College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Matthew 13:54-58

Section 32
JESUS IS REFUSED BY HIS OWN AT NAZARETH.

TEXT: 13:54-58

54 And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph; and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

What is so significant about the amazement of these people, given the fact that it is caused by the miracles and message of Jesus?

Why do you think that the Nazarenes did not know the answer to their own question: Where did He get all this wisdom and these miracles? c. Analyze the reasons why the Nazarenes were caused to stumble in Jesus.

Now, if causing someone to stumble is regarded by the NT as sin, how can you justify Jesus-' doing precisely that? The Scripture says that the Nazarenes were scandalized by Jesus.

One of the accusations we often make against faith miracle workers today is that too often their miracles do not seem to want to occur in the presence of skeptics, unbelievers or other critical eyes. Here Jesus did not do many miracles because of the Nazarene's unbelief. Nay, worse, Mark (Mark 6:5) actually affirms that the Lord COULD NOT do any miracles in Nazareth. Does faithor is it credulity?in the miracle worker or in the recipient of the miracle create miracle-working power? Perhaps Jesus was limited by the same weakness and failure as modern fake healers. What is your explanation?

What is the importance here of the mention of Jesus-' brothers and sisters?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Jesus left Capernaum and went to His own hometown, Nazareth. His disciples accompanied Him. On the sabbath. He began to teach the folk in the local synagogue. Many who listened to Him were astonished and asked, Where did this man get all this wisdom? What great wisdom He has! What mighty works are done by Him! Is not this the carpenter, the son of the carpenter? Is not his mother called Mary? Are not his brothers named James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters here with us? Where, then, did he get all this? So they were shocked at Him.
But Jesus commented to them, No prophet is left unhonored, except in his own hometown, among his own kin, and in his own house.
And He could not do many mighty miracles in Nazareth, because of their unbelief, except that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and healed them. He marveled because of their unbelief.

SUMMARY

Jesus tried again to win His own hometown to discipleship. The result was superficial amazement at His supernatural wisdom and miracles, but no real conviction of His true position as God's Prophet. The Nazarenes were shocked at Jesus; He marveled at their continued unbelief. The townspeople gave Him little or no opportunity to work great miracles on their behalf.

NOTES

Before attempting to comment on this section, it is well to ask whether it be the same incident as that recorded by Luke (Luke 4:16-30). Some commentaries identify the two accounts and create thereby unnecessary problems for the reader. The coincidences which make the identification appear possible are three:

In both accounts the Nazarenes marveled at Jesus-' ability. (Matthew 13:54 b = Mark 6:2, cf. Luke 4:22) Is this psychologically credible especially the second time, if there were two visits? Yes, because, however well they may have remembered a supposed first visit to Nazareth at the beginning of His ministry (i.e., Luke 4:16-30), several new factors would have contributed to occasion their astonishment: His far greater popularity in Galilee is now a fact that demanded reappraisal of His claims. New to them also would be His surprising courage in returning after the attempt on His life on His last visit, as well as the loving meekness of His manner, in contrast to their meanness, and His magnanimity in not holding their deeds against them. If time heals things, then Jesus-' absence from Nazareth for a sufficiently considerable interval would render a repetition of some of the same surprise quite credible.

In both accounts the Nazarenes objected to Jesus-' pretended authority, because He was the son of Joseph the carpenter. (Matthew 13:55 = Mark 6:3; cf. Luke 4:22 b) But this is only natural, since it is the basis of their refusal no matter how many times He visited there.

Would Jesus on two separate visits have reiterated the prophet? Although not exactly verbatim, the wording is close enough. (Matthew 13:57 b = Mark 6:4, cf. Luke 4:24) Yes, the reverting to this proverb is not exceptional, since the general circumstances of the two visits to the same hometown could have evoked the same general reaction in Jesus. In fact, the deliberate hammering on this particular motto may indicate Jesus-' aim to reach a far higher goal than a mere accounting for local prejudices. (See below on Matthew 13:57 b.)

Nevertheless, the differences are more marked than these supposed likenesses:

THE NARRATIVE OF MATTHEW AND MARK

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE

Mark links this visit to Nazareth with the events around Capernaum following the great Parables Sermon, the trip to Gerasa and return to Capernaum. Matthew, having already told this, links this trip to Nazareth more loosely after the Parables Sermon. But these events are admittedly late in the Galilean ministry.

Luke gives the definite impression that he is narrating an incident early in the Galilean ministry of Jesus shortly after His baptism and temptations.

Mark notices the presence of Jesus-' disciples on this visit, a natural feature to be expected, as Jesus has now developed His program more fully since His earlier visit, including a following. This argument cannot be conclusive, since Matthew is silent about disciples here, and his account alone cannot argue their absence any more than can Luke's earlier story (Luke 4:16-30).

Luke is silent about disciples on Jesus-' first visit to Nazareth, a fact that cannot militate against their possible presence. Nevertheless, the very progress of His relationship to His immediate followers at that early period indicates that He may not yet have called them to personal discipleship. (See Luke 5:1-11; Luke 5:27-32.)

Matthew notices the paucity of miracles while Mark mentions a few.

Luke not only records no miracles, but cites Jesus-' words about Elijah and Elisha that seem to preclude His having done any before entering the synagogue. Certainly, none were recorded as done later.

Matthew and Mark indicate no specific duration of His visit to Nazareth, but they imply at least some time to do a few miracles.

Luke tells how in the synagogue an attempt was made on His life from which He narrowly escaped by walking through the crowd and departing immediately.

These differences are explicable on the basis of Jesus-' love for His own townspeople: is it like Jesus to have entirely abandoned even Nazareth after one rejection? Second, Jesus-' growing popularity throughout Galilee and the healing of time might have counselled a second visit because of changed circumstances. Although time did not heal their unbelief, it may have let their offended pride cool enough to permit Him to try again.

Matthew 13:54 Coming into his own country, as Mark connects it, means leaving the unwanted excitement around Capernaum where Jesus had just completed a series of steps to keep tight reins on His own popularity:

The Great Sermon in Parables intended to hide vital truth from any but the most understanding disciples. (Matthew 13:1-53; Mark 4:1-34; Luke 8:4 ff).

The withdrawal from the Capernaum crowds by a stormy voyage to Gerasa and, hopefully, some tranquility was interrupted by Gerasene fearful reluctance. (Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39)

Then followed the return to Capernaum and the great crowds, the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage, and the resurrection of Jairus-' daughter and the injunction to the parents to avoid publicity. (Matthew 9:1; Matthew 9:18-26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56)

Although He sternly ordered two healed blind men not to publish the news of their healing, they disobeyed. (Matthew 9:27-31)

The crowds marveled yet more when He freed a dumb demoniac. (Matthew 9:32-34)

These pressures on Jesus may have determined His decision to reach an area where His impopularity would have granted a small respite from the constant thronging of people. Nazareth suited His requirements ideally, since the earlier disapprobation of His townsmen had been previously encountered. (Luke 4:16-30) But Jesus-' return to Nazareth is no mere avoidance of Capernaum, as if He had nowhere else to go. He strode into Nazareth, because He knew His people and loved them, despite their sins, pride and prejudices. He had remained away from them to let them study Him at long range while He preached and healed all over Galilee. Now He must return once more to teach them, work among them and give them fresh glimpses of His true identity.

Coming into his own country He taught them in their synagogue. Matthew's imperfect tense (edidasken) does not in this case mean to suggest that He kept this up for some time, because this is an example of the inchoative imperfect which describes an action as recently, or just begun, being in its first stages. (See Robertson-Davis, Short Grammar, 300; Blass-Debrunner, 169, sec. 326 call it conative imperfect) So, Mark's expression, he began to teach, is only the more explicit equivalent of Matthew's idiom.

So earnest and powerful, so winsome and true was His message that its immediate effect was the astonishment of the audience. But this amazement is not the marveling that leads to joyous acceptance. It arose, rather, out of what they suppose to be perfect familiarity with Jesus: they think they know Him, as their questions reveal afterward. Their perplexity, expressed in the question: Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?, arises out of the apparent incongruity between what they thought they knew about Him and what they were even then experiencing with their own senses. But He was, in reality, a perfect Stranger. Edersheim (Life, I, 636ff) rightly notices that the very events of Jesus-' miraculous conception and birth were hidden from the Nazarenes, even as His earthly development was unseen by the Bethlehemites. But this fact in no way lessens the responsibility of both cities to test the claims of Jesus. In fact, the ignorance of Nazareth concerning the great fact of the Incarnation is no warrant for their unbelief. It should, rather, have spurred them on to examine all the more critically His claims in the light of His miraculous credentials. If they are curious enough to ask this kind of question, which itself contains such damaging admissions on their part, let them seek their proper answers! There was no denying that this man has this wisdom and these mighty works are wrought by his hands! Since their knowledge of these deeds is largely based on hearsay evidence filtering back into Nazareth from nearly every village in Galilee,apparently He worked no miracle in His hometown prior to this historical moment,is it credible that the popular opinions of their fellow Galileans, that Jesus might possibly be the Christ, should not also have been breathed about? They were taken aback, not because of His grace in speaking or because of the truth of His doctrine, but that these virtues should be HIS. Had they not been wilfully blind, they should have understood that ANYONE SO demonstrably without the preparation of academic education who proves himself so amply in possession of such unmatched wisdom and such glorious power MUST have been sent and empowered by God. Their culpability is the more inexcusable because not only were they well aware of these mighty works, but before He left town, they were even to witness the healing of a few sick folk. (Mark 6:5) Even when they saw it, they did not afterward repent and believe Him. (Cf. Matthew 21:28-32) Were they but to pronounce Him Christ, they would arrive immediately at the only satisfactory answer to their questions, but they supposed the matter settled merely by voicing a few insinuating questions.

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? For this oblique reference to Joseph, Mark has only: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary. ? Did Jesus so establish Himself as a worker in Nazareth during His pre-ministry days that His acquaintances remember Joseph only in passing as the man whose carpentry his son took over? Where then is Joseph? His passing may be implied in his not being mentioned in any of the events immediately concerning Jesus-' family following the return to Nazareth after Jesus-' birth. (Cf. Matthew 1:16; Matthew 1:18-20; Matthew 1:24; Matthew 2:13; Luke 1:27; Luke 2:4; Luke 2:16; Luke 2:33; Luke 2:43; Luke 3:23; Luke 4:22; John 1:45; John 6:42 are the only references to Joseph by name in Scripture.) His absence on some occasions may be explained on grounds other than his death, for example, where business demanded that he be elsewhere when Mary and her sons visited Jesus. (Matthew 12:46; Luke 8:19) However, if Joseph were still alive during Jesus-' last visit, the unusual phrasing of some Nazarene's question according to Mark, is remarkable.

Is not his mother called Mary? Is not this. the son of Mary. ? (Mark 6:3) The simplest reading of either of these versions would lead the uncomplicated reader to think the Nazarenes are simply confirming by a negative question expecting a positive answer what they think they know about Jesus. But, some, remembering it somehow un-Jewish to identify a man by mentioning his mother's name, think Mark to be pointing to some peculiar fact.

These words in the mouth of the Nazarenes, says McMillan (Mark, 76) smell of an early rumor circulating to the effect that Jesus was illegitimate, but his proof-texts (e.g., John 8:41; John 9:29, etc.) do not substantiate this, being open to other interpretations. Rather, as discussed at Matthew 1:24, the very circumstances surrounding Jesus-' birth, in the wisdom of God, forestalled such an accusation on the part of the Nazarenes. Further, Matthew's text, parallel to Mark, actually quotes the Nazarenes themselves as describing Jesus as the carpenter's son, before ever mentioning Mary. If the Nazarenes believe Jesus to be Joseph's son, there can be no suspicion of illegitimacy here. Again, that these words indicate no such rumor is proved by their very vagueness, if such an insinuation were intended. Jesus-' detractors did not mince words when resorting to name-calling! (Cf. John 8:48; John 8:52; John 7:20; John 10:20; Mark 3:21-22; Mark 3:30; Matthew 10:25; Matthew 11:18-19)

Is Mark's special wording intended to convey the concept of the Virgin Birth? That is, by saying, Is not this. the son of Mary? is he not eliminating Joseph as Jesus-' real father in the same sense that Mary is His real mother? No, because Mark is citing the objections made by the Nazarenes on the basis of what they considered common knowledge. These words, far from containing Mark's doctrine, are in fact not really his at all.

An even simpler solution for the Marcan phenomenon is available; Mark mentions only Jesus-' mother, because the people he is quoting could not, for some reason, refer directly to Joseph as any longer an active participant in Nazareth's life. Is he only remembered by some (cf. Matthew's the son of the carpenter), but absent from immediate concern, whereas Mary, being still alive, is very much present in their thinking? Mark's words, rather than express editorializing, may well reflect the precise situation in Nazareth and suggest the well-nigh universal supposition that Joseph had been long dead.

Contrary to Plummer, (Matthew, 199), this difference in the form of the questions does not at all represent redactional changes by Matthew, but rather the natural, rapid-fire questioning of excited people.

Are not his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? See the Special Study, The Brethren of the Lord after this chapter. But why do the Nazarenes bother to mention these men by name? They are proudly proving thereby to be able to remember them, since these brothers had moved to Capernaum with Jesus some time earlier. (See on Matthew 4:13; Cf. John 2:12.) By proving their ability to name them one by one, they think they have thereby explained Jesus too: could He possibly be any different from those named?

Matthew 13:56 And are not all his sisters here with us? Did these girls marry Nazarenes and so not move with Jesus-' mother and brothers to Capernaum with Him? How many ladies are implied in all his sisters is unknown, but, when considered as all younger than Jesus the firstborn and included with four baby brothers, they certainly represented a houseful for Jesus and His (widowed?) mother. Because of the poignant note in Jesus-' sad proverb: A prophet is not without honor except. among his own kin, and in his own house, some have wondered whether the sisters, fearing reprisals from their townsmen who had so bitterly rejected Jesus earlier, had sought to disassociate themselves from Him, because of His apparently unwarranted assumption of superiority over His own people.

The surprise expressed by these Nazarenes in their barrage of questions indicates just how perfectly normal must have been the entire course of Jesus-' life and development there. This does not deny the deep-running differences that only Mary could have known. Nevertheless, their astonishment serves to mark the perfect humanity of His maturity in wisdom and physical stature to the delight of God and man. (Luke 2:40; Luke 2:52) For, if the Nazarenes who knew His history among them best, humanly speaking, could trace no abnormality in His boyhood conduct, we are right to conclude that

He did no miracles as a boy, contrary to the fantastic narrations of the apocryphal gospels. His first miracle was done at Cana of Galilee and not sooner. (John 2:11)

His anointing by the Spirit at His baptism really signaled the beginning of His Messianic mission, after He left Nazareth a few days prior. (Acts 10:37-38) None of His days at Nazareth before this anointing should be considered as having any relation to that commission except as they gave Him time and opportunity to mature as a perfect human being. (Cf. Luke 2:40; Luke 2:52)

The doctrine of Jesus-' perfect humanity (cf. Hebrews 2:14; Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 5:7-8; Philippians 2:8) passed the test of His closest acquaintances. The Nazarenes could not tell the difference between Jesus and His four brothers and all His sisters. His humanity was convincingly real to them.

Their rhetorical questions are devastating to any theory of perpetual virginity for Mary, because they imply the common knowledge that Jesus is in no way different from His brothers, sisters, mother or father. Had there been some suspicion that they were but cousins, their questions would not have been able to imply so much, since He would, in that case, not have been of the same family as the brothers, hence He could have potentially been actually superior and their own argument falls. In fact, they use the words son, mother and sisters in their normal connotation. Why should they be thought to have changed to a larger range of meaning when they speak of His brothers?

Matthew 13:57 And they were offended in him. By what right does the village carpenter, whom we have known all our lives, rise to speak to us with an authority superior to the learned rabbis? Indeed, what right? Their former astonishment hardened into scandal. He did not fit the slot they had carved for Him. So, rather than reject their categories, they rejected Him. But in so doing, they left themselves without any accounting for His wisdom and works, real facts that, despite the fact that they surpassed human understanding, were to be believed. Their shock, indignation and hurt was not any whit less real because Jesus, far from intending them any spiritual damage, aimed only at their eternal life and peace. Their stumbling into sin, further obstinacy and unbelief, could not be helped by Jesus, and this fact leads us to see that stumbling-blocks are of two types:

Sinners being offended by righteous men in the pursuit of righteousness whose godliness itself is the cause of pain, indignation, shock or disgust. Jesus, in the pursuit of His messianic mission, could not help becoming the world's greatest stumbling block! (Luke 2:34; Matthew 21:44 = Luke 20:18; 1 Peter 2:6-8 = Isaiah 8:14-15; see notes on Matthew 11:6).

Weak, or relatively innocent people are offended by supposedly righteous men in the pursuit of their own comfort, exercising their rights or freedom while quite unconcerned for the conscience of others. (Cf. Notes on Matthew 18:5-9; Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:7; 1 Corinthians 6:12 to 1 Corinthians 11:1)

Ironically, the Nazarenes mistakenly reputed Jesus to be a stumbling block of the latter type, only to splatter their lives against the Rock of Ages!

The Nazarenes blundered by trying to account for Jesus by discussing His quite human family, but they omitted from the account the one ingredient which, though they could not have known it, would have explained Him: the Incarnation. Lest WE too stumble over Jesus, we must appreciate how gross is the blunder involved in attempting to explain Him by ordinary rules. We are tempted to think that unless or until we are able to fathom the mystery of God, or, at least, solve the problem of Jesus Christ, we shall not surrender to Him. Nevertheless, even a perfect intellectual solution would not bow our heads in submission since common canons permit us to measure other people every day, yet we never throw ourselves at their feet to become their servants. In fact, were we to succeed in reducing the Lord's Christ to a philosophical formula or a mathematical equation, He would then be unneeded, because, in our conceit, we would have thought to understand Him perfectly. He would be then useless to us as Master and Lord, since we would have then reduced Him to our own self-created categories. But His Incarnation and His Atonement are facts to be believed on the evidence He gives us of their truth, not propositions for debate the issue of which is of little or no consequence. Rather than discredit the evidence because of our failure perfectly to comprehend, let us postpone debate and submit! After all, what is faith for, if we must walk by sight?
Our scandal-level, i.e., that point at which we too are most liable to be shocked, disgusted or hurt by Jesus, is really that point in our thinking at which Jesus holds no surprises for us anymore. When our theology will have succeeded in saying all there is to know about Him, we are perfectly set up for OUR big disappointment in Him. We are Christians, wrote Morgan (Matthew, 181ff), because Jesus towers above us, impresses us, baffles us, eludes us, yet enwraps us with love and thrills us with power. We are Christians in the presence of the Infinite Mystery, infinitely more than in the presence of things that can be perfectly explained.

But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. Two thrusts are noticeable in Jesus-' use of this proverb:

He cites to the Nazarenes this true psychological observation, and by so doing, shows them that, humanly speaking, He understands them. It is genuinely difficult to appreciate the surpassing importance and real accomplishments of someone whose entire growth and development occurred before our eyes. We do have problems accepting the profound changes in people with whom we think ourselves perfectly familiar. So, the Lord, perfectly familiar with His own people, because He really knew their weakness and need, in heart-warming understanding and generous mercy, expresses this solidarity with them in their difficulty.

But the very proverb He selected so to express Himself speaks volumes. He could have said, A successful man is not without honor, etc., and have communicated the above-mentioned human comprehension. Instead, His choice of wording may be nothing less than the earnest challenge to His dear acquaintances to re-examine the evidences that would have led them to see Him as a PROPHET. They might not understand Him to be God's Son, rather than Joseph and Mary's boy, but even so, let them think of Him as Joseph's Son the PROPHET! Let them study His message, accept His credentials as proving His right to reveal God's message like any other mighty prophet born of human parents but called by God! By this approach they might eventually be convinced to bow in humble submission of their divine Townsman. (Cf. Jesus-' use of a similar approach with Judean enemies, John 10:37-38 and with His most intimate followers, John 14:10-11.)

Matthew 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. If it be true that faith is that positive contact which man makes with God by abandoning his self-justifications, if it be that positive living in conformity with the convictions he has about Him, then we see why these Nazarenes-' unbelief caused them to stay away from Jesus. They made no contact with Him, so He did not force them to accept unwanted miracles. If they did not believe Him enough to come bringing their sick to them or ask Him to help them, then He could do no mighty work there. (Mark 6:6) Jesus could truly say, I just could not help them, because they would not let me!

Further, since Jesus had chosen to limit Himself to help only those willing to receive His blessing, He deliberately did not force either their belief or acceptance of His help. The seemingly objectionable statement of Mark (He could do no mighty work there.) reflects only this moral commitment, not any objective ability that somehow failed in Nazareth. Rather, here is written the meekness of the Son of God: we would have been sorely tempted to rip off some stupendous wonder just to show them, but Jesus stood firm. Again, the Lord refused to undersell the evidential value of a single healing! If the imposition of hands on a few sick folk to heal them (Mark 6:5) will not produce the unshakeable conviction that God has sent Jesus, no mere escalation of signs and wonders could be hoped to produce it. Nor is He willing to discount the importance of believing the true testimony of others who carried the news of His miracles to Nazareth. (Cf. Matthew 13:54; Luke 4:23)

Not only did Jesus not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief, but He marveled because of it. (Mark 6:6) See notes on Matthew 8:10 where Jesus marveled at the great faith of the Roman centurion. There, marveling is described as implying some ignorance of that about which one feels genuine surprise. But who can complain if JESUS CHOSE NOT TO KNOW who would eventually believe or disbelieve Him? This very choice, itself part of the mystery of incarnation, lets Him react genuinely, because He is truly overjoyed at excitingly real faith, or stunned and grieved at obstinate unbelief. He was astounded as He heard their reaction, because their unbelief was so unreasonable. Even though they admitted the premises for the divine origin of His mission and message, they resolutely denied the obvious conclusion to which these premises must necessarily lead.

Although Jesus-' own doctrine that the quality of one's heart affects his receptivity to the truth had already been expounded in the Parables of the Kingdom, (Matthew 13:1-53), this did not alleviate His heartbreak when He too had to live with that reality embodied in the wayside hearts of His old friends and fellow townsmen. Here, again, we see that the atmosphere which a congregation brings to a message deeply affects its effectiveness, being either a stone wall of hostility through which the message cannot penetrate, or a friendly expectancy that can turn the simplest testimony into soul-stirring eloquence. Many a message has been absolutely ruined, not because it was not true and needed, but due to prejudices against the speaker. And Jesus faced this tooin His own hometown.

FACT QUESTIONS

Is this event but another version of Jesus-' rejection at Nazareth as recorded in Luke 4:16-30? What are the similarities and differences?

What is the point of the rhetorical questions asked by the Nazarenes in reference to Jesus-' family?

What damaging evidence against the theory of the perpetual virginity of Mary is unconsciously provided by the Nazarenes-' questions in this section?

Did Jesus do any miracles at Nazareth? How do you know?

Explain how the Nazarenes took offense at Him.

Name Jesus-' brothers.

How many sisters did Jesus have?

How did the Nazarenes admit as a matter of fact the miracles that Jesus did? What, then, did they reject?

What proverb did Jesus cite as the explanation of the Nazarenes-' rejection of His person and ministry?

10.

According to the best information available in the NT, how many times did Jesus visit the Nazareth synagogue after the beginning of His ministry? What was the response each time?

11.

Explain how Jesus could marvel at the unbelief of His townspeople. Did their unbelief surprise Him? If so, how? If not, why not?

SPECIAL STUDY: THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD

What is the real purpose of this study? Is it to discover from an examination of the best evidence available to us, whether the men who are entitled in Scripture the brethren of the Lord, were real, natural half-brothers of Jesus, being sons of Mary; or whether they were step-brothers, being sons of Joseph by a former wife before espousing Mary; or whether they were cousins, being sons of Alphaeus (or Clopas), Joseph's brother (or else, sons of Mary of Clopas, sister of Mary, Joseph's wife)? Is this research into the semi-obscure facts surrounding the life of our Lord only for academic discussion?. What could be gained by a knowledge of the answer to the proposed questions? Beyond mere acquaintance with the facts, are we any richer morally?
Or is it the purpose of such a study to affirm or deny the perpetual virginity of Mary as a dogma affirmed by the Roman Catholic denomination? Even if, after accurate study, one concludes that Mary did, in fact, have no other children after the birth of Jesus, and that the reputed brethren of the Lord were, in fact, sons of Joseph by a former wife named Hannah, what is gained for the Catholic position, or what is lost for those who previously objected to the idea (not to say, doctrine or dogma) of the perpetual virginity of Mary?
Or is the question even correctly put in that fashion? Could we not ask ourselves, what USE is to be made of the supposed perpetual virginity? What is the FUNCTION of such a pretended fact?
So the importance or value of this study does not lie so much in enriching our information about the private life and relations of Jesus, as in dealing with the Catholic apologists who would elevate Mary to a superhuman plane. To do this they must demonstrate three fundamental propositions, one of which this study touches directly:

Mary was herself conceived without sin, or the dogma of the immaculate conception;

Mary remained virgin throughout her married life, or the dogma of perpetual virginity;

Mary is an object of special veneration, or the dogma of her special status in heaven whereby she is supposed to be accorded particular devotion. This last step in her exaltation involves the following unproven assumptions: (Cf. I.S.B.E., 2003)

Christ's perpetual humanity (something else to prove) presumes His perpetual Sonship to Mary, as argument which implies that the glorified Lord Jesus is still subject to His mother.

Christ hears her prayers, hence she is an intercessor through whom prayers may be addressed to Jesus.

Since Mary cared for the body of Christ when He was on earth, naturally, His spiritually body, the Church, would be her special care in heaven.

Even if it were possible to establish as fact that every Church Father who supported the perpetual virginity of Mary had no ulterior theory to defend by that stand, in which case each may be regarded as trustworthy to transmit no more than simple, historical fact, and even if it were possible to establish on purely logical and exegetical grounds from the Scriptures that both Mary AND Joseph remained virgins in their marriage relationship, still much stands or falls in relationship to the moral implications drawn therefrom by the modern Christian, some of which are:

The medieval conception, not yet fully clarified or changed by those whose denomination officially tolerated it, of the intrinsic sinfulness of the desire for marital relations and the act by which that desire is realized. (Contrast 1 Timothy 4:3-4; Hebrews 13:4) Marriage, though a holy sacrament for many, must yet be viewed by them as inferior to celibacy and incompatible with holy living in its highest, purest sense. This conclusion must necessarily follow and certainly was the view of many, however contradictory both to Scripture and to logic. For, if, Mary was married to Joseph and Joseph to Mary in appearance only, then they were recreant to each other and to the ordinance of God which made them one. (I.S.B.E., 2003)

Must the ancient repugnance to Christian feeling to think of the womb of Mary, in which the Word, made flesh, had dwelt in a peculiar way, as the habitation of other babes, (I.S.B.E., 520) express also the sentiments of the modern Christian?

Must the modern Christian share the view that Mary is not to be considered a human being under the ordinary obligations of human life, (I.S.B.E., 2003), removed from the sphere of ordinary life and duties as too commonplace for one who is to be surrounded with the halo of a demi-god, and to be idealized in order to be worshipped? (I.S.B.E., 520)

Must the Scriptures continue to be mishandled in order to support an unjustifiable theory of celibacy, an unbased theory of Joseph's virginity, a distorted view of marriage and an inadequate understanding of the family? Even if it were logically conceded that Joseph and Mary chose, for whatever reasons, to abstain from marital relations after the birth of Jesus, and even if the brethren of the Lord are logically conceded to be the sons of any other woman than Mary, it is not right that Biblical texts be distorted to prove it.

It is too apparent that the presumption of perpetual virginity for Mary is an important link in her exaltation without sin to be an object of worship in her function as mediatrix, just as much as the dogma of her immaculate conception (her being born sinless so as not to transmit inherited original sin to Jesus) and the almost forgotten but necessary assumption of her immaculate life. But whatever may be the eventual use of the particular information regarding the brethren of the Lord, the evidence for this link in the chain of Mariolatry, which binds the conscience of millions of people for whom Christ died, is as weak as any of the others.

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?

As will be seen, the main interpretations of the brethren of the Lord have been three: the cousin theory, the step-brother theory and the half brother view. (For fuller exposition of these views and their relative literature, see I.S.B.E. and other encyclopedic articles on the brethren of the Lord, on the individual names of the four brothers, on Mary, on virginity and similar topics. See especially J.B. Lightfoot's commentary on Galatians, pp. 252-291. For much of the following material, I am indebted to Lightfoot's collection of evidence, however much I may disagree with his choice of conclusion.

The basic problems involved in the identification of the Lord's brethren turns upon the following considerations:

The identification of Clopas (or Cleophas): was he the same man as Alphaeus, father of the Apostle, James of Alphaeus? Was Clopas the brother of Joseph, foster father of Jesus? Are Judas Thaddaeus or Simon the Zealot, or both, sons of this Alphaeus-Clopas?

Is Mary of Clopas to be identified with the Mary mother of James and Joses, hence also mother of Simon (or Simeon) Zelotes and Judas Thaddaeus? Is this Mary to be identified as the sister of Jesus-' mother?

Is Jesus-' mother's sister to be identified with the wife of Zebedee and with Salome?

In order better to see the relative connections the following charts are offered:

Chart 1:

WOMEN AT THE CROSS.

Question marks indicate doubt about the identificath

Matthew 27:56

Mark 15:40

John 19:25 (rearranged)

Mary Magdalene

Mary, mother of James and Joses

Mary, mother of James the Little and Joses

Mary of Clopas (?)

________, mother of Zebedee's sons

Salome (?)

________, Jesus-' mother's sister (?)

________

________, Jesus-' mother

The identification of these women depends upon the certainty of several probabilities:

It is unlikely that in John 19:25 the phrase Jesus-' mother's sister is to be taken as in apposition with Mary of Clopas, making John list only three women at the cross, since he is actually listing two pairs of women. This is shown in two ways:

He links the first two and the last two by the conjunction and, almost, as if to indicate a separation of some sort between the two pairs.

John's well-known habit throughout his gospel of suppressing the names of himself and his relatives may be evident here, since it may be presumed that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Clopas were not relatives of John, whereas if this identification suggested above proves valid, then Mary, Jesus-' mother, and Salome, John's mother, would be sisters. For this reason John leaves both women nameless, identifying them only by a descriptive phrase.

It is likely that John's mother is to be equated with Jesus. Mother's sister, since John's mother was certainly at the cross and it does not seem likely that John would have omitted her.

Both Salome and Jesus-' mother's sister remain otherwise totally unidentified. and unidentifiable to the modern reader of the text, unless they are otherwise to be identified with the also unnamed mother of Zebedee's sons, This is not impossible, since Salome would be her name, mother of Zebedee's sons gives her relationship to the Apostles, and Jesus-' mother's sister identifies her connection with Jesus and His mother.

One result of this theory, of course, is that Jesus is seen as a cousin of James and John, a theory which may also account for the definite intimacy these two enjoyed with the Lord, as well as provide a reason why Jesus consigned His mother over to John the Apostle, His cousin.

Chart 2:

LISTS OF THE APOSTLES INVOLVED IN THIS QUESTION

-----

James of Alphaeus

10.

Thaddaeus

Simon the Zealot

11.

Simon the Cananean

Simon the Canaanean

Judas of James

12.

Judas Iscariot

-----

For a full list of the Twelve, see notes on Matthew 10:2-4.

In this chart several items are to be noted:

James of Alphaeus is always the principle name leading this third group of Apostles, even as Peter's always leads the first group and Philip's the second. Judas-' lscariot's name always concludes this third group, except in Acts where his suicide is already an accomplished fact, hence the omission in the fourth list.

The remaining two names, though reversed in the last two lists, remain together as if bound together by some unmentioned tie.

The identification of Thaddaeus with Judas of James is discussed under Matthew 10:2-4; so also the names Cananaean and Zealot.

The intriguing question to be solved is which James is intended in the descriptive Judas of James. Is Judas the brother of the son of Alphaeus? Or is he the son of another unknown James?

With these crude, rudimentary tools in hand, let us examine the evidence for each view.

THE COUSIN THEORY

The great Jerome propounded the theory which has gained currency among Catholic commentators that the brethren of the Lord are, in reality, His cousins. Others have noticed certain points necessary to sustain this suggestion and so have added features unknown to Jerome but were essential to the theory. The theory is based upon the following points:

James, son of Alphaeus, is thought to be the Lord's brother, James.

Alphaeus, the father of James, is supposedly to be identified linguistically with Clopas (or Cleophas), since Alphaîos is the Greek equivalent of the Aramean Chalphai. (On this, see Lightfoot's learned discussion, pp. 256f and footnotes, 267f.)

The term James the Less, seemingly, implies only one other eminent man among the Apostolic band known by the name of James, i.e., James of Zebedee. Therefore, James of Alphaeus would be also James the Less, son of Mary, whose brother's name is Joses (or, Joseph), a name also found in the list of the brethren of the Lord.

According to the theory, Mary of Clopas is said to be the wife of Alphaeus, hence, mother of James of Alphaeus.

Mary of Clopas (Alphaeus), being the mother of James, is said to be sister of Jesus-' mother.

The result of this theory, that James the Lord's brother is really the Lord's cousin, is also based upon the loose Aramaic use of the word brother in Scripture for: actual brotherhood, common nationality, wider kinsmanship or only friendship or sympathy.

Due to the testimony of Hegesippus (cited by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. iii, 20), some add also Judas of James, considering him to be brother of James the Lord's brother, and perhaps Simon the Zealot as well, since these three names are kept together in the list of the Apostles. Not only are the Lord's brethren to be thought of as His cousins, but some, if not all, of His brothers are also Apostles, according to the theory.

The theory presupposes also the death or incapacitation of Alphaeus (= Clopas) the putative father of these four men, as well as the inability of Mary (of Clopas) to care for them, in which case they must have been practically raised in the house of Joseph and Mary in whose company they are often seen. (Cf. John 2:12; Matthew 12:46 and par.) The Nazarenes consider these brethren to be as much a part of the family of Joseph and Mary as Jesus or His sisters. (Matthew 13:54-58)

Perhaps it would help to visualize the view of Jerome as it was adapted by its adherents:

Objections to this theory are hardly less numerous than the points on which it is founded :

While it may be granted that in Hebrew or Aramaic the word brother must do service for a wider range of relationships, it would be unnatural for the Evangelists who left their works for us in Greek to have failed to specify the exact relationship intended, especially since in Greek the words are available for cousin (anepsiòs, Colossians 4:10) and kinsman (suggenés, Luke 1:36; Luke 2:44; Luke 21:16; Mark 6:4). Surely the very Evangelists who describe the other most intimate facts about the relationships of people in the Lord's family would not have failed to be reasonably specific about this point, avoiding those expressions which are ambiguous at least, and might be understood as implying that these men were half brothers through Mary.

Another serious objection to the Cousin Theory is its presumption that at least two (i.e., James of Alphaeus and Judas [brother] of James), if not three (including Simon the Zealot), of the Lord's brethren were Apostles, a conclusion inconsistent with the Apostle John's declaration (Matthew 7:5) that as late as six months before Jesus-' death: even his brothers did not believe in him. Could John say this of two or three out of four brothers, if those who did not believe were supposedly Apostles? Instead, the brethren are clearly distinguished from the Apostles. (Cf. Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5, Cephas-' name being distinguished in this latter passage only for special emphasis, not as being separate from the Apostles-' group just mentioned.) Judas of James (Jude 1:1; Jude 1:17) only seems to disclaim being an Apostle, since Peter speaks the same way (2 Peter 3:2). However, this latter part of the argument would not be conclusive.

The expression, James the Less, implies only two of the name James, one of which is distinguished from the other by this epithet. But Mark (Mark 15:40) wrote: James the Small, Little or Young, not the Less. (Iakòbou toû mikroû, not mikrotérou) So the descriptive title usually translated as an adjective of comparative degree, which generally speaks of only two between which the comparison is made, turns out to be one of positive degree. That it certainly denotes some standard of comparison, without which it would make no sense, cannot be doubted, but that that standard has to be one, and only one other, James (and not rather two or three others) must be questioned. Besides, there might be some long-forgotten reason in the domestic life of James the Less that dubbed him with that distinctive title that even in adult life he could not shake off. (Cf. the diminutive ending on Jimmy, or even Jim for James, used as names for grown men. Also, James the Less-' may have been a very tall man, earning him the humorous label Little Jimmy.) So it may well be that the expression, the Less, relates the James to no other James at all, but refers, rather, to some other point of comparison. Even if the comparison is with others by the name of James, these cannot be limited in number to only one other, as Jerome's theory demands.

According to the theory, Jude. of James is considered as the brother, instead of son, of James, an interpretation which, according to Lightfoot (Galatians, 253), is not the proper word to be supplied in the ellipsis. It also goes against early translations which use son. Had these two men been brothers, it is probable that Luke would have written James of Alphaeus and Jude his brother, or else, James and Judas, sons of Alphaeus, as in the case of the other pairs of brothers. Also in the Apostolic lists of Luke (Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13), Simon the Zealot interrupts this supposed brotherhood, for, if he were not a brother, why insert his name here? If Simon too were a brother, as some adherents of this theory claim, why call only Judas of James and not Simon too? Further, neither Matthew nor Mark, who actually mention Thaddaeus (presumably the same as Judas of James) immediately following James of Alphaeus, show any evidence of connecting Thaddaeus with James of Alphaeus. Finally, Lightfoot remarks that since this Judas is described in so many different ways (Thaddaeus, of James and not Iscariot, John 14:22), were he really the Lord's brother, as this theory supposes, it would not be thought possible that he could, in all these instances, have escaped being described in that way, when that one designation would have immediately identified the man meant by the authors.

Of course, it must be admitted in reference to Simon the Zealot that the fact that he is not designated also as of James, is not conclusive, since he is uniformly labelled the Zealot = the Cananaean. This appellation distinguishes him at once from Simon Peter and, at the same time, indicates his background. Both are sufficient reasons perhaps to override the necessity to mark him as brother of James of Alphaeus and Judas of James. So the interruption mentioned above would not in itself be fatal to this part of the theory;

Another significant improbability to be noted in the Cousin Theory is the presupposition that there were two Marys in the same family: Mary of Joseph and Mary of Clopas. (John 19:25, see Chart 1) The problem rests in the decision whether the expression Mary of Clopas is to be taken as in apposition with the descriptive: Jesus-' mother's sister, and not rather as naming another woman. The reasons offered for taking the two expressions as designating two separate women are:

It is at least reasonably improbable that two sisters should have borne the same name. Among near kin, such a practice would not be so improbable as its use in the same household for blood sisters.

John 19:25 seems to separate the four women into two pairs each by his use of conjunctions.

Lightfoot (ibid., 264) puts emphasis on the rendering of the Peshito Syriac which inserts a conjunction between the two names: his mother's sister, and Mary of Cleophas. He says, It is not unlikely that a tradition underlies the Peshito rendering. (ibid., 264)

Regardless of the linguistic relationships between the Aramaic name Cleophas (Chalphai) or Clopas, and the Greek name Alphaeus, (Alphaîos), let it be remembered that perfect identification of names still does not prove identity of persons.

Jesus-' brothers are mentioned in the Gospels in connection with Joseph and Mary, Jesus-' reputed father and real mother, never with Mary of Clopas, the presumed wife of Alphaeus-Clopas. (Matthew 12:46; Matthew 13:55 and parallels) Further, these cousins real mother, Mary of Clopas, was very much alive even until Jesus-' crucifixion. (See Chart 1: John 19:25.) Why she could not have raised these boys, instead of Joseph and Mary is, of course, unknown to us, but is it likely that the Nazarenes should have described them as Jesus-' brethren, in the same sense that they supposed Him to be Joseph's son, Mary to be His mother, and the girls in that family to be His sisters? Their argument, intended to account for the humanness of Jesus, implies the quite ordinariness of these relations. (See on Matthew 13:54-58.)

THE STEP-BROTHER THEORY

This understanding of the matter sees the brethren of the Lord as sons of Joseph by a former wife before marrying Mary. Having, as it does, the advantage of the support of the large majority of the Church Fathers would seem to give this explanation additional importance, since that fact alone would seem to signify that a nearly unanimous opinion on the subject was shared by the very men most able to testify on the subject. Various, interesting bits of information are supplied by those Fathers who happened to write on the subject, as, for instance, the names of Jesus-' sisters (Mary and Salome, according to Epiphanius in his treatise against Heresies), the name of Joseph's former wife (Hannah, or Anna, according to Eusebius, On the Star) or that Joseph was at least eighty years old or past when he married Mary (Epiphanius, Protevangelium Jacobi). Without pretending to pronounce upon the worth of each testimony of the Fathers, a task well beyond my competence, I might just observe that the support by a large majority of the Church Fathers does not necessarily argue the validity of the view. It may only demonstrate how widespread the error was believed and handed on. So, like any evidence received from the Fathers which must be tested by the revelation they purport to explain, so this theory of theirs must face the same fire, despite the fact that some of them write as if they thought to be giving testimony to fact, not theory.

This explanation may be represented graphically as follows:

Support for this theory is not so much exegetical or logical as it is traditional, i.e., based upon citations from the Fathers, who are themselves debating the issue.

The question, then, must be resolved in the same way the Fathers themselves tried to deal with it, i.e., by debating the relative points in the argument. While it seemed to Lightfoot, and certainly to others, that certain of the more informed Fathers were giving testimony to facts against which the appeal of logic or exegesis of Scripture would have no force, yet the Fathers themselves, if the citations brought forward by Lightfoot are typical examples, do not affirm the antiquity of their opinions on the basis of undoubted, uninterrupted tradition. Or, if some of them seem to do this, others of the same periods do not let this hinder their own independent investigation of the case. Although the great Jerome ultimately seems to have relinquished his position, yet at the close of the fourth century in his commentary on Matthew (398 A.D.) he does not seem to consider the question closed on the basis of traditional authority. Rather he taunts those who considered the Lord's brethren to be the sons of Joseph by a former wife with -following the ravings of the apocryphal writings and inventing a wretched creature. Melcha or Escha by name.-' (Lightfoot, 260) This state of affairs in the Fathers leaves us freer to consider the bad logic or bad exegesis involved in the problem and freer to come to our own conclusions.

The advantage of this position over the Cousin Theory is immediately apparent in that this theory takes the word brother seriously, giving to it a more natural meaning. These step-brothers can be called brothers in the same sense in which Joseph is called Jesus-' father (Luke 2:33; Luke 2:41; Luke 2:43), even by Mary who knew the facts best. (Luke 2:48) This view also takes better account of the fundamental Gospel description of the Lord's brothers as unbelievers distinct from the Apostles. It also connects them better with Joseph and Mary, instead of bringing them in from a completely different family.

However, several objections appear at once to this theory:

The Step-brothers Theory makes Joseph a very old man, assuming for him a previous marriage, a supposition nowhere alluded to in the canonical Gospels. The argument usually offered for Joseph's advanced age, on the basis of the NT Gospels, is these books-' silence regarding the man after his appearance in the narrative of Jesus at age twelve in the Temple. (Luke 2:41-51) From this silence it is usually presumed that he passed permanently out of the picture by death. But this very silence, offered as Biblical evidence for the advanced age of Joseph (ignoring for sake of the argument the traditions in the Protevangelium Jacobi and in Epiphanius), is perfectly consonant with the possibility that Joseph was killed or died a natural death while relatively young. So, silence proves nothing certain about the age of Joseph.

But granted for sake of argument that Joseph actually did die shortly after Jesus was twelve years old, this still means that Joseph lived as husband with Mary for twelve years. One of the incredible results of this fact, if the perpetual virginity of Mary be true, is that, if Joseph dwelt with Mary for twelve years yet keeping her a virgin until the day of his own death, then Joseph must be seen to have made a solemn renunciation of his own marriage rights. As far as Mary was concerned, and as far as Joseph in his new relation with her was concerned, he was virtually a virgin too. Were it possible to demonstrate categorically that the Lord's brethren were His cousins or His step-brothers, yet the words of Sweet (I.S.B.E., 2003) would still ring with devastating truth: That a married woman has no children is no proof of virginityperpetual or otherwise. The idea of Mary's perpetual virginity demands, by the nature of the marriage relationship, the continued abstinence from marital relations with his wife on the part of Joseph, dating at least from the time of his marriage to Mary until his death.

Further granted for sake of argument that Joseph were eighty when he married Mary and died when Jesus was twelve years old, let it not be supposed that he COULD NOT have begotten by Mary at least six children before his death. Neither the birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:1-3) nor that of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-24; Luke 1:57-67) are ever thought of as miraculous (i.e., supernatural) conceptions, even though they were born of extremely old parents, a fact which makes the births marvellous indeed, but that fact alone would not necessitate their being considered as being supernaturally conceived. Had they been supernatural, then the astonishing, supernatural conception of Jesus would not have been at all unique.

Another objection that should be raised to this theory is the fact that, had these brothers been sons of Joseph by a former wife before he espoused Mary, then the oldest of these brothers would surely have been regarded as legal heir to Joseph, hence to the throne of David. Jesus would not be the legal heir of Joseph, as attested by the genealogies of Matthew (Matthew 1:1-17, on which see notes, Vol. I) and of Luke (Luke 3:23-38), since Jesus, in such a case, would be but the youngest of five legal sons of Joseph. While it is true that these very genealogies of Jesus do not always follow the direct line of descent from father to his firstborn son, due to deaths, adoptions, etc., yet the generally established rule is to follow this direct succession, unless there be some well-known, overriding factor that prohibits this. But in the Gospel there is no such fact that would justify the passing over four older sons of Joseph merely in order to consider Jesus as the legal heir of Joseph, unless that were His rightful position because of His real primogeniture.

While the argument from silence can never be conclusive, yet the ancient authors, who are cited as being of the opinion that the Lord's brethren are elder sons of Joseph by another wife before his espousal to Mary, do not take adequate account of the Scriptures-' silence regarding their (supposed) existence from before the birth of Jesus until their actual appearance in the narrative. That is, where were those supposed sons of Joseph while he took Mary to Bethlehem for the census? Where were they during the flight into Egypt? Until Joseph brought the family back to Nazareth? That is, unless the testimony of Eusebius (On the Star) be so construed, which says, Joseph and Mary and Our Lord with them and the five sons of Hannah (Anna) the first wife of Joseph. Supposedly, the account from which this passage is taken professes to be founded on a document dating A.D. 119. (See Lightfoot, ibid. 283, footnote 1.) The usual assumption of the Fathers, who lean heavily upon the apocryphal gospels for their proof of the existence of these sons of Joseph prior to Jesus-' birth, is that the Gospel silence is to be interpreted as suggesting that either the brethren were present on the occasions mentioned above but escaped mention by the Evangelists because of the relative unimportance of their place in the history at that point. Or, it must be assumed that they were left at home in Nazareth, being grown up enough to care for themselves during Joseph's absence. Let it be remembered, however, that this same silence of the Evangelists is just as fully capable of being interpreted to mean that these brethren of the Lord had not yet been born!

THE HALF BROTHERS VIEW

This view, in the words of Lightfoot (Galatians, 253), is that the obvious meaning of the term (brethren) was the correct meaning; and that these brethren were the Lord's brethren as truly as Mary was the Lord's mother, being her sons by her husband Joseph. Though each detail in connection with the protagonists of this question, when considered individually, might with some difficulty be explained otherwise, the force of the argument is cumulative. There are too many items to be explained away, in order to establish any other inference than that these people were half brothers of Jesus. (I.S.B.E., 519)

This view may be diagrammed as follows:

Some of the points in the chart depend upon factors already discussed, such as the identification of Mary of Clopas with Mary the mother of James and Joses (see Chart 1), the identification of the Apostles James, Simon and Judas (Chart 2 and notes under the Cousin Theory), as well as the linguistical identification of Alphaeus with Cleophas (or Clopas), hence enjoy the strengths or suffer the weaknesses of the position of these factors in the other theories.

There are, however, several new items that are derived, rightly or not, from the testimony of Hegesippus, a Hebrew Christian of Palestine living around 160 A.D. Though the testimony was cited by Lightfoot as tending to support the Step-brothers Theory, rather than the Half Brother View, since Eusebius and Epiphanius who quote Hegesippus take former view of the question, yet the objective facts which Hegesippus mentions are susceptible of another interpretation:

After the martyrdom of James the Just on the same charge as the Lord, his paternal uncle's child Symeon the son of Clopas is next made bishop, who was put forward by all as the second in succession, being cousin of the Lord. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., iv. 22)

They say he (Simeon the son of Cleophas) was the cousin german of our Saviour, for Hegesippus asserts that Cleophas was the brother of Joseph. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., iii, 11)

In another place (iii, 32), Eusebius cites Hegesippus-' testimony to the same effect. Now, the question arises whether it is legitimate to reject out of hand the contrary testimony of the Fathers on one view and appeal to agreeable testimony for another view. It will be noticed, however, that appeal is not made here to direct testimony on the perpetual virginity of Mary or upon the relation of the brothers to Jesus, even though Hegesippus-' witness contains also notice of this latter fact. Rather, the testimony is brought forward to notice the connection of Cleopas and Joseph, a relationship that, while not directly material for the controversy, yet provides a link in an otherwise incomplete chain. Eusebius himself quotes this testimony no less than three separate times as if he had no doubt about its authenticity even though he himself lived about 180 years later.

Weaknesses of this theory of the relationships immediately arise:

The identification of Clopas with Alphaeus, which itself, in turn, is dependent upon the following considerations: (I.S.B.E., 106)

That Mary of Clopas is the same as Mary, mother of James the Less and Joses. (See Chart 1.) Impossible to prove or disprove.

That James the Less and James of Alphaeus are the same person. Though this is impossible to demonstrate absolutely, this identification is the absolutely necessary key to solve the problem.

That Clopas and Alphaeus are different variations of a common name, variations arising out of varying approximation in Greek of an Aramaic name. Competent scholars stand both for and against this identification. But, as noted before, certain linguistic identification of the two names would never prove identification of persons.

That Clopas (or Alphaeus) was known by two names, a hypothesis not unlikely, considering the practice of that period. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to demonstrate whether he too followed this usage.

Also the supposition that we have correctly identified the sons of Clopas (Alphaeus?) and Mary as being James and Joses (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40), Simon (Hegesippus, cited above) and Judas of James (or Thaddaeus). While it would seem that three out of four of these cousins of the Lord are to be numbered among the Apostles, yet the tenuous identifications are impossible to prove:

While Simon of Clopas is described by Hegesippus as the Lord's cousin, this seems to weigh against his being the same as Simon the Zealot, the Apostle, else would not Hegesippus have found it easier so to describe him? Further, Hegesippus-' remark (Eccl. Hist. iii, 11) is found in a context where the Apostles, brethren and disciples of the Lord gather to seek a worthy successor to James, bishop of Jerusalem. Considering the particular mission of the Apostles, it would be hardly likely that an Apostle, Simon the Zealot, were he to be identified with Simon of Clopas, should have been selected to fill the episcopal office.

The likelihood of Judas-' being the brother of, rather than the son of, James, has already been noticed. (See objection 4 under the Cousin Theory.) Yet, if the writer of the Epistle of Jude is the same man as Judas of James, the identification of that Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James (Jude 1:1) is reasonably assured. Unfortunately, the very, fact that the name James was so common, reduces our certainty that the very James to whom he was brother is also James of Alphaeus.

At this point it is worthwhile to examine the objections Lightfoot (ibid. 270ff) offers to the Half Brother View:

Without stating it clearly, Lightfoot seems to suggest that since Joseph disappears from the record after Jesus-' visit to the Temple at age 12; therefore Joseph died. Hence, Mary naturally appears alone with Jesus-' brethren. Lightfoot suggests (but does not state) the conclusion that Joseph could not have begotten at least six children in these twelve years. If so, this is patently impossible to prove, since Mary and Joseph could have had one baby every other year, all born after Jesus.

It is objected also that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not hindered by certain expressions thought to deny it:

According to Lightfoot, the expression he knew her not until (Matthew 1:25) does not imply normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. But this is manifestly false in light of the following considerations:

(1)

The very fact that Matthew made any declaration at all, short of saying, He knew her not until her death, suggests quite the opposite interpretation. Had the Apostle Matthew considered the perpetual virginity of Mary to be so important as later to be recognized as dogma, he could not have expressed the critical information upon which the dogma depends in more equivocable or compromising language.

(2)

It is often argued by defenders of the perpetual virginity myth that the Evangelist, whose purpose in this chapter (Matthew 1:25) is to bring out the supernatural birth of Jesus, clearly affirms the virginity of Mary up to the moment of birth; what occurred after that, and that which comes to us through tradition, lies outside of his present perspective. In an excellent discussion of the critical word until (héos hoû) Fausto Salvoni (Sesso e amore nella Bibbia) brings forward cogent reasons why the word until actually does deal with, or speak clearly about, that period which follows the time limited by until. It has been thought useful, therefore, to include in summary form Salvoni's argument at the conclusion of this study.

As Lightfoot rightly points out, some have mistakenly supposed that Luke's (Matthew 2:7) expression, She gave birth to her first-born son, implied a second-born and so further. However, first-born to the Jewish mind had special significance. (Cf. Luke 2:22-24) The first-born belonged to the Lord in a special way that was not true of the second-born, or of other children born later. The term first-born refers, then, to a position based upon order of birth, it is true, but does not necessitate other births.

Woman, behold thy son. (John 19:26-27) is thought by Lightfoot to be most devastating to the Half Brothers View, for this phrase seems to indicate that Mary did not have four grown sons who should care for her so well as John the disciple. Lightfoot argues (ibid. 272):

Is it conceivable that our Lord would thus have snapped asunder the most sacred ties of natural affection? The difficulty is not met by the fact that her own sons were still unbelievers, This fact would scarcely have been allowed to override the paramount duties of filial piety. But even when so explained, what does this hypothesis require us to believe? Though within a few days a special appearance is vouchsafed to one of those brethren, who is destined to rule the mother Church of Jerusalem, and all alike are converted to the faith of Christ; yet she, their mother, living in the same city and joining with them in a common worship (Acts 1:14) is consigned to the care of a stranger of whose house she becomes henceforth the inmate.

But Lightfoot's rejection of the Half Brothers theory is ungrounded in light of the following considerations:

The supposed unnaturalness of Jesus-' action on the cross in consigning His mother to John, were there other sons of Mary to whom He might have given her, is not formidable against His placing her in the hands of John. As a matter of fact, no one knows exactly WHERE those brothers were at that moment, just before Jesus died. Some unknown domestic circumstance may explain the omission of her sons. (J.S.B.E., 520) If, for any reason whatever, those sons of Mary were not present at the cross, Jesus COULD NOT have consigned her care to them, even had He wanted to, unless by delegation.

But the very assumption by those who argue against the Half Brothers Theory on the view that these men were older sons of Joseph by a former marriage, falls at this very point. Their assumption fails to take into account the fact that Jesus, according to their theory, turns out to be the YOUNGEST of five sons in the legal family of Joseph. Hence, Jesus does not have the right to turn His mother over to anyone! That right belongs to the oldest brother, not to Jesus. If appeal is made in this discussion to Jewish custom, neither Jesus-' authority nor the special circumstances under which Jesus made the statement can have anything to do with the question. On the other hand, Jesus-' action on the cross, delivering Mary into John's care, is perfectly harmonious with the view that He consistently maintained the position and performed the duties of the eldest son throughout His earthly life. Jesus could hand over His sacred charge to the trustworthy keeping of another, because He had faithfully maintained it Himself. (I.S.B.E., 2002)

Some may take exception to this view that the picture seen of Jesus in the Gospels is that of His playing the part of the eldest son, by objecting, But does not the interference of His mother and brothers with Jesus-' ministry (Matthew 12:46 ff; Mark 3:31 ff; Luke 8:19 ff; cf. Mark 3:19 b - Mark 3:21) presuppose a superiority? This attitude of superiority is quite inconsistent with the position of younger brothers, according to Jewish customs. Jacobs (ISBE, 520) answers, Those who pursue an unjustifiable course are not models of consistency.

True, the mere supposition that Mary's own sons were still unbelievers, by itself, would not be completely convincing, since it was Jesus-' intention to make a special appearance to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) who was to become such an important leader in the early Church (Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9; Galatians 2:12; Acts 15). Yet, conceding all this, it must still be repeated, they were yet unbelievers. Even Lightfoot himself admits the force of this fact: (ibid. 265)

A very short time before the Lord's death His brethren refuse to accept His mission: they are still unbelievers. Immediately after His ascension we find them gathered together with the Apostles, evidently recognizing Him as their Master. Whence comes this change? Surely the crucifixion of one who professed to be the Messiah was not likely to bring it about. He had claimed to be King of Israel and He had been condemned as a malefactor: He had promised His followers a triumph and He had left them persecution. Would not all this confirm rather than dissipate their former unbelief?

Lightfoot believes with us that only the post-resurrection appearances would have been sufficient to produce the great turning point in the religious life of Jesus-' brethren.

Granted, then, the importance of the unbelief of Mary's own children, the extreme likelihood of a profound spiritual sympathy and friendship between John Bar-Zebedee and Jesus and His mother, as well as a possible kinship (if John be Jesus-' cousin and Mary's nephew), when considered together with the unbelief of Mary's own sons, form an almost irrefragable combination that both justifies and explains Jesus-' choice.

If it be objected that this view sees two families (that of Joseph and that of Cleophas, Clopas or Alphaeus) naming their sons with nearly identical names, this is no great difficulty, since these four names are all famous in Israel. (Lightfoot, ibid., 268) No special claim is made for the order in which the names of the sons of Clopas-Alphaeus are given, except to show the coincidence of the first three names with those given in the Apostolic list. But, as the question marks on the graph indicate, no claim is made that all the men named were actually Apostles; the intriguing, but unanswerable, query is raised whether they might not be the same.

As Lightfoot (ibid. 269) notes further, the difficulty in seeing two families, possibly related, is not at all increased but actually diminished on the supposition that they were actually related, since family use of the names of common ancestors or relatives is most reasonable. (Cf. Luke 1:59-61)

CONCLUSION

While the view that the Lord's Brethren were actually Jesus-' half brothers, being true sons of Joseph and Mary born after the birth of Jesus, is not without weaknesses, it appears to possess fewer weaknesses than are found in the alternate theories, while at the same time this view explains equally well, if not better, the scraps and pieces of information given in Scripture.
Also, in relation to the motherhood of Mary, it may be said that

The interpretation that they are the Lord's real brethren ennobles and glorifies family life in all its relations and duties, and sanctifies motherhood with all its cares and trials as holier than a selfish isolation from the world, in order to evade the annoyances and humiliations inseparable from fidelity to our callings.

(I.S.B.E., 520)

Thus, the polemic against the perpetual virginity of Mary is not by any means a polemic against Mary. Rather, it is the desire to present the relations of our Lord in their proper light, in order better to understand our own position before God, for if we are ignoring a fundamental part of our mediation between us and God (the supposed mediation of Mary), then we do her injustice and weaken our own spiritual position on earth. On the other hand, since the major step in her exaltation, the human declaration of her perpetual virginity, is founded upon bad exegesis and human authority (i.e., of the Fathers who assert it), the modern Christian loses nothing to reject it.

AND HE KNEW HER NOT UNTIL SHE HAD BORNE A SON

Does the use of the word until in this Matthaean text suggest anything about what took place in the marital relations of Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus? Or, as many think, does the word until affirm only that Joseph kept Mary a virgin until the time of Jesus-' birth, without either affirming of denying anything about his attitude following that event?
Fausto Salvoni (Sesso e amore nella Bibbia, 95-132) deals with the question underlying the problem of interpretation of the word until: Is there a defining use of the word -until-'?, by putting to critical examination the proofs offered. In reading the text of the English Bible, beware of missing the point of Salvoni's illustrations by failing to note that in English translations the word until might not have been used in the passages cited. However, a cognate idea is always present, even if the English translators adopted another word having the same meaning as until.

1. Until death.

Many times Fathers and theologians try to prove the definitive sense of until by referring to those numerous Bible passages in which it is affirmed that a given thing took place until the death of an individual. Evidently the fact indicated could not be done after his death! However, the passages of this category have no value whatever, since the situation of the individual after death was so totally altered as to impede any possibility to-' act. But this is not true in the case of Matthew, which puts the limitation in a period in which there was yet the possibility for conjugal relations. Now if in Matthew we should have read until death, there would not be anything we could object to on this subject, since any matrimonial relationship would have been evidently and forever excluded. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Matthew. It would be useless to examine such examples, which, however, will be presented, even if briefly, for greater completeness:

Until the death of the individual. (2 Samuel 6:23; 2 Samuel 20:3; 2 Kings 15:5; Job 27:2-5; 2 Kings 7:3)

Until the death of one'S, adversaries. (Psalms 112:8; 1Ma. 5:54)

Until the end of the world. Here, too, the passages are parallel to those on the death of the individual, except that instead of one's death, the end of the world or of humanity is spoken of. (Matthew 28:20; Psalms 72:7) Such passages evidently cannot be considered as being truly parallel with Matthew 1:25, because this latter text is not discussing the end of the world or of the individual which would have rendered any conjugal relationship impossible. Rather, we are talking about a particular period prior to it, that is, the birth of Jesus, after which conjugal relations continued to remain possible.

2. Unto this day

Cf. Deuteronomy 34:6; Genesis 35:20; Matthew 27:8; Matthew 28:15. This expression really limits the consideration of the writer to the period prior to the limit set (the defining sense), not because that limit is inherent in the word until, but because this is required by the limit established, which is the moment in which the writer is living. He wanted to limit his statement to this instant for the simple reason that the rest of the future remained unknown to him. The reality he indicated could have continued or not, for which reason he could not predict what would have happened after the moment in which he was writing, unless he had a divine revelation. So we are not talking about a true parallel with the passage in Matthew in which he is talking about a period prior to the moment in which the Evangelist was writing, that is, the birth of Jesus. If Matthew had written: Joseph had no relations with Mary to this day, in that case, then, he would have excluded from his consideration all the time from Joseph's espousal of Mary until the time of writing the record by Matthew.

All the passages presented up to this point do not correspond at all to the until used in Matthew's sentence in our study, since, at the end fixed in them, it was not at all possible to act in the manner indicated, whereas, contrarily, the action of knowing Mary was always possible after the birth of Jesus. Therefore, they are not parallels to the Matthaean text. For if they were, it would be necessary to read that Joseph did not have relations with the bride until her death, or to this day, or up to the moment of the time of writing or until the moment in which such an act was no longer possible.
Let us now see the importance of the Biblical until in the various cases where the action indicated by the principle verb always remained possible even after the limit established. Here we are in the field more exactly parallel with the Matthaean text under study.

3. Until a certain moment in the past.

In all these cases the until always presupposes a change of situation after the limit indicated.

In the case in which the indication of the principle clause is positive, until affirms the denial of it at-' the moment of the limit set by until. Examples offered by Salvoni are: Daniel 11:36; Genesis 24:19; Ruth 2:21; Numbers 32:17; Isaiah 30:17; Matthew 2:15; Matthew 2:19; Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:21; Matthew 14:22; Matthew 26:36; Luke 12:50; Luke 24:49; Acts 21:26; Acts 25:21; 2 Peter 1:19; cf. Revelation 22:5. In each of these illustrations he shows how a reasonable view of each case shows that, once a change is brought about in the situation, the action limited by until is no longer needed, possible or reasonable.

If the principle clause is negative (as in the case of Matthew), the until always indicates the realization of the thing denied before.

Eliezar, sent by Abraham to search for a wife for his son Isaac, said to Laban, I will not eat until I have said (what I must say), after which, naturally, he would eat. (Genesis 24:33) Also the Jews that intended to kill Paul made a vow not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul (Acts 23:12; Acts 23:14; Acts 23:21). After the transfiguration Jesus demanded that the three Apostles present not speak about the vision until the Son of man be risen from the dead (Matthew 17:9); afterwards they would have been able to talk about it. When Jesus left Jerusalem He said that they would not have seen Him any more until they received Him with the cry of Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord. In that moment, then, they would have seen Him. (Matthew 23:39) Other illustrations: Matthew 5:26; Luke 22:16; Luke 22:18; Luke 22:34; John 13:38; John 18:27; John 9:18; 1 Corinthians 4:5. After considering seeming exceptions to the rule (i.e., Psalms 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:27 f; Psalms 123:2; 1 Timothy 4:13; Luke 1:80; cf. Luke 3:4; Luke 7:24; Genesis 49:10; Numbers 20:17; Genesis 28:15 of cf. Genesis 28:20-21; Matthew 12:18-21 citing Isaiah 42:1-4), Salvoni concludes that, unless the action which is the logical opposite to that indicated in the principle clause is rendered impossible by death or the end of the world or a (then) unknown future, the action is to be considered possible, the limitation until indicating the change of what was affirmed or denied by the principle verb.

To keep from limiting the abstinence from marital relations to the period prior to the birth of Jesus, Matthew would have had to use an expression similar to that describing Judith where it is said that after the death of her first husband, No man knew her all the days of her life. (Jdt. 16:22)

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE PASSAGE

Now we need to see why Matthew should have used such a limiting formula. For what reason did he want to insist on the fact that the marital relations did not take place before the birth of Jesus?

Some have found the motive in the fact that Matthew wanted to use this phrase to underline the virginal conception of Mary and the purely legal paternity of Joseph. But there was no motive to take up this theme again, since it had already been clearly established by the expression and before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:16), or else by the words of the angel to Joseph: Do not fear to take Mary your wife, because what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:20) Later marital relations would not have had any influence on the conception that had already taken place.

Others insist on the fact that Matthew wanted to demonstrate how the prophecy of Isaiah that he had cited had been fully realized in Mary: Behold the virgin shall be with child: and she shall bring forth a son; and He will be called Emmanuel. (Matthew 1:23 = Isaiah 7:14) Here the virginity of Mary is not only affirmed at the time of the conception, but also at the time of the birth. But the wife of Joseph would not have been a virgin at the time of the birth of Jesus, had Joseph had conjugal relations with her prior to that moment. Thus, those who hold this view emphasize that clear up to the moment of delivery Joseph respected the virginity of his own wife.

But as we have seen before, with this phrase Matthew hints at conjugal relations in a later period, i.e., after the birth, In fact, after having said that Joseph took Mary as his wife and introduced her into his own house, it was logical for the reader to conclude that he would have treated her as his wife, Therefore, Matthew corrects such a thought, saying that in fact they abstain from every contact until the birth of Jesus. The reader was logically led to conclude, by the normal course of marital relations, that later he acted toward her as any husband. Even if his intent had been to announce that the bride remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus, Matthew used language that clearly lets the reader catch a glimpse of a different comportment after that birth. If Matthew had been convinced that Mary remained always a virgin, he would not have expressed himself in an ambiguous, actually compromising, phrase such as he did.
Blinzler does not want to feel this difficulty and debates it by saying that inasmuch as the early Christians knew that Jesus did not have brothers german by Mary, the expression of Matthew did not cause them any difficulty. But this argument has the defect of supposing already proved what must yet be demonstrated, Who says that the early Christians, who tranquilly speak of brothers and sisters of Jesus, did not consider them as being born from Mary and Joseph? Given the fact that there were persons described as brothers of the Lord, would it not have been much simpler to clarify yet further the fact of the perpetual virginity of Mary, if her supposed condition had possessed such importance, for Christian theology? The early believers were interested in Jesus and not in the virginity of Mary, and this latter truth had value only insofar as it could document the virginal conception of the Christ. Having completed this mission, Mary returned, as far as they were concerned, to the situation of all other women.

Why did Joseph abstain from any marital relationship until the birth of Jesus? It is usually thought that Mary, being a temple of God, that she would be considered taboo for Joseph. But this reasoning is based upon the metaphysical concepts of much later Catholic theology that Joseph did not possess at that time. For him Mary was his own wife, for him the yet unborn babe was the fruit of a special divine intervention, after whose birth there could be no reasons for which he should regard his own wife as taboo. Given the illumination by the angel, it would have been logical, as Matthew says, that Joseph should have abstained from marital relations as long as the unborn Babe lived in the womb of Mary, and not afterwards.

Fausto Salvoni's own view is that due to influences of the Essenes felt in Jewish life, perhaps Joseph would have abstained from regular marital relations during the pregnancy, even as the Essenes reputedly did. This, even though not a member or even a sympathizer with their movement. Of course, this view is absolutely impossible to prove, however attractive to some, since it is impossible to document to what extent the Essene's views permeated and affected Jewish life or to what extent Joseph or Mary would have respected those views.

Salvoni concludes by repeating that the perpetual virginity of Mary, asserted by many, creates some not indifferent Biblical problems, since it seems to be contradicted by clear New Testament testimonies. Such a doctrine obligates the believer to give to the until of Matthew a defining sense that is never found elsewhere in Holy Scripture, introducing into it an exception without any sure foundation.

DO YOU HAVE THE WORD IN YOUR HEART?

Matthew 13

Can you remember who made each of the following statements? What was the occasion? To whom was it spoken? What did they mean by it? Are there any manuscript variations or other ways of translating it? Is it possible to apply its truth to our own day? If so, how?

Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Blessed are your eyes, for they see.

... and the thorns grew up and choked them.

Let them both grow together until the harvest.

... but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Is not this the carpenter's son?

All these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes; and without a parable spake he nothing unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet. (Deal particularly with the phrase in italics.)

He that hath ears, let him hear.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire.

10.

Therefore every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like unto a. householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

11.

A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country.

12.

He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Continues after advertising

BibliaPlus

College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Matthew 13:54-58

Old Testament

New Testament