Matthew 13:58

Matthew 13:58. And he did not there many mighty works because of their unbelief. This unbelief was inconsistent and criminal, for they acknowledged His wisdom and power (Matthew 13:54). Jesus does not force His love or blessings on us, and His miracles were not mere displays of Almighty Power. Where there was no faith, no moral condition to justify such displays, there our Lord ‘could do no mighty works' (Mark 6:5). Want of faith is always the great hindrance.

THE BROTHERS OF OUR LORD. Mention is made fourteen or fifteen times in the New Testament of the brothers of our Lord, named in Matthew 13:55. In an ordinary history, this could only mean that they were the younger children of Joseph and Mary, or possibly the children of Joseph by a former marriage. The well-known terms, ‘cousin' and ‘kinsman,' would have been used had the relationship been a different one. Notwithstanding this, three views have been held: (1.) That they were the children of Joseph and Mary; the theory of Tertullian, Helvidius, and many of the best modern Protestant commentators. (2.) That they were the children of Joseph by a former marriage; the theory of Epiphanius, and the ancient Greek Church. (3.) That they were the children of Mary, the wife of Alphaeus (Clopas), the sister of our Lord's mother, and hence his cousins. This was the theory of Jerome, adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, and by the older (and some modem) Protestant commentators. Lange modifies this view, by supposing that Alphaeus was the brother of Joseph, and that in consequence of his early death the children were adopted by Joseph.

1. The first view is the most natural one. Objections: (a.) It denies the perpetual virginity of Mary. But this is nowhere asserted, while Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7, suggest the contrary. (b.) Galatians 1:19, seems to intimate that James, our Lord's brother, was an Apostle, while this view involves the non-identity of this James with James the son of Alphæus, who undoubtedly was an Apostle. But the passage in Galatians has, from the earliest times, been interpreted as not implying the Apostleship of our Lord's brother. The identity of names in the list of Apostles and in that of our Lord's brothers is of itself, no proof of identity of persons; the name of James especially being very common among the Jews. Further, at a point in the history after the choice of the Twelve (John 7:5), His brethren did not believe on Him; they are distinguished from the ‘Apostles' in Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5, and by implication in Matthew 12:46-50. (c.) Our Lord on the cross commended His mother to the care of John, which is regarded as strange, if she had other sons. But the spiritual nearness of John, and the probable kinship (see below, and notes on John 19:25) will account for this.

2. The view that they were the sons of Joseph by a former marriage is not open to any great objection, though supported by no positive evidence. It too, fails to identify ‘James the son of Alphæus' and ‘James the Lord's brother.'

3. The cousin-theory is beset with difficulties. (a.) It assumes that two sisters had the same name (Mary). (b.) It does not account for ‘Simon' and ‘Judas' who were our Lord's brothers. Indeed, the better supported reading (‘Joseph,' Matthew 13:55) destroys the identity of name with Mark 15:40 (‘Joses'), (c.) It is probable that ‘Salome' and not ‘Mary'(John 19:25) was the sister of our Lord's mother. The view of Lange is free from some of these difficulties, but assumes what is extremely improbable, namely, that at least half a dozen children were adopted into the family of a poor carpenter. Besides it is a pure hypothesis.

The view that Mary had other children furnishes an argument in favor of the historical character of the Gospels. Had the story of the miraculous conception been a fiction, the Evangelists, to give consistency to the tale, would have denied that our Lord had any brothers, instead of speaking of them without reserve. For a full presentation of all the views, see Lange's Comm., Matthew, pp. 255 - 260.