http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1271
Did Jesus Have Fleshly Half-Brothers?
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).
REFERENCES
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).
The
Holy Spirit is silent regarding whom He used to pen certain books of
the Bible. Job and 1 and 2 Kings fall into this “unknown writer”
category. Other books of the Bible, however, clearly identify the
individual through whom the Holy Spirit chose to communicate His
message. We know that the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1:1-2),
while Peter wrote two of the New Testament epistles, which we call 1
and 2 Peter.
