith. To the medieval ear these words must have been revolutionary: Even the holy mother of God did not become good, was not saved, by her virginity or her motherhood, but rather by the will of faith and the works of God, and not by her purity, or her own works. Therefore, mark me well: this is the reason why salvation does not lie in our own works, no matter what they are; it cannot and will not be effected without faith (LW 51:62).
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.