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.

[ealgeone]

Again, the NT is against your statement.

[af_vet_1981]

I just want to know what their plan of salvation is. I never seem to get any takers.

GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION

I. Justification

1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism:34

But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.35

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ's Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:36

(God) gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature.... For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.37

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.39

1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.42

1994 Justification is the most excellent work of God's love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that "the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth," because "heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect . . . will not pass away."43 He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy.

1995 The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man,"44 justification entails the sanctification of his whole being:

Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.... But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.45

CHAPTER THREE

MAN'S RESPONSE TO GOD

142 By his Revelation, "the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company."1 The adequate response to this invitation is faith.

143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith".3

CHAPTER THREE
GOD'S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

1949 Called to beatitude but wounded by sin, man stands in need of salvation from God. Divine help comes to him in Christ through the law that guides him and the grace that sustains him:

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.1

[metmom]

The Woman of the Great Sign (Rev. 12) is the Mother of the Messiah (Mary) and is also the mother of her other offspring, "all those who keep the Commandments and bear witness to Jesus." That is, the Mother of the Believers. That makes her the sign of the Church, Mater Ecclesia, who as she give birth to Christ seen as the Mystical Body, the Church, is in great travail.

there is nothing in that passage to support that interpretation. It doesn't fit in the context of the passage that her other offspring is the church.

Mary is identified in the NT as "full of grace," not "full of sin." Her Savior, Jesus, has saved her from sin preemptively in view of her being predestined to be His mother in the Incarnation.

ALL believers are endowed with that same grace. That word is used one other place in the NT and is in reference to all believers.

/b>

The word grace used in this passage in Luke is used in one other place in the Bible and that is Ephesians 1 where Paul tells us that with this same grace, God has blessed us (believers) in the Beloved. IOW, we all have access to that grace and it has been bestowed on us all.

http://biblehub.com/greek/5487.htm

Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

Ephesians 1:4-6 In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Greek word “grace”

charitoó: to make graceful, endow with grace

Original Word: χαριτόω

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: charitoó

Phonetic Spelling: (khar-ee-to'-o)

Short Definition: I favor, bestow freely on

Definition: I favor, bestow freely on.

HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 5487 xaritóō (from 5486 /xárisma, "grace," see there) – properly, highly-favored because receptive to God's grace. 5487 (xaritóō) is used twice in the NT (Lk 1:28 and Eph 1:6), both times of God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor).

Word Origin: from charis

Definition: to make graceful, endow with grace

NASB Translation: favored (1), freely bestowed (1).

If we all have the same grace bestowed on us, then God kept us all from sin before we were born.

Again, the Bible does NOT support the interpretation that Mary was born without sin. Therefore the Catholic church's interpretation is wrong.

[metmom]

Your criticism of the Douay-Rheims translation is a little extreme.

No it isn't. It's perfectly reasonable.

The woman has nothing to do with crushing Satan's head.

That is the job of the Redeemer alone and only HE has the power to do it.

All of the translations support this conclusion as their meaning.

You did not post ALL translations of Scripture. You posted (essentially) three as King James is in there twice.

Here is a Catholic Bible that DOESN'T have your translation.

The New American Bible.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P5.HTM

It has this...

Genesis 3:15 [3] I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

And the accompanying footnote.

3 [15] He will strike . . . at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer's words would be, "They will strike . . . at their heels." However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (⇒ Wisdom 2:24; ⇒ John 8:44; ⇒ Rev 12:9; ⇒ 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because "the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil" (⇒ 1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

Straight from the Vatican website. Vatican.va.

[ealgeone]

None of the Four Evangelists says Jesus had brothers by Mary, i.e. sons other than Jesus, who were borne by Mary. That is the point in dispute.

Not when read in context.

When one reads the Four Evangelists, to use your term, one understands they knew Jesus had brothers and these were from Mary.

Does the NT record the date and time Joseph and Mary had relations? No.

But it does indicate in Matthew 1:25 they did have relations, or knew each other, after Jesus was born.

When the family is mentioned in the Gospels, the Jews seem to have no problem identifying the brothers and sisters being in His family.

Why didn't the writers provide more on this? Don't know other than the primary focus of the NT is on Christ. His brothers and sisters are not the focus nor are Joseph and Mary.

If you introduced someone as your brother or sister the vast majority of people would deduce they were from your mom and dad.

They wouldn't go into some long drawn out debate wondering if they were from another marriage, did your parents "know" each other, etc.

Context is your friend in reading the Word.

[metmom]

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).

Except that there is absolutely zero support from Scripture that Mary and Joseph entered into anything but a normal marital relationship.

From the fact that mary was already legally married to Joseph, that the angel told Joseph to not be afraid to take Mary AS HIS WIFE, that Scripture tells us that he did not know her until after she had given birth, that he had conjugal relations with her after that, that Scripture goes on to mention that He had brothers and sisters and names the brothers.

God in no way defrauded Joseph of anything, including his rights as a married man to enjoy sex with his legal wife and produce offspring with her, and she had many, a sign of God's blessing on a woman in those days.

[metmom]

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.

*We believe* = opinion.

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.

Nonsense again. She was shocked because she and Joseph had not yet consummated their marriage and she had been faithful to him, not because she never intended to have children.

ANY normal woman would also ask that same question. *I haven't had sex. How can I get or be pregnant?*

It would have been a perfectly reasonable question for ANYONE to ask.

[metmom]

Fail again.

[metmom]

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.

Something only a Catholic mind could come up with, I guess because I have NEVER heard of any Christian alluding to Mary in that manner.

Do yourself a favor and do not ascribe your warped fantasies to Christian thinking.

It destroys your credibility. It's as bad as the *God is a celestial rapist* garbage.

Honestly where do Catholics come up with this stuff, (for a word that would otherwise get this post pulled)

[metmom]

And on the Cross he gave his mother to John and to us. Not to any siblings, because he had none.

Pure speculation.

John was there. no one else was.

Jesus saw to it that Mary was taken care of, as was His responsibility.

Custom does not equate to absolute law. He was free to do as He chose.

[metmom]

None of the Four Evangelists says Jesus had brothers by Mary, i.e. sons other than Jesus, who were borne by Mary. That is the point in dispute.

None of them say what you're claiming either.

However, we have the rest of Scripture to support our claim.

You don't.

You have to appeal to extra-Biblical nonsense and writings to support yours.

[Mark17]

Bro, all you did was link me to the catechism. Maybe I should say, that at least you linked me to something, even though I don't accept that as a legitimate source.
I would venture to guess, that working out your own salvation, probably means something different to you, than it does to me. I just want to know, if you have been born again from above, ala John 3? If not, why not? No one enters Heaven, except he be born again. If you are STILL trying to "attain" Heaven, (I hate that word 😀) I would say give it up, eat drink and be merry, because only born agains are going to enter that EXCLUSIVE domain. I hope you make it. 😱

[Mark17]

You have to appeal to extra-Biblical nonsense and writings to support yours.

Are they straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel? 😂

[Carthego delenda est]

You fail to take into account Tiberius Claudius Caesar Germanicus II Gemellus. We all know that youse guys can’t possibly believe that!

[Mrs. Don-o]

What it proves is that the entire Church was convinced of Mary's perpetual virginity, and the suggestion that she had other children from her womb got no traction with them.

We're not talking about "Rome", if by that one means the Latin church as source or enforcer of doctrine --- it was not -- but every church in every liturgy (order of public worship), as far back as we can go.

So Mary's ever-virginity is not dispositively proven by the Scriptures (which were handed on to us by Apostolic authority), but by the churches (which were handed on to us by Apostolic authority) in their universal practice. We refer to the Sacred Texts to show that this doctrine is NOT in contradiction to Scripture --- is not ruled out ---and that it IS harmonious with everything else we know about Mary from Genesis to Revelation, and congruent with God's character and covenants.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I note how you call the whole history of Christianity "extra-Biblical nonsense."

I note also how you accept implicitly the proposition that God violated Mary and Joseph's marriage. I mean: by taking Mary and impregnating her despite that she had vowed her sexual/procreative capacities exclusively to Joseph.

This is not just and honorable covenant behavior.

[Lazamataz]

You fail to take into account Tiberius Claudius Caesar Germanicus II Gemellus. We all know that youse guys can’t possibly believe that!

My bad.

[ealgeone]

I note how you call the whole history of Christianity "extra-Biblical nonsense."

In terms of establishing dogmas upon it as the Catholic has done is what I think mm means.

[metmom]

Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). 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.

BEFORE they came together, meaning that they did.

Took her AS HIS WIFE.

Didn't know her until she had given birth. (supported by previous birth concerning before they came together.

Would you have been more satisfied if the just came out and said, *And then they had sex*?

Matthew essentially did.

And it doesn't matter in the least if the whole world believed it. That isn't the measure of truth, who or how many believe something or how long they believe it for.

The measure of truth is God's word and HE tells us they came together and HE tells us the names of Jesus' brothers.

[MHGinTN]

So the brothers and sisters of Jesus were from a second wife Joseph took while still married to Mary? ... Your intricate defense of catholic/satanic dogma is duly noted, and rejected for the deceit it reveals. You are desperate to make your institution's proclamation defended, thus tossing reason aside to try and make The Word of God bend to your insitution's interpretation of events.

You have zero proof that GOD took an ovum from Mary. You have your flawed reasoning telling you to defend this notion even beyond reason, but you have zero proof. That Mary gestated Jesus in her womb as 'surrogate' fulfills the honor of JESUS being the seed of the woman. Just as Joseph raising Jesus as his own son makes JESUS heir to the line of Joseph.

Having decided to make the Mother of Jesus into a demigoddess of supernatural powers, you desperately twist The Word of GOD to support the desired focal demigoddess. The Gospel as delivered did not make MAry into a demigoddess, your religios institution did it to woo more pagans into 'the church'. The cult of Astatre is very very old, and is woven into the pagan religions of early Palestine and Italia, A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf ...