This subject is not without controversy. And while I am not an expert or theologian, I have spent a lot of time researching the scriptures and what they have to say on the subject. I will also give some of the major disagreement point the Roman Catholics bring up concerning this study.
The scriptures used are from the NASV of the New Testament. Catholic objections will be printed in italics with the answers directly below the question or objection. As with all studies please take a moment to pray and ask God’s guidance in this matter.
Quote:
And Joseph arose from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and he took her (Mary) as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son, and he called his name Jesus, (Mt. 1:24-25)
And she gave birth to her first born son and she wrapped him in cloths… (Luke 2:7)
Depending on the translation one is using you may find that some have other interpretations of the term “until” in Matthew. I agree that this could be the case as used elsewhere. But when taken with the text from Luke, showing Jesus was the “first-born”, and the passages that will follow concerning brothers, the evidence is strong to suggest that Joseph kept Mary a virgin, until after Jesus was born as their first-born son and then they set out to have a normal married life and continued to produce offspring as was God’s intended plan for man. The Matthew text would have been a perfect place to say that Joseph kept her a virgin, period. But it says he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to her first born in contrast to others born later.
Quote:
And coming to His hometown, He began teaching them in their synagogue so that they became astonished and said, “where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things? (see Matthew 13:53-56 and Mark 6:3)
The only thing that Mark adds to this account is that the Jewish leaders call Jesus a carpenter (having worked under his father Joseph as was the custom for Jewish boys) and he calls the brother Joseph by the name Joses. This is a very important text. These religious leaders are perplexed at where Jesus got such learning, seeing that they saw Him grow up in their village. They knew his mother and father and his brother and sisters, and were well aware that He did not go to some special school or learn under some Rabbi. This four point identification (father, mother, brothers, sisters) is key to understanding how it is possible Jesus had siblings.
Some have suggested that this word adelphos the Greek Word used for brothers can be translated as brethren, cousin, kinsman, countryman etc. as well as flesh and blood siblings and this is true. However, the text clearly shows that these Jewish leaders were “amazed” at what Jesus was teaching and doing. Why? They knew Jesus all of His life. They saw Him grow up and there was nothing special about Him in their eyes. He had no special education or Rabbinic training or the like. How do we know that they knew Him so well? Their description of exactly whose child He was. The son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of the men listed and the sisters. Why would one use kinsman to identify one with a certain mother and father, or the word cousin? And a Jew certainly would not include a woman as a kinsman or countryman or disciple etc. While the word for brother can have different meanings the word for sister is pretty clear. This was an identification of His family, that one that these men knew well enough to name. One that the hearers would recognize or at least be able to investigate afterwards.
Also we have to ask if the word intended to identify cousins or kinsmen, then that word would have been sufficient to identify both men and women. But Luke records that both the words brothers and sisters is used, not just the one word to identify both. I would say I have two cousins, not that I have one male and one female cousin. But in saying I have siblings, I would say I have a brother and a sister.
Quote:
While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak with Him. And someone said to Him, behold your mother and brothers are standing outside seeking to speak with you. (Matthew 12:46-47)
For not even His brothers were believing in Him (see John 7:5)
Here we have Jesus speaking to the multitude about their evil desire of seeking signs. Mary and Jesus’ brothers come to speak with Him (actually to rescue Him before He is hurt by the crowd, which did not believe in Him). Some believe they were there to take Him away to protect Him and maybe even have him committed for mental reasons. John’s telling us that not even His brothers believed in Him, is very significant and will come into play after the resurrection. However it is plain to see that the brothers did not believe Jesus was whom He claimed and that they regularly traveled with Mary.
Quote:
These (the apostles) all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. (Acts 1:14)
Jesus had just ascended into heaven and the apostles returned to the upper room (where the Last Supper was held) and appointed a new apostle to take Judas’s place when Luke records this verse. Seemingly unimportant on the surface, but John had recorded in 5:7 that His brothers did not believe in Him. What would now have them now hanging out with the apostles and disciples? The appearance of their resurrected brother, that is what. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:7 that Jesus singled out James (Jesus’ brother) for an appearance of His resurrected form. This had a great impression on James who must have shared this with the other brothers.
Quote:
The Apostle Paul asked, “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas”? (1 Corinthian 9:5)
Here we have again the mention of Jesus’ brothers not only as believers but also as workers for the Lord along with the apostles and Peter and their wives. Yes Peter had a wife, but that is a different study. James was not only a worker but also a pillar in the church in Jerusalem and possibly its leader, see Acts 15 and the Jerusalem council.
Someone had suggested that the James that was the head of the Jerusalem church was James the apostle but James the apostle was killed by king Herod in Acts 12:2 by the sword. The council at Jerusalem where we see James taking the leadership role occurred in Acts 15:13, some months later.
Taken separately we can dissect each verse and explain away certain words or passages. However if taken as a whole, the narrative clearly teaches that Jesus had brothers and sisters. That the resurrection had such an impact on the brothers, especially James, that they not only believed (even though before the scriptures said they did not) but became workers and leaders in the early church. This is not intended to offend anyone but simply to defend what I believe to be the written truth of God’s word. James was a leader in the Jerusalem church and wrote the book of James, and Jude wrote the book of Jude. Unfortunately we loose track of the others and his sisters as well as Mary after Pentecost. But before that we have plenty to tell us they existed.
This is how you investigate Greek words and meanings. This is the correct definition or brother and sister.
Our brothers from the Roman Catholic Church no doubt make a habit of pointing out that he word “ADELPHOS” can mean cousin, kinsman, countryman or fellow human. I find it interesting that the Holy Spirit would not have been more specific in His meaning by using any of the following words instead of Adelphos:
ANEPSIOS or SUNGENIS which are the Greek words for cousin Or SUNGEGES which is the Greek word for kin or kinsman Or GENOS or SUMPHULETES which is the Greek word for countryman
Now as to the word for brother and sister:
adelphos = literally “the womb” and can mean either brother, near kin or relative, one of the same nation or nature.
adelphe = sister, kinsman or female relative, a female member of the Christian community.
When used separately can mean any of the above. But in light of the literal “the womb” meaning of adelphos and teamed up with the phrase “his mother” (meter in Greek) it can only mean blood sibling.
Could the Holy Spirit have been mistaken and inspired the writers to use the wrong words? Wouldn’t the use of the correct word have made things so much easier? Wouldn’t it have prevented so much hostility between brothers in Christ? Only if we assume that He was mistaken. The fact is that the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes. He is without error. He knew what he was saying and chose the correct words to express these truths.
But lets set this aside for a minute and look at what our brothers at the RCC never seem to address. The Sisters. Does the word for sister have the same dual meanings as sister, cousin, countryman or fellow human being? Absolutely not!
ADELPHE = means sister according to W.E. Vine in his expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words.
In fact he says the clearest definition of the word comes from Matthew 19:29 when speaking of the sisters of Christ. While the word can define the sisters in Christ that Paul refers to, and the spiritual relationship with Christ, the clearest definition is natural relationship of blood relative.
So while we can play with words, or discard the meaning of words because they are in sharp contrast to our own doctrines, we must adhere to what words mean and not what we want them to mean.
Catholic Questions
Q. At the crucifixion Jesus turned the care of His mother over to the apostle John. Why did He not, as Jewish custom asked, turn the care of His mother over to one of his brothers if He had any?
A. First off this was a custom or tradition and not a hard fast rule. Secondly, Jesus’ brothers were non-believers at the time. Also we see from the text that Mary went to live in Johns house. Possibly the brothers were married and had families of their own and this is after all the apostle Jesus loved. I cannot second-guess why Jesus did anything but the three reasons given seem logical.
Q. Why are none of the brothers called the sons of Joseph or Mary? Why are they always called Jesus’ brothers?
A. This I must admit is a stickler of a question. Frankly I do not know why Jesus’ brothers is not called Joseph’s sons or Mary’s sons. But I also do not think it takes away from the evidence of the terms brothers and sisters. Especially since we do not see the terms Trinity, or rapture mentioned in scripture but are in fact biblical truth.
Q. Due to the meaning of the word adelphos, can’t we just assume these were brethren or disciples?
A. No! Simply because it links the word directly with sisters. If the word were simply brethren or kin it would include both sexes. If we look at Acts 1 we see in verse 13 that Jesus’ brothers are linked with His mother Mary. In verse 15 however Peter stands in the midst of the brethren, which numbered about 120. Why would verse 13 distinguish between the apostles, the women, Mary and Jesus’ brothers and then in verse 15 simply say the brethren? It simply makes no sense.
The problem with the Catholic view is that they have a doctrine that says that Mary the mother of Jesus was a virgin perpetually or until she died. With that doctrine any reference to brothers and sisters must be discredited. And while they try to do a decent job with the word brother they are stopped in their tracks with the word sister. Not to mention that Joseph kept Mary a virgin until after Jesus was born.
In 1015 there was a scholar of the monastery of Saint Victor by the name of Hugh, who developed the way doctrines were to be established for many years to come. This was a time of great ignorance. Few if any priests or monks could read, and certainly could not read the original languages of the bible. It was during this time that the religious leaders relied more on church writers (Eusibius, Tertullian, Ignatius and Polycarp) than they did on the scriptures. Saint Hugh the Great as he is called said that, “One must first determine what he is to believe and then search out the scriptures to support such beliefs”. Interesting concept. Can anyone see a problem with this logic?
Why such hostility towards the fact that Jesus may have had brothers? Why wouldn’t the notion even be entertained by those who claim to be the church?
Lets quickly look at something I just recently discovered.
Matthew 4:18 “He (Jesus) saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter and Andrew his brother”
No one seems to object to this scripture that clearly shows that Peter and Andrew were brother
Matthew 4:21 “and going on from there, He (Jesus) saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother”
No one seems to object to the use of adlephos as brother in this verse either
Mark 6:3 “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the Brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"”
Same grammar, same verbiage and yet now the problem begins. This is not brother but cousin or kinsmen. We know that Mark wrote in Greek so the discussion of Hebrew and Aramaic words does not apply here as it might in Matthew.
Notice it does not say “and are not His brothers here with us also” as in other texts. But rather “son of Mary, the Brother of James” the difference is significant here. The grammar would allow for kinsmen or cousin if “his brothers here among us” were the text. But because it first says “the son of Mary” which no one questions and then “the brother of James” we have to look more closely to the identification here in the original. The son of and the brother of are identical and both point to the subject Mary and brothers. If one is to discount the brother of James as a literal brother then equally we have to throw out the son of Mary as not a literal son. They are identical in identifying who this Jesus was.
The response of the religious leaders was equally clear from Mk 6:3 “and they took offense at Him”. Why? Because they knew who He was and were insulted that one of such little formal learning could show them up in His wisdom and understanding and that “HE” was doing miracles.
So what was Jesus’ response to this identification? And take note this is quite telling. Mark 6:4 “a prophet is not without honor, except in his home-town (this would have been Nazareth) and among his own relatives (this would include the cousins and kinsmen and near kin) and in his own household”.
In his own household? Who is this group. It is not his kinsmen of Nazareth as this has been covered by the phrase “his home town”. It cannot mean cousins or kinsmen or near kin as this is covered by “his own relatives”. So who in Jesus’ own household was there at this time that did not believe or honor Jesus?
Certainly not Mary, she received the revelation of who Jesus was directly from Gabriel and treasured these things in her heart in Luke 1:26ff.
Joseph is more than likely dead at this point so it can not be him.
It can only be one group and that is Jesus’ “BROTHERS” and “SISTERS” since we are told that even His brothers did not believe in Him.
Jesus Himself gives us the answer if we will see it. Not his home town or his relatives but his own household were those who did not give Him honor as a prophet until later after His resurrection.
There is only one reason to accept the text of Matthew concerning Peter and Andrew and also James and John as being brothers and “NOT” Mark 6 concerning Jesus and His brothers. The Catholics had already established a doctrine of Mary ever-virgin and simply cannot take this verse or any other as true. For to do so would simply show that Saint Hugh’s formula of defining a doctrine first and seeking scriptural proof later was indeed the accepted one of the church at the time and today as well.
Jesus ‘ own testimony here discredits any suggestion of kinsmen or near kin by identifying some within His own house that disbelieved Him. Now unless we think that Mary was somehow so wealthy that her entire family including near kin resided with her, the “own household” can only mean one group. “HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS”.
Isn’t it interesting that when asked to show evidence of Mary’s ever virginity, not one piece comes forward? Oh there is the usual discrediting of the similar names of certain men from different mothers. But is this evidence Mary never bore additional sons or daughters? The original prophecy concerning her was simply that a virgin would give birth. It said nothing about remaining this way. So as usual no evidence!
The argument is brought up that another woman had sons with the same names. But they are not identical are they? And no where is this other women said to have had daughters to coincide with Jesus having sisters. But lets look at the main point. These men were not Jesus’ brothers, they were another woman’s sons.
In John 6 while preaching in Capernaum the Jews ask each other, “Is this mans father not Joseph and His mother Mary, how then does he say he comes down from heaven?”
The question begged to be asked. Even these men of Capernaum knew Jesus and who His parents were. Jesus was not a secret nor was His family
In Matthew and Mark the Jewish leaders get even more specific
And coming to His hometown, He began teaching them in their synagogue so that they became astonished and said, “where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things? (see Matthew 13:53-56 and Mark 6:3)
In the John passage they were simply saying we know his earthly parents so how can he come from heaven. But in Matthew and Mark these leaders know Jesus personally. He grew up in their synagogue and they are amazed at his learning and miraculous powers seeing they knew he never went to any formal training say under Gameliel or some other respected Rabbi. But here they add his brother’s names as well as the mention of sisters and the kicker is “are they not all with us still”. We still know them, they are still here in town if you want to go and check it out.
So to foster their personal agenda’s, critics have to believe that these men who knew Jesus and His whole family all their lives and went to synagogue weekly with them, well these men got confused, and said another woman’s sons were Jesus’ brothers and the sisters must be of yet another undisclosed woman.
Oh there’s the brethren and kinsmen myths but they too can only be attributed to desperate clutchings onto non-biblical nonsense to support men’s doctrines and have already been addressed. No one was closer to Jesus than John, James and Peter yet they are never called brothers by outsiders. Mary Magdaline, or Mary or Martha were never called a sister. Even John the Baptist who was a legitimate cousin is never called ‘adelphos” .
The very reason for their statement was to assure those listening that they personally knew these folks in an intimate and relational way for many years and still enjoyed this relationship with the sisters in this town. Does it make sense they made such a blatant mistake? Of course not.
While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak with Him. And someone said to Him, behold your mother and brothers are standing outside seeking to speak with you. (Matthew 12:46-47)
With all the disciples inside and out of this house where Jesus was speaking, would simply referring to Mary and some cousins, disciples or kinsmen made any sense. These were Jesus’ brothers plain and simple and Jesus knew exactly whom they were talking about.
For not even His brothers were believing in Him (see John 7:5)
Why even mention this with all those who did not believe in Jesus, including previous disciples and kinsmen? Because these were his very own brothers who were not believing. “FOR NOT EVEN” his brothers as opposed to all the rest is what makes the most sense here.
These (the apostles) all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. (Acts 1:14)
The proper way to have worded this had these men been simply disciples or kinsmen would be to mention the apostles first, then these men, then the women and Mary. But the “brothers” here are linked to Mary. WHY? Because they are Jesus brothers who once did not believe but since the resurrection now do.
The Apostle Paul asked, “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas”? (1 Corinthian 9:5)
Again the specific separation for clarity, the apostles from Peter and they from the brothers of Jesus. It is also one of the greatest evidences of the resurrection we have that James and Jude once unbelievers and actually willing to put their brother away thinking Him mad, now believe and not only believe, but James is the leader of the church in Jerusalem and Jude an epistle writer.
In 1015 there was a scholar of the monastery of Saint Victor by the name of Hugo, who developed the way doctrines were to be established for many years to come. This was a time of great ignorance. Few if any priests or monks could read, and certainly could not read the original languages of the bible (knowing only the Latin scriptures of the Vulgate). It was during this time that the religious leaders relied more on church writers (Eusibius, Tertullian, Ignatius and Polycarp) than they did on the scriptures. Saint Hugo the Great as he is called said that, “One must first determine what he is to believe and then search out the scriptures to support such beliefs”. Interesting concept. Can anyone see a problem with this logic?
Obviously many do not. They have been operating under this rule for some 1000 years now.