The Lord’s Brethren

S. Mark iii. 31–35

It has been much debated what the exact relationship of the so-called “brethren” of our Lord really was. Their names have been preserved as James and Joses, Judah and Simon. Mainly in consequence of the identity of three of them with those of three Apostles, the idea sprang up (though not till the fourth century), and obtained wide currency in the West, that certain of them were of the number of “the Twelve,” and that all were sons of Mary the wife of Alphseus, not brethren at all, but cousins of our Lord.

Two objections may be raised to such a theory. Even if Alphaeus and Cleophas were one and the same, it is far from certain that Mary his wife was sister to Mary the Blessed Virgin. We lay no stress upon the difficulty suggested by two daughters bearing the same name; for though the Church has commemorated the Mother of Jesus as Mary, the real name which she received from her parents was Mariam, the Hebrew Miriam. The Greek of the Evangelists uniformly recognises the distinction, and separates the spelling of her name from that of all the “Maries.”

We maintain, however, that the doubtful interpretation of a single verse is too slender a thread to support a theory involving so much. S. John, in his description of the Crucifixion, says, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” It has been commonly assumed that he speaks here only of three persons; and Christian Art has stereotyped this interpretation by the familiar representation of “the three Maries,” with none other near save the beloved disciple. We think it far more probable that the Evangelist had before his eyes four women — viz., the Blessed Virgin, her sister, who is unnamed, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

If we accept another tradition, which makes the Virgin’s sister Salome S. John’s mother, we can easily understand that a natural reserve on his part would account for the suppression of her name.

Two things contribute to the conclusion that four persons are designated in the text. Firstly, the common practice of the Evangelists of arranging people in pairs. Secondly, and far more definitely, some direct testimony from the Syriac and other 1 Versions of the Gospels. In this the conjunction “and” is inserted between the Virgin’s sister and Mary the wife of Cleophas, manifestly separating them as distinct persons. The fact that one of these translations was made as early as the second century 2 adds no little weight to its authority upon disputed points. In the light of this interpretation, and in the absence of any other testimony, the relationship of the wife of Alphaeus to the mother of our Lord falls to the ground.

Again, to make our Lord’s brethren members of the Apostolic company, is to put them in a position from which the plain teaching of Scripture history seems to exclude them.

In the case before us they are found protesting against the course which He thought it right to take. S. John expressly states that they did not believe in Him, and S. Luke treated them as a body of men separate from the Apostles when he wrote, “These all,” meaning the Eleven after the Ascension, “continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and with His brethren.”

The declaration of S. John was made during the last year of our Lord’s ministry, which increases the great improbability of such a state of feeling having been held compatible with the Apostolic office. Their unbelief, it is true, passed away, but not till after the Resurrection, and was perhaps mainly due to a direct manifestation of Himself to S. James, the chief of their number.

The whole theory therefore completely breaks down when subjected to a careful examination, and we must look elsewhere for the true relationship.

Two explanations, both of which preserve the natural meaning of the expression “brethren,” remain for consideration. The one, which however runs counter to the unbroken tradition of the perpetual virginity 1 of the Mother of Jesus, holds them to have been uterine brethren borne to Joseph after our Blessed Lord.

The title of “first-born son” given to Jesus seems at first sight to suggest the idea of others born subsequently; but it would convey no such suggestion to the Jewish mind. It was the recognised designation of the first child, whether others followed or not; it was a title of honour bespeaking special prerogatives and consecration to God.

It would have been surely a most unnatural thing for our Lord on the cross to commit His Mother to the care and protection of S. John, if she had had sons and daughters of her own at the time. It would have been next to impossible to have ignored the closest of family ties. It is no sufficient answer to say that He was justified in doing so, from the knowledge that His brethren did not believe in Him. He Who saw the end from the beginning knew well what a change the Resurrection would bring about, and that in a very short time one at least of the four would be foremost in every Christian work. It is far more likely, therefore, that they were what we should call “half-brethren,” children of S. Joseph by a former wife. This is in accord with the traditional belief that he was much older than the Blessed Virgin, and accounts also for the air of seniority which they assume over Jesus, endeavouring to restrain Him in the circumstances we are now considering, and giving Him their counsel somewhat dictatorially on another occasion.

Furthermore, the theory has all the prestige which attaches to the earliest belief, and it was unquestionably most prevalent in Palestine, the land where the truth concerning His kinship was presumably most likely to be preserved.

Now the question with which Jesus met the information of the multitude, “Who is My mother or My brethren?” suggests a disregard for natural ties of human relationship. But this is fully contradicted by other passages in His life. We have only to recall the scene at the grave of Lazarus, where He exhibited such marks of affection that the bystanders exclaimed, “Behold how He loved him!” or still more strikingly that upon the cross, where, amidst all the agony that He was enduring, His whole soul went out in love for her who had borne Him. He would not leave her widowed and childless to the cold world, but committed her in all the tender solicitude of a most loving heart to one whom He Himself had trained, during three years of unchecked affection, in all the mysteries of the fullest human love, to fill His vacant place and be to His Mother a second son.

All this is amply sufficient to prove that His human heart was not indifferent to family ties or the claims of friendship.

But there is another side to the picture, which represents in equally vivid colours the principle that the calls of natural affections, strong though they be, are not the strongest, and that they are necessarily postponed when brought into conflict with the higher duties of the spiritual life.

It appears first in His answer to the sorrowful reproach of His Mother, “Son, why hast Thou thus dealt with us?” There is no regretful apology, nothing but the question of surprise, “How is it that ye sought Me? wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business?”

It reappears in His remonstrance at the marriage feast, when she seemed to forget His mission, and almost commanded Him what to do: “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”

Again, what could be seemingly harsher than His reply to the Scribe who asked permission to show the last token of respect to his father: “Let the dead bury their dead “? But Jesus recognised the critical position, and the peril of the least hesitancy for a half-hearted follower, and, even at the risk of appearing unnatural, ignored the claims of filial affection.

And we hear another echo in the narrative now before us. His brethren, who ill understood His work, having persuaded His Mother, perhaps against her will, to join in their action, attempted to divert Him from His purpose. But no human tie could hinder Him here. There is, nevertheless, a touch of tenderness in the way in which He meets them, showing how the higher claim for obedience to God must override the lower, and trying to make them one with Himself, members of the family and household of God: “For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is My brother, and My sister, and mother.”

Note: It is very difficult to realise that the two names are but different forms of one and the same.

Note: Viz., the Persian and Ethiopic.

Note: This is according to the Peshito. The Jerusalem Syriac, though not interpolating “and,” places a full stop after His mother’s sister, “suggesting by punctuation the same interpretation.”

Note: S. Matthew, by the expression” knew her not till she brought forth a son,” seems to contradict this; but, as Bishop Lightfoot has pointed out, all that the Evangelist intended was” to show that Jesus was not begotten in the course of nature; and thus, while it denies any previous intercourse with her husband, it neither asserts nor implies any subsequent intercourse. “— App. ii. to Galat. p. 257. Epiphanius writes: “As the lioness is said to exhaust her fertility in the production of a single offspring (Herodot. iii. 108), so she who bore the Lion of Judah could not in the nature of things become a mother a second time.” — Qu. by Lightfoot, p. 270. Archdeacon Farrar is almost alone among modern scholars in upholding the Helvidian view, i.e. that they were the Virgin’s children; but the exhaustive treatise of Bishop Lightfoot has decided the case in favour of the Epiphanian view, i.e. that they were sons of S. Joseph by a former wife,

Note: S. James, the Lord’s brother, became Bishop of Jerusalem.

Note: Christian Art has perpetuated the belief by always representing S. Joseph as an old man. Epiphanius says that he was eighty years old when he espoused the Blessed Virgin.

Note: Epiphanius, the great supporter of this view in the controversy with S. Jerome and Helvidius, was a native of Palestine. It is said that S. Jerome abandoned the theory of cousinhood, and adopted this after his residence at Bethlehem, where he would hear the true tradition.