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.

[MHGinTN]

This was so well posted I thought it needed copying!

[[

To: aMorePerfectUnion

Mary of the Bible certainly did have other children...

The Greeks weren't stupid. They knew what *brother* and *sister* were and had words for them that distinguished them from *cousin* or *relative*.

Nor was the Holy Spirit wrong when HE inspired Scripture and chose to use the words *brother* and *sister*.

He chose those words for a reason.

Psalm 69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons.

Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Matthew 12:46-47 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”

Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Mark 6:2-3 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?”... “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

John 2:12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”

Acts 1:14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

1 Corinthians 9:4-5 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Galatians 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

Strong's Concordance

http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm

adelphos: a brother

Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: adelphos

Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')

Short Definition: a brother

Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

Here is a link to the occurrences of the Greek word *adelphos*.

http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm

The word *sister* (adelphe) in the Greek is the same.

http://biblehub.com/greek/79.htm

The word used is *brother* not *cousin*.

It can't mean a member of the same religious community in the context in which they occur, because then that would mean every man in Israel could be identified as Jesus' brother. So that would not identify Jesus as anyone in particular's brother.

It's not going to mean *brother in Christ* as that concept was not yet in place and the Jews, who knew Jesus as a Jew and knew His brothers as Jews, would not even begin to understand the new birth and what being in Christ meant.

They didn't even understand who JESUS was, much less being a *brother in Christ*.

The only definition left then, is to mean physical brother.

And it would not be *cousin*.

The word for *relative* that is used for Elizabeth is *suggenes*, not *adelphe*.

http://biblehub.com/greek/4773.htm

Strong's Concordance

suggenes: akin, a relative

Original Word: συγγενής, ές

Part of Speech: Adjective

Transliteration: suggenes

Phonetic Spelling: (soong-ghen-ace')

Short Definition: akin, a relative

Definition: akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.

97 posted on 05/13/2017 7:17:49 PM PDT by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)

[

[metmom]

Mary of the Bible certainly did have other children...

[BlueDragon]

Jerome went a bit overboard in his polemic. The claims Jerome made about the earliest 'church fathers' (regarding perpetual virginity be attributed to Mary) were not as true as they needed to have been.

Didn't I supply a link to you a few days back that explained how that was?

Most of the ECR's Jerome cited can be noted for their LACK of mention of PVM (perpetual virginity of Mary). Chew on that one for a while. Seriously.

Even Clement does not ever say that Mary was perpetually virgin. I just read what he wrote on the subject. If he had thought that, among what he wrote stressing virginity as being (part of?) a superior spiritual condition -- then why did Clement NOT make more of an example out of Mary? He touched upon her being virgin, and giving birth to Christ, then quickly moved on.

Here again it appears to me that you are following in path of Jerome error, in this. Helvidius was not the first, nor the only Christian to assert that Mary and Joseph had other children -- after the miraculous "virgin birth" of Jesus, of course.

As late as the earlier 4th to mid 4th century, St. Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD), although himself believed Mary to not have given birth to children after the miraculous birth of Jesus, mentioned that the view that Mary and Joseph did have children together was widespread, and was not outside of orthodoxy. That last part-- "not outside orthodoxy" is almost a direct quote. It's the idea of it that is important.

As such, it serves as a way-point of sorts for the development of the PVM doctrine.

Let's all face the facts here, shall we? If PVM was in actuality a teaching coming down from the Apostles -- there would not be need for RC apologists to revert to relying upon one of Jerome's worst, ill-founded argumentatives, or else treating Protoevangelium of James as if it were anything other than the unreliable, fanciful pseudograph that it is.

[Lazamataz]

Yes, but what of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa? What of Nero Claudius Drusus? What of Tiberius Gemellus?

Not once did you mention Titus Flavius Vespasianus. You completely neglected Imperious Trajan, Antoninus Pius, and Publius Aelius Hadrianus.

This is unforgiveable.

[boatbums]

We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. (Jerome)

Why do you see the need to constantly post threads like this when you know - or OUGHT to know after all this time - that it will stir up dissent, arguments, hostility (especially from Roman Catholics towards anyone who opposes the dogma) and not respectful, reasoned discussion???

[Mrs. Don-o]

1. You are making a valid point, in this sense: If Mary understood herself to be married to Joseph in the full manner such that "all her reproductive genetic future was espoused to Joseph," (as you correctly said), then, yes, God would have been a defrauder / cuckolder of Joseph, in that He took Joseph's wife and impregnated her. A shocking thing, and not be be thought of: God would not violate a married couple this way.

But God is not a defrauder / cuckolder of Joseph because we believe that Mary and Joseph were never intended to have a conjugal marriage in the full sense of that word (sexual union).

We believe Mary understood herself to be consecrated to virginity, and Joseph understood himself to be her legal husband for the purpose of sheltering her in his home and providing for her. It was an exceptional situation. Having children was not contemplated.

This explains why she didn't understand how she was supposed to have a son, since she did not envision giving up her virginity. If she thought she was going to have sex with Joseph, she would not have been (initially) shocked when the Archangel said she would have a son. She would have (initially, naturally) assumed that her son would be a son she'd have with Joseph. But this was not the case.

2. God did not have to use a human ovum to make Adam or Eve. He did have to use a human ovum to make Jesus, because Jesus had to be Son of Mary (as it says in Scripture), son of David (as it says in Scripture), son of Abraham (as it says in Scripture), son of Adam (as it says in Scripture). I.e. Son of Man, according to the flesh. Genetically. By natural descent.

This is the point of the various genealogies and the long lists of "begats" in the Bible.

Acts 2:29-30 - (KJV)

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne

To be a "son" and a member of a family "according to the flesh" means you are genetically related. Jesus was genetically related to Mary. He was her Seed, the Seed of the Woman (as it says in Scripture), her natural Son --- He, Who was begotten by God.

[Sontagged]

Thank you for your great answers.

But of course, Jesus DID answer this question about whether He had actual brothers born of His mother Mary -- or not --

Then His family came to Him as He was performing miracles and "were anxious to have a word with him'...

"But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”

...whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother"

So to distinguish for everyone that God does not tolerate "family idolatry" as practiced by the Greeks and that salvation does not come vis-a vis your bloodline (as so the Jews might want to believe), but, rather, because of your relationship with God the Father through His son, Jesus makes another point about how His true family are those who DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER.

"For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother"

It's a revolutionary statement, especially when confirmed with His other teachings on how we are to put God number one in our hearts and "hate" family members in the Greek word for "hate" as "our enemies will be those of our own households"...

In terms of the Jews, who had a strange confidence in salvation based on their bloodline, and in terms of the Greeks who worshiped dead family members, Jesus's statement was revolutionary, especially since it is backed up by other sayings of His as well as the OT.

If your mother is saved, and has a relationship with the Lord, then she can also be your "mother" in Christ, but if not, Jesus warns us of a problem for Christians who must put the Kingdom first.

MATTHEW 12:46

"While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”

And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers!

For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”"

[af_vet_1981]

So, in other words, Joseph Smith was right?

Joseph Smith was wrong in his attempt to reform, recreate or reconstruct Christianity. Instead, what he has done, is found a uniquely American pioneer religion that has spread to the four corners of the earth. He essentially improved on Mohammed's model with Islam in that Mohammed drew on the Christian Bible but did not retain it, while Joseph Smith added his own book to the Bible. He was, in essence, a Protestant who, while he may have been visited by an angel, certainly abandoned tradition to start his own movement.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Second Corinthians, Catholic chapter eleven, Protestant verses thirteen to fifteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[ealgeone]

I agree Joseph Smith is not a Christian. However, to lump him under the Protestant category is not accurate on your part.

Mormonism is a cult.

It is rejected by Christianity.

[BlueDragon]

Lots of problems with what Charles Pope casually asserts.

Picking only one of those problem areas;

Widespread confusion about this began to occur after the 16th century

A statement like that would lead one to believe the opinion that Mary was virgin into perpetuity (after birth of her firstborn) was universal in the earliest centuries A.D. (Anno Domini).

That is simply not the truth.

Basil of Caesarea (4th century) noted that there were many among the Church of his day who did not subscribe to PVM (perpetual virginity of Mary), and that the belief that Mary and Joseph had other children after birth of Jesus was not against orthodoxy.

[Sontagged]

Jesus clarified that indeed, He had brothers that were born of Mary and Joseph when they were "anxious to have a word with Him" and someone was telling Him that they were asking for Him while He was preaching...

Jesus’ Mother and Brothers Send for Him

46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him.

47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”

49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers!

50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

Of course, His teaching on our real family is confirmed by Christ Himself when He preached:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

[af_vet_1981]

However, to lump him under the Protestant category is not accurate on your part.

The Second Great Awakening was a Protestant religious revival movement during the early 19th century in the United States. The movement began around 1790, gained momentum by 1800 and, after 1820, membership rose rapidly among Baptist and Methodist congregations whose preachers led the movement. It was past its peak by the late 1850s. The Second Great Awakening reflected Romanticism characterized by enthusiasm, emotion, and an appeal to the super-natural. It rejected the skeptical rationalism and deism of the Enlightenment.

The revivals enrolled millions of new members in existing evangelical denominations and led to the formation of new denominations. Many converts believed that the Awakening heralded a new millennial age. The Second Great Awakening stimulated the establishment of many reform movements designed to remedy the evils of society before the anticipated Second Coming of Jesus Christ.[1]

Historians named the Second Great Awakening in the context of the First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s and of the Third Great Awakening of the late 1850s to early 1900s. These revivals were part of a much larger Romantic religious movement that was sweeping across Europe at the time, mainly throughout England, Scotland, and Germany.[2]


During the Second Great Awakening, the region was a hotbed of religious enthusiasm; and between 1817 and 1825, there were several camp meetings and revivals in the Palmyra area.[15] Although Smith's parents disagreed about religion, the family was caught up in this excitement.[16] Smith later said he became interested in religion at about the age of twelve; he participated in church classes and read the Bible. As a teenager, he may have been sympathetic to Methodism.[17] With other family members, Smith also engaged in religious folk magic, not an uncommon practice at the time.[18] Both his parents and his maternal grandfather reportedly had visions or dreams that they believed communicated messages from God.[19] Smith said that although he had become concerned about the welfare of his soul, he was confused by the claims of competing religious denominations.[20]

20 Bushman (2005, pp. 38–9) ("He had two questions on his mind: which church was right, and how to be saved."); Vogel (2004, p. 30) (saying Smith's first vision was "preceded by Bible reading and a sudden awareness of his sins"); Quinn (1998, p. 136) (saying that Smith was concerned with obtaining a forgiveness of sins); Brodie (1971, p. 21) (Smith wrote that he was troubled by religious revivals and went into the woods to seek guidance of the Lord); Remini (2002, p. 37) ("He wanted desperately to join a church but could not decide which one to embrace.")

[Sontagged]

Moses lived under the Old Covenant and the Old Covenant or Old Testament Prophets wrote the Word of God; they also were Hebrews for the Hebrews and “longed to see the day” of Pentecost, as Jesus tells us, “but did not live to see it”...

Modern day small “p” prophets under the New Covenant or New Testament are positionally something that every Christian is to aspire to, as Paul writes;

“ALL are to be ambitious to prophesy”.

Now that the Holy Spirit has come, there is NO need for the Old Testament Office of the Prophet. This Office died with the coming of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit who IS Jesus Himself, is come to live in the hearts of all men.

This is the day that ALL of the Old Testament Prophets LONGED to live to see.

As Peter tells us at the Day of Pentecost, that THIS WAS THE DAY THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHET SPOKE OF: When God will pour out His Holy Spirit on all mankind...

THE DAY OF THE LORD

” And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
29 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.”

All this to say... Joseph Smith was a liar, a damned Freemason and a counterfeit false prophet, who dared to put his own words over those of the Holy Bible.

[boatbums]

Weren't you just discussing this topic on another thread? It seems Jerome was NOT an "expert" witness to the views of Helvidius or other ancients on the PV of Mary.

See http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/11/victorinus-and-perpetual-virginity-of.html

Other than this being a dogma of the Roman Catholic church and binding upon RCs to believe it, why is it so critical that EVERY Christian believe it and why is it constantly brought up in threads by Catholics inciting arguments? I would join you in arguing for the Virgin Birth, but I don't see the Biblical demand nor prophetic value for Mary remaining a perpetual virgin.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The claims Jerome made about the earliest 'church fathers' (regarding perpetual virginity be attributed to Mary) were not as true as they needed to have been."

That's a bit convoluted. Are you saying these claims were true? That they were false? That their truth/falsity were unverifiable either way? Or what?

St. Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD)-- can you get me that quote and that link? Thanks.

I remain with Jerome and the churches. So I'm not just speaking of polemical writings; I'm speaking of liturgical practice/texts. There's lots of liturgical acknowledgement of Mary Ever-Virgin. Not just Roman (Latin Church) but Greek, Assyrian, Coptic, Armenian.

For example, here's a citation in Ge'ez (LINK) , the classical Ethiopian language, concerning Ever-Virgin Mary.

"His ever-Virgin Mother is properly and truly called the Mother of God..[Liturgy] is conducted in Ge'ez, the ancient classical and liturgical language of Ethiopia."

If you can find any liturgical mention anywhere referencing other "sons of Mary," that would be huge.

[ealgeone]

Still no linkage to anything Protestant. Mormonism is a cult. It is not Christian.

[Mark17]

I am only interacting with you to warn others away from your cult.

Roger that bro. Unfortunately, the false cult of Mormonism has reached even this part of the world. I don't think it has made the inroads Mormon leaders would like, but it is here nonetheless.
When I was stationed in Del Rio, by golly TX, I knew a retired USAF Chief Msgt, who was very knowledgeable about the evil cult of Mormonism. It was his opinion, that Joe Smith wrote the so called BOM, as a means to sell the story, and make money. He doesn't think ole Joe was necessarily trying to start a new cult, but it got away from him. I don't know for sure, but he thought that way.
If people want to consider Joe Smith a prophet, that's on them. They will stand tall for it some day.

[af_vet_1981]

Still no linkage to anything Protestant.

Perhaps Evangelical would be closer than Protestant
1. Second Great Awakening => Methodist and Baptist
2. Smith's first vision was "preceded by Bible reading and a sudden awareness of his sins"
3. Smith wrote that he was troubled by religious revivals and went into the woods to seek guidance of the Lord
4. He wanted desperately to join a church but could not decide which one to embrace.")
5. In June 1828 Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism, joined the Methodist Church [probationary class] in Harmony, Pennsylvania.
6. The best indication of what had changed within Methodism comes with Joseph Smith’s experience with the Methodists. Around 1820 Joseph “was called up to serious reflection” on the matter of religion, and “in process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them” (Joseph Smith—History 1:8). In fact, Joseph’s brother William said that it was a “Rev. Mr. Lane of the Methodists” who “preached a sermon on ‘What church shall I join?’ And the burden of his discourse was to ask God, using as a text, ‘If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally.’ And of course when Joseph went home and was looking over the text he was impressed to do just what the preacher had said.”[35]

[steve86]

“Christians are be free to believe that Joseph and Mary never had marital relations, though it’s kinda goofy to suppose they didn’t.”

Such things happen. My wife and I live as brother and sister, coming up on 30 year anniversary.

[ealgeone]

You're even more wrong. Mormons are not evangelicals...at least not as I understand it.

Mormons are more like Roman Catholics in that they have another set of beliefs (The Book of Mormon among others compared to the Catechism and "Tradition" for the Catholic) they assert is as valid as the Bible...and as we have seen in some cases with more authority than the Bible. Though Joseph has changed parts of the Bible as Elsie as noted in some of his posts IIRC.

[af_vet_1981]

You're even more wrong.

The subject was Joseph Smith, not the Mormons who became a new American religion. Joseph Smith was either a Protestant or an Evangelical for a short time and tried to reform, recreate, or reconstruct Christianity in opposition to the tradition of the one holy catholic apostolic church after being unsatisified with his Protestant/Evangelical church options during the Second Great Awakening. He had a personal experience after reading the Bible, wanted to be saved, and join the right church, similar to many Evangelical converts today. He seems to have rejected all tradition in forming a new movement.