Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,160,813 members, 7,844,635 topics. Date: Thursday, 30 May 2024 at 03:09 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Maryfrancis15's Profile / Maryfrancis15's Posts
(1) (of 1 pages)
Religion / Re: Mary The Mother Of Jesus Had No Other Children. A Biblical Perspective by maryfrancis15: 11:29pm On Dec 26, 2017 |
A group of persons closely connected with the
Saviour appears repeatedly in the New
Testament under the designation "his brethren"
or "the brethren of the Lord" ( Matthew 12:46 ,
13:55 ; Mark 3:31-32 , 6:3 ; Luke 8:19-20 ; John
2:12 , 7:3-5 ; Acts 1:14 ; 1 Corinthians 9:5 ). Four
such "brethren" are mentioned by name in the
parallel texts of Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3
(where "sisters" are also referred to), namely,
James (also mentioned Galatians 1:19 ),
Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude ; the
incidental manner in which these names are
given, shows, however, that the list lays no
claim to completeness.
Two questions in connexion with these
"brethren" of the Lord have long been, and are
still now more than ever, the subject of
controversy: (1) The identity of James , Jude ,
and Simon; (2) the exact nature of the
relationship between the Saviour and his
"brethren".
The identity of James, Jude and Simon
James is without doubt the Bishop of
Jerusalem ( Acts 12:17 , 15:13 , 21:18 ; Galatians
1:19 ; 2:9-12 ) and the author of the first
Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the
Less ( Mark 15:40 ) and the Apostle James, the
son of Alpheus ( Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ),
although contested by many Protestant critics,
may also be considered as certain. There is no
reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19 : "But
other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw
none, saving James the brother of the Lord",
St. Paul represents James as a member of the
Apostolic college. The purpose for which the
statement is made, makes it clear that the
"apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate
the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that
the clause "saving James " be understood to
mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw
another Apostle, " James the brother of the
Lord" (cf. Acts 9:27 ). Besides, the prominence
and authority of James among the Apostles
( Acts 15:13 ; Galatians 2:9 ; in the latter text he
is even named before Cephas ) could have
belonged only to one of their number. Now
there were only two Apostles named James:
James the son of Zebedee, and James the son
of Alpheus ( Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ; Luke
6:16 ; Acts 1:13 ). The former is out of the
question, since he was dead at the time of the
events to which Acts 15:6 ssq. , and Galatians
2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2 ). James "the
brother of the Lord" is therefore one with
James the son of Alpheus, and consequently
with James the Less, the identity of these two
being generally conceded. Again, on comparing
John 19:25 with Matthew 27:56 , and Mark
15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47 ; 16:1 ), we find that
Mary of Cleophas , or more correctly Clopas
( Klopas ), the sister of Mary the Mother of
Christ , is the same as Mary the mother of
James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As
married women are not distinguished by the
addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas
must be the wife of Clopas, and not his
daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover,
the names of her sons and the order in which
they are given, no doubt the order of seniority,
warrant us in identifying these sons with
James and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of
the Lord. The existence among the early
followers of Christ of two sets of brothers
having the same names in the order of age, is
not likely, and cannot be assumed without
proof . Once this identity is conceded, the
conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas
and Alpheus are one person , even if the two
names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly
probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas
and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions
of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and
Joseph the "brethren" of the Lord are thus the
sons of Alpheus.
Of Joseph nothing further is known . Jude is
the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles
(Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by
Catholic commentators with the "Judas
Jacobi" ("Jude the brother of James" in the
Douay Version ) of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13,
otherwise known as Thaddeus ( Matthew 10:3 ;
Mark 3:18 ). It is quite in accordance with
Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by
the addition of his brother's name instead of
his father's , when the brother was better
known. That such was the case with Jude is
inferred from the title "the brother of James",
by which he designates himself in his Epistle.
About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He
is identified by most commentators with the
Symeon, or Simon, who, according to
Hegesippus , was a son of Clopas, and
succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem.
Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the
Cananean ( Matthew 10:4 ; Mark 3:18 ) or the
Zealot ( Luke 6:15 ; Acts 1:13 ). The grouping
together of James , Jude or Thaddeus, and
Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot
excepted, in the lists of the Apostles,
( Matthew 10:4-5 ; Mark 3:18 ; Luke 6:16 ; Acts
1:13 ) lends some probability to this view, as it
seems to indicate some sort of connexion
between the three. Be this as it may, it is
certain that at least two of the "brethren" of
Christ were among the Apostles. This is
clearly implied in 1 Corinthians 9:5 : "Have we
not the power to carry about a woman, a
sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and
the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" The
mention of Cephas at the end indicates that
St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in
general, calls special attention to the more
prominent ones, the "brethren" of the Lord and
Cephas. The objection that no "brethren" of
the Lord could have been members of the
Apostolic college, because six months before
Christ's death they did not believe in Him
( John 7:3-5 ), rests on a misunderstanding of
the text. His "brethren" believed in his
miraculous power, and urged him to manifest it
to the world. Their unbelief was therefore
relative. It was not a want of belief in His
Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They
had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea
of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler.
We meet with this idea among the Apostles as
late as the day of the Ascension ( Acts 1:6 ). In
any case the expression "his brethren" does
not necessarily include each and every
"brother", whenever it occurs. This last remark
also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts
1:13-14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is
made between the Apostles and the "brethren"
of the Lord.
The exact nature of the relationship
between the Saviour and his "brethren"
The texts cited at the beginning of this article
show beyond a doubt that there existed a real
and near kinship between Jesus and His
"brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother" is
applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers
by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use
generally, is often loosely extended to all near,
or even distant, relatives ( Genesis 13:8 ,
14:14-16 ; Leviticus 10:4 ; 1 Chronicles 15:5-10 ,
23:21-22 ), the word furnishes no certain
indication of the exact nature of the
relationship. Some ancient heretics, like
Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites ,
maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were
His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and
Mary . This opinion has been revived in modern
times, and is now adopted by most of the
Protestant exegetes . On the orthodox side two
views have long been current. The majority of
the Greek Fathers and Greek writers,
influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of
apocryphal gospels, considered the "brethren"
of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first
marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few
exceptions ( St. Ambrose, St. Hilary , and St.
Gregory of Tours among the Fathers ), hold
that they were the Lord's cousins. That they
were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is
proved by the following reasons, leaving out of
consideration the great antiquity of the belief
in the perpetual virginity of Mary . It is highly
significant that throughout the New Testament
Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of
Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as
she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with
her supposed sons, and, in some cases at
least, it would have been quite natural to call
them her sons (cf. Matthew 12:46 ; Mark 3:31 ;
Luke 8:19 ; Acts 1:14 ). Again, Mary's annual
pilgrimage to Jerusalem ( Luke 2:41 ) is quite
incredible, except on the supposition that she
bore no other children besides Jesus . Is it
likely that she could have made the journey
regularly, at a time when the burden of child-
bearing and the care of an increasing number
of small children (she would be the mother of
at least four other sons and of several
daughters, cf Matthew 13:56 ) would be
pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is
the fact that at His death Jesus recommended
His mother to St. John . Is not His solicitude
for her in His dying hour a sign that she would
be left with no one whose duty it would be to
care for her? And why recommend her to an
outsider if she had other sons? Since there
was no estrangement between Him and His
"brethren", or between them and Mary , no
plausible argument is confirmed by the words
with which he recommends her: ide ho uios
sou, with the article before uios (son); had
there been others sons, ide uios sou, without
the article, would have been the proper
expression.
The decisive proof , however, is that the father
and mother of at least two of these "brethren"
are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses,
are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or
Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the
Mother of Jesus , and all agree that if these
are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are
not. This last argument disposes also of the
theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the
sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They
are then neither the brothers nor the step-
brothers of the Lord. James , Joseph, and Jude
are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the
same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is
a cousin, since this writer expressly states that
he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the
Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they
were cousins on their father's or mother's
side, whether cousins by blood or merely by
marriage, cannot be determined with certainty.
Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of
the Blessed Virgin ( John 19:25 ), but it is
uncertain whether "sister" here means a true
sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls
Clopas the brother of St. Joseph . This would
favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only
the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin , unless
it be true , as stated in the manuscripts of the
Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas
married sisters. The relationship of the other
"brethren" may have been more distant than
that of the above named four.
The chief objection against the Catholic
position is taken from Matt 1:25: "He [ Joseph]
knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn
son"; and from Luke 2:7: "And she brought
forth her firstborn son". Hence, it is argued,
Mary must have born other children.
"Firstborn" ( prototokos), however, does not
necessarily connote that other children were
born afterwards. This is evident from Luke
2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which
Luke refers. "Opening the womb" is there
given as the equivalent of
"firstborn" ( prototokos ). An only child was thus
no less "firstborn" than the first of many.
Neither do the words "he knew her not till she
brought forth" imply, as St. Jerome proves
conclusively against Helvidius from parallel
examples, that he knew her afterwards. The
meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if
they are considered in connexion with the
virginal birth related by the two Evangelists .
Sources 1 Like |
(1) (of 1 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 37 |