Matthew 12:46-50

His mother and brethren (Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19). Jesus here, as on other occasions, declares Himself independent of family ties, and united by spiritual kinship to all who do God's will.

The Brethren of Jesus

Our Lord had four 'brethren,' James, Joseph (Joses), Simon, Judas; and at least three sisters (Matthew 13:55). What their exact relationship to Him was, is not certain. There are three main views—(1) that of St. Jerome, hence called the Hieronymian view, that they were our Lord's cousins, being sons of Mary the Virgin's sister and of Clopas (see John 19:25 RV). Most supporters of this view think that three of the brethren were apostles. Jerome's theory, until recently the predominant one in England, is now held by very few. (2) The Epiphanian view, so called from its advocacy by St. Epiphanius, that they were sons of Joseph by a former wife. This is the theory of the Eastern Church, and has been learnedly supported in England by Lightfoot. (3) The Helvidian view, advocated in ancient times by Helvidius, that they were children of Joseph and Mary born after Jesus. Prof. Mayor is the chief recent exponent of this view.

The arguments for the last two views are nearly evenly balanced, and it is difficult to decide which is right.
The following points seem certain from the NT.:—

1.

That the 'brethren' did not live with 'Mary of Clopas,' but with the Virgin Mary, and were regarded as members of her family (Matthew 12:46; Matthew 13:55; John 2:12; John 7:3).

2.

That they were jealous of Jesus, and up to the Resurrection disbelieved His claims (Mark 3:21; Mark 6:4; John 7:5.).

3.

And that consequently none of the brethren were included among the Twelve Apostles.

4.

That they were converted after the Resurrection by the appearance to James (1 Corinthians 15:7), and henceforth associated themselves with the disciples (Acts 1:14).

The chief arguments in favour of the Epiphanian view are:—

1.

That it represents the most ancient tradition, being already current in Palestine in the 2nd century.

2.

That if the Virgin had had a large family, some of the members of which, like James the bishop of Jerusalem, attained to prominent positions in the Church, the (practically) unanimous tradition that she remained always a virgin, could never have arisen.

3.

That it is more reverent to suppose that our Lord's mother never had any other children.

4.

That Luke 1:26 implies that already before the birth of Jesus, she had devoted herself (with her betrothed's consent) to a life of virginity.

5.

That our Lord upon the cross would not have committed the care of His mother to St. John, if she had had four living sons to support her.

The chief arguments in favour of the Helvidian view are:—

1.

That the high esteem for virginity generally prevalent in the early Church made Christians unwilling to think of Mary as the mother of other children, and consequently the Epiphanian theory was invented.

2.

That Luke 2:7 implies that Mary had other children.

3.

That Matthew 1:18 imply that the connubial relations of Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus were of the usual kind.

4.

That 'brother,' when used without further explanation, naturally means a full brother, and not a half brother, or foster brother.

In the opinion of the present writer the arguments for the Epiphanian view slightly preponderate.