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.

[Jim Noble]

“Joseph Smith was wrong in his attempt to reform, recreate or reconstruct Christianity”

Why? If the church disappeared for 1400 years, if 42 generations of Christians had a false church and no true religion, why not 1800 years?

Of course, I do not believe in 1400 years of no true church, but the argument above is internally consistent. Jesus Christ promised two things: first, that He would be with His disciples to the end of the age and two, that He would found a church and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Now, 1400 years with no church, with 42 generations lost, appears to falsify Christ’s promises. And if you think it doesn’t, what will you accept 1400 but not 1800?

[Mark17]

I was kind of wondering the same thing myself BB. The threads get old for sure. I can only guess, that if Mary had other children, then she loses her demigoddess status.

[Jim Noble]

“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.”

Then why, when Joseph learned she was with child, did he react as he did and attempt to send her away?

[ealgeone]

JS started Mormonism. Hard to separate the two.

[af_vet_1981]

Why? If the church disappeared for 1400 years, if 42 generations of Christians had a false church and no true religion, why not 1800 years?

Of course, I do not believe in 1400 years of no true church, but the argument above is internally consistent. Jesus Christ promised two things: first, that He would be with His disciples to the end of the age and two, that He would found a church and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Now, 1400 years with no church, with 42 generations lost, appears to falsify Christ’s promises. And if you think it doesn’t, what will you accept 1400 but not 1800?

I see your point; it is the Achilles' Heel of the Protestant Reformation. It its with all of the Protestant denominations being discarded by subsequent generations of Evangelicals and other cult movements like Mormonism. Sixteenth Century Protestants did not have the historicity to defend themselves against trendier movements trying to reform, reconstruct, or recreate their own visions of genuine Christianity. History marches on, so to speak.

[af_vet_1981]

JS started Mormonism. Hard to separate the two.

Mormonism did not start Joseph Smith. The Second Great Awakening (Methodists or Baptists) started Joseph Smith, and after trying Methodism Joseph Smith protested and reformed it into Mormonism with his own version of Sola Scriptura.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, it's a little hard to work out how God would want to violate Mary and Joseph's marriage by taking Mary and impregnating her, if Mary were married to Joseph in the full manner such that "all her reproductive genetic future was espoused to Joseph." (As MHGinTN correctly said, that's an aspect of a true marriage: your whole childbearing capacity is vowed exclusively to your spouse.)

MHGinTN resolves that potentially scandalous cuckoldry by saying Mary was not really Jesus' mother, she was just a gestational container. I don't think that's true, but it does show a theoretical attempt, anyway, to evade the otherwise unavoidable conclusion that God violated a marriage covenant.

The Church, historically, takes quite a different approach. The Church resolves the dilemma by teaching that Mary and Joseph did not have, and never intended to have, a fully conjugal marriage with sexual union. In other words, the Church has historically said Mary was NOT married to Joseph in the full manner such that "all her reproductive genetic future was espoused to Joseph." That also avoids having God violating what would have been Joseph and Mary's exclusive sexual and procreative pledge.

If Mary understood herself as previously covenanted to God, her perpetual virginity would equal perpetual fidelity TO GOD, the Father of her Son. This preserves her honor as being truly faithful. She is God's.

I find it unbearable to think that God would just pick up and use Mary as a disposable fetus-carton, and then toss her back to cuckolded Joseph as if to say, "Here, I got what I wanted; now you can have her."

An ugly thought. Repugnant to contemplate. Blasphemous.

I think perpetual fidelity is a meaningful and beautiful sign and an ongoing theme, Biblically speaking. Israel was supposed to be perpetually and exclusively faithful to God. Virgin daughter Zion. A beautiful image of Mary.

[af_vet_1981]

Then why, when Joseph learned she was with child, did he react as he did and attempt to send her away?

Miriam/Mary was found to be with child and Joseph did not know the child was by the Holy Spirit. It is immaterial to Mrs. Don-o's point as to whether the vows were as a perpetual virgin to God or to her betrothed husband Joseph. He thought she broke her vows because she was pregnant. It was only after this that God revealed the truth to Joseph in a dream. How fitting that another Joseph should have a dream ...

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses eighteen to twenty one,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Scripture you cited did not say that these brethren were Mary of Nazareth's sons. They could have been Joseph's, or they could have been other close kinsmen (for instance sons of Mary of Clopas -- a different Mary who was, BTW, of the three Marys present at the Crucifixion) as one of the Jameses is identified in the Bible. There was James son of Alphaeus, James son of Zebedee, and James son of Clopas.

"Brethren" did not specifically mean full biological genetic siblings: a broader sense of kinship was understood by the term at that time. Notice that nobody is called a "son of Mary" in the Bible except Jesus.

[ealgeone]

Good grief.

[ealgeone]

Mrs d....you continue to assert a false narrative regarding the use of brothers. I’ve explained in great detail on this thread and others why your post is incorrect. Why do you persist in continuing to post false information??

[Sontagged]

You do understand the context of Matthew 12, correct?

People were coming up to Jesus, while He was preaching, and gave Him a stage whisper — “Jesus, your family is here to see you and they are really quite anxious to have a word with you...”

Totally interrupting Him.

So the Lord took this opportunity to elaborate on another theme that is important to the Kingdom.

That the Kingdom is more important than family or blood relations.

You are straining gnats here while swallowing camels regarding the idolatry of Mary, the self-confessed sinner in need of the savior, whom she knew was her son.

Sorry.

[boatbums]

I don't agree with the idea at all that God COULD violate OR cuckold Joseph by choosing Mary to be the virgin birthgiver to the Messiah - it was a tremendous HONOR for both of them. In fact, I think to suggest such is an ugly thought. Repugnant to contemplate. Blasphemous. What the Almighty chooses to do is ALWAYS righteous and good - He is not a man that He should lie or sin in any way. We have prophecy in Scripture that confirms the sign God would give: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. (Isa. 7:14)

This is the miracle and it joins more than 300 other prophecies that identify the Savior who is God with us. One would think with all these minute details given something would have been mentioned regarding the need for the mother to remain a perpetual virgin. But there isn't anything. In fact, and contrary to your assertion that this has always been a doctrine held by Christians, it didn't even start to be written about and tossed around until three or more centuries after that last Apostle died (John, BTW). It was with a rising tide of asceticism and monasticism and a repulsion of seeing sexual intercourse in a holy and positive way along with a growing cultic devotion to saints and Mary, in particular, that started the drive towards acceptance of Mary being perpetually virgin and her husband, Joseph, as well.

From http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/11/more-early-opponents-of-marys-perpetual.html, we learn:

In the West before Hilary - that is, up to the middle of the fourth century - there is no witness at all for the 'semper virgo' [perpetual virginity]; and that can hardly be a mere chance: see pp. 72 f. below. Hippolytus, too, regards the 'brothers of Jesus' as the children of Joseph and Mary... [apparently quoting Hippolytus:] 'He [Jesus] did [not] acknowledge as brothers those who were regarded as his brothers according to the body; the Redeemer did not acknowledge them, because in truth those [were] not his brothers who were born from Joseph through seed, but he from the Virgin and the Holy Spirit; and they regarded them as his brothers, but he did not acknowledge them.'" (Hans von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth In The Theology Of The Ancient Church [Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2011], n. 4 on 48-9)

Here are some other examples of people who denied Mary's perpetual virginity:

"The radical, critical Arians such as Eudoxius and Eunomius disapproved of the perpetual virginity all along, and the cautious discussions that Basil the Great devotes to this subject show that it was not generally acknowledged, even in orthodox circles. Basil was concerned, as always, to avoid any unnecessary accentuation of hostilities between rival parties in the sphere of Church law. He emphasizes that the acceptance of Mary's perpetual virginity is not really necessary. A dogmatic judgment that simply maintained her virginity up to the birth of Jesus would be adequate, and thanks to the positive testimony in Matthew this fact remains all along beyond discussion. But Basil adds at once that the assertion that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin could not well be tolerated by devout Christians...In the traditional style of the fight against heretics, he [Epiphanius] constructs for himself a sect of 'Antidicomarianites', who, of course, can have been induced only by the most sinister motives to defame the holy Virgin by casting doubt on her perpetual virginity....He [Ambrose] is indignant that there are people, even bishops, who can doubt her [Mary's] perpetual virginity" (ibid., 64-5, 77-8)

"Bonosus (d. c.400). A Bp. of Naissus (as Innocent I implies, epp. 16 and 17) or Sardica (acc. to Marius Mercator), who denied the perpetual virginity of the BVM. His teaching was examined at a council at Capua in 391 and subsequently condemned; but Bonosus refused to submit and founded a sect (the 'Bonosians') which survived down to the 7th cent....Acc. to St Augustine (De haer. 84), he [Helvidius] won disciples who were known as 'Helvidians'." (F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, edd., The Oxford Dictionary Of The Christian Church [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], 225, 749)

Also, from http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/01/are-jesus-siblings-children-from.html#more:

One of the most important concepts to focus on when thinking about this issue is what other options were available to the authors in question. What other language could they have used? For example, Luke refers to Jesus as Mary's "firstborn" (2:7), even though elsewhere he uses a different term for "only born" (7:12, 9:38). Why would Luke use a term that seems to contradict Mary's perpetual virginity when he was aware of an alternative term that's consistent with perpetual virginity and uses it elsewhere in his gospel? Similarly, why does Luke differentiate between "brothers" and "relatives" in 21:16 if there's no significant difference between the two? In the same way, why does Hegesippus refer to Symeon as Jesus' "cousin" (in Eusebius, Church History, 4:22:4), yet refer to James as Jesus' "brother" (ibid., 2:23:4) and Jude as Jesus' "brother according to the flesh" (ibid., 3:20:1)? We see this over and over again with the earliest sources. They not only use language that seems to contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, but even use different language elsewhere that's consistent with perpetual virginity, which they could have used in the passages relevant to Mary….

Since Josephus is among the early sources who seem to contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, we can sum up the evidence by saying that the doctrine is inconsistent with the most natural reading of a few New Testament authors, the earliest patristic sources to discuss the topic, and the earliest non-Christian source to address the subject….

By the way, Svendsen also addresses the view that the brothers were children of Joseph from a former marriage. It's subject to some of the same criticisms as the view that the brothers were cousins or some other more distant type of relative (Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7, the term "brother" more often refers to biological siblings, etc.). Another problem with the view is the absence of the siblings in the infancy narratives. I discuss multiple ways in which their absence is problematic in an article on Matthew and Luke's agreements in the infancy narratives:

One of the points I make there is one I don't recall Svendsen or anybody else making. It's often claimed that the infancy narratives are meant to parallel Jesus to Old Testament figures. Yet, two of the most significant figures Jesus allegedly is being paralleled to in the New Testament, Moses and David, had older siblings who played a large role in their lives. Moses' older sister even has a prominent role in the Exodus account of Moses' birth. If Matthew and Luke (and other sources) were paralleling Jesus to figures like Moses and David, it would have been in their interest to have mentioned older siblings. Instead, both infancy narratives imply that Mary gave birth to more children (Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:7), and both leave out any reference to older siblings when the family and their moving from one location to another are described (e.g., "take the child and his mother" in Matthew 2:13).

Any argument that the siblings were old enough at the time to be living apart from Joseph and Mary would run into the problem of offering a weaker explanation for how long the brothers of Jesus lived and were highly active (e.g., 1 Corinthians 9:5, James' death by martyrdom in the 60s while serving as a leader of the Jerusalem church and one of the most prominent apostles). Maybe Jesus' brothers lived unusually long and were highly active at such an old age. But the alternative view that they were younger siblings of Jesus offers a better explanation of the evidence. It's yet another example of how upholding Mary's perpetual virginity requires us to adopt less likely explanations of the evidence on issue after issue after issue.

But, like I already said, why does this need to be a hill to die on or a constant thorn of contention between Freepers? I can accept and respect that Catholics believe Mary remained a virgin throughout her marriage to Joseph while still disagreeing with them and I have sound reasons why I disagree. It would be refreshing to see some mutual respect.

[Sontagged]

It’s a spirit of idolatry that you are addressing, the very spirit that Jesus preached against when He told us that we cannot be His disciples unless we “hate” our blood relations lest they are also in the service of the King.

[Sontagged]

Hebrews under the Old Covenant like Mary and Joseph were “betrothed” but not yet living together.

Under Hebrew law, in this “betrothed” state they were allowed to have conjugal relations. But they were not yet living together as man and wife.

This is why Joseph thought to DIVORCE Mary when he found out she was pregnant, and quietly “put her away” or divorce her.

God would never shame a person, especially Mary, by having this miracle of the virgin birth occur in a situation where she was not legally protected by marriage and was allowed to have sexual relations in her “betrothed” slash married state.

Joseph understood this and also under Hebraic law, an adopted first born son is still rightfully the inheritor.

God never does things out of order. Mary and Joseph then had normal husband and wife relations and had more kids. End of story.

This thread is boring and I have no idea how Mormons have anything to add to it.

[boatbums]

“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.”

Then why, when Joseph learned she was with child, did he react as he did and attempt to send her away?

Very good question! I suppose if there had been some prearranged "deal" with Joseph taking care of Mary outside of a normally understood marriage, then Mary showing up pregnant would have been a betrayal of that agreement. We don't know how long it was between the angel's announcement to Mary and Joseph's dream straightening it all out, but Scripture clearly says "before they came together Mary was found with child". Before they came together means before he took her under his roof and they consummated the marriage. He knew he hadn't fathered her child and he didn't want to make a public spectacle of her (adultery was frowned on BIG TIME), so he thought about secretly putting her away somewhere. We know he was a kind and godly man.

[Salvation]

And on the Cross he gave his mother to John and to us. Not to any siblings, because he had none. And that was the Jewish custom of that time.

[Sontagged]

Again: “Hebrews under the Old Covenant like Mary and Joseph were “betrothed” but not yet living together.

Under Hebrew law, in this “betrothed” state they were allowed to have conjugal relations. But they were not yet living together as man and wife.

This is why Joseph thought to DIVORCE Mary when he found out she was pregnant, and quietly “put her away” or divorce her.

God would never shame a person, especially Mary, by having this miracle of the virgin birth occur in a situation where she was not legally protected by marriage and was allowed to have sexual relations in her “betrothed” slash married state.

Joseph understood this and also under Hebraic law, an adopted first born son is still rightfully the inheritor.

God never does things out of order. Mary and Joseph then had normal husband and wife relations and had more kids. End of story.”

The timeline...........

The timeline is simple. Once Joseph found out Mary was pregnant, he wanted to divorce her. Quietly. This meant that it everyone who saw she was pregnant in this betrothed time before they began living together, would have normally thought she was pregnant by Joseph.

There was no weirdo consecrated state going on with Mary. If there were, Mary would have not confessed she was a sinner in need of a savior in the Magnificat; and there would have been some discussion about it by the disciples themselves.

Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations and Jesus had brothers by blood; the fact of this should have no bearing on anyone’s saving faith one way or another.

Mary would have acted the same way Paul acted when the islanders who saw that Paul didn’t die from a viper bite — wanted to worship him. Mary would also have refused veneration because it would be idolatry and remains idolatry.

How do I know? She was in the upper rooms at Pentecost, awaiting the promised gift with the rest of the disciples (including John whom Jesus told her to regard as her son and John to regard as his mom respectively).

Mary worship detracts from the worship of the one true mediator and Intercessor the Lord Jesus Christ.

Man needs no other man, living or dead, to take the place of Jesus as Mediator between God and Man.

[Sontagged]

Excuse me, He gave John to Mary because John had no siblings and He knew His brothers lacked faith at that point in time.

His brothers tested Him when He was on His way to Jerusalem... not a good thing. They were not of the Twelve.

[boatbums]

I think this along with prayers to saints, Purgatory and the Eucharist are the most disputed topics between us. Justification by faith alone is the real biggie. I think a lot of Freeper Catholics feel personally offended when someone disagrees or disputes their dogmas - they see it as anti-Catholic bigotry. Yet, what they don't seem to get is that they are doing the same thing when they assert "their" church is the only, one, true church of Jesus Christ and everything they hold as part of their faith has to be what ALL Christians accept or else they aren't real Christians or they cannot be saved.

Someone opens a thread where the topic is something they already know is a firestarter, then act all shocked and upset when others comment on why they reject that particular thing. It's supposed to be an OPEN discussion, but dare anyone actually discuss why they don't believe the same thing and here comes the vitriol! I get the impression - and I have for some time now - that some people really LIKE to get people arguing. A few seem oblivious to the RM's advice that OPEN RF threads are a "town square" type of discussion and sensitive people should probably avoid it if they can't tolerate that kind of format. Their whining is disruptive.

I appreciate the chance to voice my views on things and I am not about to let someone scare me away from here. I have been a monthly donor almost from the start of my time here (over 10 years). I often wonder how much some of these other folks donate or if they just want to take advantage of JR's generosity. FReepathons should NOT take this long!