A Family Affair: “Brothers” of the Lord

Taken from the book: "ST JOSEPH PRINCE OF THE CHURCH"

Soon after the birth of Our Lord, St. Joseph set out to register his family according to the census of Caesar Augustus.  Joseph would have the honour of pronouncing the names of his Blessed Spouse Mary as well as his own saintly name, but most importantly the Most Holy Name of Jesus. To Joseph no name would be sweeter than that of his most treasured gift, his only son. 

“BROTHERS” OF THE LORD

So who are these “brothers” of the Lord mentioned in the Gospel of St. Matthew and in the Acts of the Apostles? In Chapter 5 the issue of the celibacy of Our Lady and St. Joseph was discussed, so where do these “brothers” fit in?

While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him. - St. Matthew 12:46

All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and His brothers. - Acts 1:14

In the Roman Catholic Church, Mary is known as the “Blessed Virgin” and when referring to her as such, we are affirming our belief that she was a virgin before the birth of Christ as well as after – throughout the rest of her life. St. Joseph is also seen as virginal and is referred to as Mary’s “Most Chaste Spouse”. There are those who believe that our Holy Couple later had children whom Scripture refers to as the “brethren of the Lord.”  In the New Testament, the “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned in the following places: St. Matthew 12:46-50 & 13:55-56, St. Mark 3:31-34, St. Luke 8:19-21, St. John 2:12 & 7:3 and Acts of the Apostles1:14.

In the Bible the word “brother” (“adelphos” in Greek) has a wide range of meanings and does not only mean a literal brother, but casts it’s net over a wide range of meanings. The Old Testament shows us that the word “brother” or “kinsmen” could refer to any male relative who has not fathered you as well as cousins, other kinsmen, friends, allies etc... A few examples are listed below:

Genesis 14:14  Lot is referred to as Abraham's "brother" though in actuality he was Abraham's nephew.

Genesis 29:15  Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban.

1 Chronicles 23:22  Cis and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kis had sons of his own, but Eleazar had only daughters. These daughters married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins, not their biological brothers.

Jeremiah 34:9  Jeremiah refers to not keeping fellow Jews as slaves. These slaves are referred to as "brothers".

  

ANNUNCIATION TO A PERPETUAL VIRGIN

At the Annunciation to Mary in the New Testament, when the Archangel Gabriel announced to her that she would conceive a son, she asked him in all humility:

 “How shall this happen since I do not know man?”

- St. Luke 1:34

Her question tells us that she had made a vow of virginity - even in marriage.  If she hadn’t made this vow, she would have taken the angel’s words to mean that she and Joseph would produce a son and wouldn’t have had to ask how this would come about, since it is customary to consummate the marriage and bare children. Though she and St. Joseph were a couple, she told the angel that she did not “know man” (not be having sexual intercourse with Joseph). There would be no reason for her to state that she was a virgin, since naturally she would have given her virginity to her husband to conceive this son, of whom the angel was speaking.

FAMILY PASSOVER

Another example that could support the only-child story is shown to us in the Gospel of St. Luke. In this Gospel, we are told about an event in the late childhood of Jesus:

And His parents were wont to go every year to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. And after they had fulfilled the days, when they were returning, the boy Jesus remained in Jerusalem, and His parents did not know it. ... And it came to pass that after three days, that they found Him in the temple ... - St. Luke 2:41-47

In this account, Jesus is almost a man in the eyes of the law, for thirteen is the age at which a Jewish boy reaches manhood. Joseph and Mary had now been husband and wife for twelve years, and yet Jesus is their only child mentioned. Surely if they had not made a vow of chastity, they would have had other children besides Jesus by then. The “brothers and sisters” of Christ would have been mentioned by now, and when would be more appropriate to mention them, than at a family pilgrimage to Jerusalem? Their extended family is mentioned, but no reference is made to “brothers” or “sisters” here. The Bible would have stated that “the boy Jesus was not among his brothers and sisters, nor among his relatives,” however it does not.

... it occurred to them to look for him among their relatives and acquaintances. And not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem in search of him. ... they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions ...  And his mother said to him, “Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold, in sorrow thy father and I have been seeking Thee...”

 And He went down with them to Nazareth, and was subject to them; and his mother kept all these things carefully in her heart. And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace before God and men.

- St. Luke 2:44-51

ST. JOSEPH’S NEPHEWS
  

Surely the four “brothers” of Jesus spoken of in the Bible would have been mentioned at this family event in Jerusalem, but they were not. According to early Church tradition, Joseph had a brother named Cleophas who was also wed to the a woman named Mary. This Mary was the mother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon who are all referred to as the brothers of Jesus.

... his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas... 
- St. John 19:25

Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? - St. Mark 6:3

"BEHOLD THY MOTHER"

Another, more obvious example is given to us at the Crucifixion of Our Lord. It is evident that Mary had no other children because while her only Son was hanging on the cross, bruised and bleeding, he felt compelled to entrust her into the care of his beloved Apostle, John. St. Joseph died before Christ entered into public ministry, so it would be up to his children to take her in. Why would Jesus give his mother to St. John if he had brothers or sisters to take care of her? Why were his brothers and sisters not at the foot of the cross with their mother?

Are we to believe that these sons and daughters refused their mother in her hour of need? It doesn’t make sense. So, feeling responsible for His mother’s well-being, Christ gave her to his best friend to watch over. Even in the excruciating pain of his crucifixion, he cared enough to look after his mother till the very end.

When Jesus therefore, saw his mother and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold thy son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold thy mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. ... And bowing his head, he gave up his spirit. - St. John 19:26-30

One might argue that this example is not enough to suggest that Jesus was an only child. To be crucified was the most shameful way to die, and perhaps this is why Jesus’ so-called brothers were not at the foot of the cross with their mother. We can take note that not even his apostles were present, except of course for John the Beloved. Where were his apostles and friends? They might have been ashamed to be associated with the crucifixion scene - as would his brothers. Still, if Jesus had brothers or sisters, He would not have needed to give his mother into the care of his friend, regardless of whether or not they were at the foot of the cross. Why would his brothers abandon not only him, but their mother as well? If we take the “brother” references literally, then out of four possible brothers, would not one of them support their mother? Would all four abandon her as well? Not likely.

“FIRST-BORN” ISSUE

There are some who claim that in order to be called Mary’s “first- born”, Jesus would have had a younger brother or sister. The claim is made that Christ could not be a “first-born” unless other children followed him:

... she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes... 
- St. Luke 2:7

Using this as an argument shows lack of knowledge of the ways of the ancient Jewish people and how they used that term.  In Exodus 13:2 and Numbers 3:12 the child who opened the womb was the first-born and, under the Law of Moses, was to be sanctified:

“Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb...” - Exodus 13:2

Were the parents required to wait until a second son was born before being allowed to officially call their first son the “first-born”? Not so. The first son born of a marriage was always referred to as the “first-born”, regardless of whether or not he was an only child. Why is it so hard for us to believe that the Virgin Mary was in fact a virgin all her life? Why too is it hard to believe that St. Joseph was also chaste and virginal? God can do whatever He wants, so why is it so impossible for us to believe that He hand-crafted such pure souls as those of Joseph and Mary? Jesus Christ suffered, died and rose from the grave and after 40 days he ascended to heaven! Those are just two examples of God’s greatness and are just the tip of the ice-berg. Another hard-hitting example of God’s power: He created the universe – all which is seen and unseen! So why should this issue of virginity be so hard for many to believe? Not even the Holy Bible can contain all of God’s mysteries and what He has wrought. Why do so many people try to limit the works of God by being too proud to have faith in some of His mysterious works?

 

 "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 

- St. Matthew 19:26