The Brothers of the Lord

Introduction

In a number of places in the Gospels, reference is made to the brothers of Jesus. If these passages are considered in isolation without taking account of the Jewish manner of speech, and without considering other Bible verses, the impression could be gained that Mary had other children after Jesus.

The Catholic Church has always believed in, and taught, the perpetual virginity of Mary; so how can one reconcile this apparent conflict?

What is meant by brother?

Firstly, let’s look at some of the places in the Bible where the word brother is used. In Genesis (ch 11) we read:

When Terah had lived seventy years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Now these are the descendants of Terah. Terah was the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran was the father of Lot. (Gen 11:26-27)

This passage clearly identifies Lot as Abram’s nephew — God will later give Abram a new name and will call him Abraham. Later in Genesis, though, we see Lot being referred to as Abram’s brother (Gen 14:14).

And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew: now he dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner; and these were confederate with Abram. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan. (Gen 14:12-14)

There are many other passages in the Bible where the word brother is used in a sense which does not have the same meaning that modern English places on the word.

• Jacob is called the brother of his uncle Laban (Gen 29:13-15).

• Moholi had sons Cis and Eleazar; Cis had sons but Eleazar had only daughters; these daughters married their brethren, the sons of Cis, ie, their cousins (1 Chron 23:21-22)

The previous examples use brother to denote a close relative, however, there are other places where the terms brethren, brother and sister mean someone other than close relatives. Sometimes they mean only a kinsman as in:

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother (Deut 23:7)

Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. (Neh 5:7)

Jehu met with the brethren of Ahaziah king of Judah, and said, Who are ye? And they answered, We are the brethren of Ahaziah; and we go down to salute the children of the king and the children of the queen. And he said, Take them alive. And they took them alive, and slew them at the pit of the shearing house, even two and forty men; neither left he any of them. (2 Kings 10:13-14)

Further, the words could even mean people unrelated, such as friends or allies. (Even today, brother is still occasionally used in this sense; some churches, charitable organisations and even some ethnic groups refer to their members as brother or sister).

King David was the son of Jesse, and Jonathon was the son of Saul; yet when David is lamenting his friend Jonathon’s death we read:

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: (2 Sam 1:26)

Similar usage may be found, for example, in 1 Kings 9:13 and 1 Kings 20:32.

It is apparent, then, that the words brother or brethren must be read in context. This context includes not just the immediately surrounding verses but also the Jewish culture and manner of speech or idiom.

Why the ambiguous usage?

There are a couple of reasons. Firstly, where brother is used to mean friend or ally, that usage is no different to the way the term is used today — even today terms such as “brothers-in-arms” are still used.. No one who hears these terms understands them to mean literal brothers; they are simply figures of speech.

The second reason is that neither Hebrew or Aramaic had a special word meaning cousin. (Greek does, but Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic.) To indicate a cousin, speakers of these languages used either the term for brother, or else a circumlocution such as “the son of the sister of my father”. As this is rather long-winded and clumsy, the cousin was, more often than not, called a brother. The Jews, being very conscious of genealogy, knew what was meant. Today we don’t place much importance on lines of descent but, to the Jews, a person’s ancestors played a major role in identifying that person and, in many cases, determined how that person fit into the community. In two Gospels, we have Christ’s genealogy drawn out and Jesus Himself referred to Peter as ‘Simon son of Jonah’ (eg, Jn 21:15).

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old testament), the Hebrew word that included both true brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which, in the Greek, has the same meaning that the English word brother has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek does have a separate word for cousin - anepsios. However, the translators transliterated rather than translated, ie, they took the exact equivalent of the Hebrew word rather than use adelphos here and anepsios there. The writers of the New Testament, when they wrote in Greek, did the same thing as the writers of the Septuagint.

Did Mary have children after Jesus?

Sacred Scripture would appear to say yes, but only if one interprets brother in the strict literal sense — which is not necessarily the correct interpretation as has just been illustrated. One has to look at other Scripture verses and also at what the early Church Fathers understood those passages to mean.

Consider, first, the annunciation.

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee. But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not man? (Lk 1:26-34)

From this passage we see that Mary was already betrothed to Joseph, a modern approximation would be an engagement but more so. Under Mosaic Law, the betrothal was not easily broken as it was deemed almost to be a marriage even though the actual wedding ceremony had not yet taken place. Mary obviously knew what normally took place after marriage and knew how children came into being. In fact, living in the rural communities of the times it would be impossible not to be acquainted with the facts of biology as livestock were indispensable for food, commerce and travel. Consequently, having been told she will bear a son, her reply to the angel makes no sense (vs 34). Surely, a more understandable reply would be along the lines of “Well, yes, I expect I will have a child after we are married.” After all, in Jewish culture, child-bearing was highly esteemed. The question “How shall this be...?” would make sense only if there was an apparent conflict between what the angel said and Mary keeping a vow of virginity. In that case it would be a very valid question. Such vows were not common but neither were they unknown and not just under Judaism but also under pagan religions.

Looking further at the New Testament there are other indications that Jesus was the only child of Mary. In the single incident of Jesus’ childhood recorded in the Gospels where Jesus is left behind in the temple for 3 days (Lk 2:41-51), there is no mention of any other children. Later, when his own townspeople question where He obtained His wisdom they say “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary” (Mk 6:3); they don’t refer to Jesus as “a son of Mary”. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons even when they are called Jesus’ brethren.

Another point which is not immediately apparent to us today in our Western culture is the attitude taken by His brethren. For example,

His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest. (Jn 7:3)

This does not appear unusual until one considers the time and the culture in it was written. In Eastern societies, older sons gave advice to younger sons — never younger to older because that would be taken as a sign of grave disrespect. For Jesus’ brethren to give advice, implies that they were older than Him, but we know that He was the “firstborn son” of Mary (Mat 1:25).

Given the strong family bonds and implicit responsibilities prevalent then, there is another incident which makes no sense if Jesus had brothers. After He is crucified, why would Jesus entrust His mother to John rather than one of His younger brothers? Again referring to St John’s Gospel:

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. (Jn 19:26-27)

Now the Gospels mention four brethren of Jesus: James, Joseph, Simon and Judas (more often known as Jude to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot). If these four were also Mary’s sons, it is hard to imagine why Jesus would not have committed her to the care of one of them — especially as John’s own mother was also present at the foot of the Cross, so John had now two women to care for. It would also be a great insult to the next oldest child if Jesus had entrusted the care of His mother to someone else.

What about Jesus’ brothers and sisters?

If Jesus had no brothers and sisters, why does the Bible mention them? As discussed earlier, the terms brother and sister were often used to mean any close relative and even, in some cases, a person who was no blood-relative at all but rather a friend or ally.

In St Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is visited by His mother and brethren.

While he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. And one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak to thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Mat 12:46-47)

From this passage one can see that Jesus used the terms brother and sister in a figurative, rather than literal, sense because the multitudes could not all be close relatives. This verse seems to imply that brethren, as used here, has a much wider meaning — as also happens, incidentally, with the word apostle in the New Testament. Jesus here appears to be using brother as a designation for certain disciples who are particularly loyal to Him. St Peter and St Paul both use brethren to mean all Christians, as for example,

But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him forth out of the prison. And he said, Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren. (Acts 12:17)

and

Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you (1 Cor 1:10)

There are other passages which also mention Jesus’ brothers or sisters and again, these verses can be best understood to mean kinsfolk or relatives rather than applying a strict interpretation.

What about James, the brother of the Lord?

James is one of the four brothers of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels. And, in St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians he says:

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. (Gal 1:18-19)

Surely this means Jesus had (at least) one brother? Well, as it turns out - No. Look at the three places where the women standing at the foot of the cross are mentioned.

And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children. (Mat 27:55-56)

And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him; and many other women that came up with him unto Jerusalem. (Mk 15:40-41)

But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. (John 19:25)

At first glance it may seem a little confusing with so many people called Mary, so perhaps a chart may help.

Mary Magdalene is mentioned in all three and can be omitted from further consideration. In two accounts, another Mary is named as the mother of James and Joses (or Joseph) and, in St. John’s version, this same Mary is called the wife of Clopas. In Mark’s account, Salome is the third woman named and, referring back to Matthew’s description, it is clear that she must be the mother of Zebedee’s children and is also referred to by John as Mary’s sister.

But in Matthews Gospel James is mentioned as the son of Alphaeus (Mat 10:3). There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that this second Mary was widowed once and remarried and was thus, at different times, the wife of two men Alphaeus and Clopas. The second, and more probable, explanation is that Alphaeus in Aramaic and Clopas in Greek are one and the same, in a similar manner to St Paul who was also known as Saul; and Matthew who was also known as Levi (Lk 5:27).

What about ‘firstborn son’?

Often the phrase ‘firstborn son’ is misunderstood to imply that Mary had other children. However, the term firstborn simply meant the child who opened the womb. Under Mosaic law, the firstborn son had to be sanctified:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine. (Ex 12:1-2 cf Num 3:12-13 and Ex 34:20)

If the firstborn had to be sanctified, did that mean the parents had to wait till they had a second child before doing what the law required? Obviously not; the firstborn was firstborn regardless of whether or not other children arrived.

Well, what about Mat 1:25:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Doesn’t this imply that Joseph and Mary lived as a husband and wife (in the usual sense) and brought up other children? Again the answer is no. Having seen that firstborn is just simply the first child born, the implication hinges on the interpretation of the word “till”.

In modern usage till and until commonly imply something happened subsequently. That was not the sense in which it was used in Biblical times and this can be seen in many passages. The word till simply meant that, up to that point in time, a certain thing had not occurred; it does not mean it happened later, as some examples will illustrate.

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. (2 Sam 6:23)

The word translated in the King James here as unto is the same Greek word which is translated as till, until, and to. Obviously she could not have children after her death so the word until does not imply anything; it simply makes a statement of fact as to something which was true at a particular point in time - not a statement about anything after that time.

Again in the account of Noah after the flood:

And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. (Gen 8:7)

The verse seems to imply, if one uses until in the contemporary sense, that the raven returned; in fact, the raven never returned. Again, in Deuteronomy, when speaking of the place where Moses was buried:

And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. (Deut 34:6)

The implication is that the whereabouts of his grave is now known. However, the location of Moses grave is still unknown. There are similar examples in other places in the New Testament. For example, St Paul writing to the Corinthians about Christ says:

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. (1 Cor 15:25)

Obviously this doesn’t mean that, when all of Christ’s enemies have been vanquished, Jesus will cease to reign as our Lord and King. Again, in the letter to Timothy, he says:

Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. (1 Tim 4:13)

This does not imply that once Paul arrives, Timothy can neglect all these things.

There are many other examples but the point to remember is that till and until do not imply something, they merely state a situation up to a certain point in time.

What did the early Church believe?

As well as evidence from Scripture, the early Christian writings give further testimony supporting the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. And, after all, these are the people who best knew as they were familiar with the culture, the language and, for the first few years at least, many of them knew the Apostles and Mary.

In fact, until around 380 AD there was no question about Jesus having brothers. It was Helvidius who first touted the notion that the “brethren of the Lord” were children of Mary and Joseph after Jesus birth. St Jerome (ca 347AD-419AD) who was fluent in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, initially declined to comment on Helvidius remarks as he considered that they were a “novel, wicked and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” In that statement one can see that the belief was universally held and that the idea of anything contrary was objectionable to all Christians. Eventually Jerome was convinced by friends to write a treatise which he called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. This treatise comprehensively refuted all of Helvidius’ statements. So for over 350 years this was a belief of the Church which was never questioned.

What's more, this belief was held for over 1500 years and even by the Protestant Reformers Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli; as have more modern Protestant scholars such as J.B. Lightfoot.

A sample of some early writings may help reinforce this. While these are not Scripture, they do show what were the beliefs that were held by Christians of that time.

(These passages are taken from The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vols 1, 2, 3 by William A. Jurgens, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota.)

St Athanasius (ca AD 296 - AD 373)

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to His essence, deny also that He took true human flesh from the Ever-Virgin Mary.” Discourses against the Arians

Leporius (ca 426 AD)

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of god, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the Ever-Virgin Mary, was born God;” Document of Amendment

Didymus the Blind (ca AD313 - AD398)

‘It helps us to understand the terms first-born and only-begotten when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin “until she brought forth her first-born son”; for neither did Mary, who is to be honoured and praised above all others, marry anyone, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin.’ The Trinity

St Augustine (AD354 - AD430)

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary, and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband.” Heresies