|
Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary was ever-virgin: that her marriage
to Joseph was a show of a marriage, not a real marriage. But the Bible
reports that Jesus had brothers and sisters:
"'Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James,
Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?' So they
were offended at Him." (Mark 6:3).
"But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother." (Galatians 1:19).
"For even His brothers did not believe in Him." (John 7:5).
"Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the
other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians
9:5).
"After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did
not stay there many days." (John 2:12).
No mention is made of these brothers and sisters when Jesus is born; surely Joseph would have had his hands full shepherding
a whole flock of children through Bethlehem and into Egypt. Readers who take things in sequence have naturally ever since surmised
these brothers and sisters must be children born later to Joseph and Mary; after all the angel says, "But while he thought
about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to
take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.'" (Matthew 1:20), not 'don't touch her,
ever!' Yet if you make this natural inference, you stand harshly condemned by the Roman Catholic Church.
Cousins
Two theories are advanced by Roman Catholics as to the identity of the
Lord's 'brothers.' The later theory, Jerome's, is that they were actually
'cousins.' There is no instance in the Old Testament in which named individuals
who are known to be cousins call one another 'brother,' though there is
a case where an uncle, Abraham, calls his nephew, Lot, his 'brother.' Roman
Catholics do not mean to suggest the Lord's 'brothers' were actually his
'nephews,' because how does one obtain nephews, except by first having
siblings? Rather, modern Roman Catholics explain that Hebrew has no word
meaning 'brother,' that 'ach' is a vague word meaning 'male kinsman of unspecified degree.' Is it plausible that
a language in public use would actually have no word that means 'brother'?
Taxonomy
Linguists have tried the experiment of tagging along with a taxonomist.
When studied, native languages are found to distribute large living things
into categories similar to those employed by taxonomists. The categories
language employs are not so 'wild' that neighboring tribes group creatures
together under common names at random, so that one tribe classes the 'robin'
with the 'ducks,' whereas the tribe next door classes the 'robin' with
the 'parrots,' and the third lists them as 'songbirds.' Nor are some 'robins'
named one thing, others another. Burrowing down to lower and lower levels
of species differentation, the natives ultimately fall behind the taxonomists,
and present missing or inaccurate categories when it comes time to name
this fungus the same as the other one or different.
What are the odds that a major language would have no word -- no word at all -- meaning 'brother'? This
relationship is so unavoidable in life, that
no society can lack for one who looks at another who is the offspring of
a common parent. The inherent unlikelihood that Hebrew had no way for these
two to name one another but as 'male kinsmen' should give one pause.
Mother's Sons
Who were the Lord's "brothers"? According to the Bible, they were
His "mother's sons": "I have become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s
children; because zeal for Your house has eaten me up, and the reproaches of those
who reproach You have fallen on me." (Psalm 69:8-9). This psalm is
applied to the Messiah by John, at John 2:17.
Adelphos
The Greek word that is used to identify the Lord's "brothers" is 'adelphoi.' This Greek word is so far
from meaning, 'male relative of unspecified degree,' that it traces its origin to the womb: "adelphos (a
copul., delphus; cf. Latin co-uterinus);" "delphus, the womb." (Liddell-Scott Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon). Both
in classical Greek and in the Bible it is used also of brothers who share
the same father but not the same mother: "Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac
begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers." (Matthew 1:2). These brothers were born of four different mothers.
As is the case with English, Greek speakers need not distinguish between
half-brothers and full brothers, though not from lack of linguistic or
conceptual tools competent to do so.
At this, Roman Catholics reply, while 'adelphos' is not inherently a vague word, it became so in the New Testament
because, when the New Testament authors said 'adelphos,' they thought 'ach,' which is a vague word. First of all,
I cannot confirm that the Hebrew word 'ach' is any more vague than the English word 'brother' or the Greek 'adelphos.'
Having gone through every instance of this word in the Old Testament,
I've noticed that these three words can readily be substituted for one
another with no loss of meaning. As will be seen, all three of these words
can be used of persons of no biological relation, under much the same circumstances.
But one would never expect, reading in an obituary, 'The deceased left
four brothers, James, Jose, Jude, and Simon,' that this means these four
named individuals were fellow-citizens of the deceased, or members of the
same fraternal lodge, or followed the same profession of fire-fighter.
These extended meanings of 'brother' cannot be used to obliterate its base
meaning, because they are built upon this meaning.
Secondly, even if it were the case that the Hebrew word 'ach' vaguely indicates a male kinsman without any further
specificity, one could not reasonably expect a Gentile author like Luke to substitute this word for the precise 'adelphos.'
Paul concludes his letter to Colossians with a section of personal greetings. First he lists one batch, ending with, "These
are my only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are of the circumcision; they have proved to be a comfort to me."
(Colossians 4:11). Then he goes on to a second batch, including, "Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you."
(Colossian 4:14). This would suggest Luke is not "of the circumcision," that he is a Gentile. Luke often explains
Jewish customs to his reader, who presumably is not expected to be familiar with them. Whenever Luke gives a count of the
days a certain event lasted, compare his count with Mark and Matthew: Luke tends to be one day 'short,' because he employs
the Gentile custom of rolling partial days into one another rather than the Jewish custom of counting each partial day as a
whole day. Luke is not likely to be using the Greek word 'adelphos' in a way that would confuse or mislead his readers.
And Luke says they were 'brothers,' not 'cousins:' "Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach
Him because of the crowd." (Luke 8:19); "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women
and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers." (Acts 1:14).
Cousins
Roman Catholics say the Bible authors had no word for 'cousin', and thus,
lacking any way to specify this relationship, referred to 'cousins' as
'brothers.' But the Greek word 'anepsios' means 'cousin': "Aristarchus
my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin [anepsios] of Barnabas (about whom you
received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him), and Jesus
who is called Justus." (Colossians 4:10).
Nor did the Hebrews lack a way of expressing this relationship: "Then
Hanamel my uncle’s [dowd] son [ben] came to me in the court of the prison according
to the word of the LORD, and said to me, ‘Please buy my field that is in Anathoth, which is in the
country of Benjamin; for the right of inheritance is yours, and the redemption yours; buy it for
yourself.’ Then I knew that this was the word of the LORD." (Jeremiah 32:8). The Greek 'anepsios,'
cousin, occurs in the Septuagint translation of Numbers 36:11: "...for
Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad,
were married to the sons of their father’s brothers [anepsios, LXX]." (Numbers 36:11). Why demand that Hebrew
employ one word, or else admit to incapacity to describe the relationship? English
speakers must mouth three words, connected by hyphen, to specify the relationship,
'mother-in-law.' Does it therefore follow that English speakers have no
way of saying 'mother-in-law?'
Parallelism
The Hebrew scriptures often employ a form of parallelism in which the same
thought is expressed twice, in slightly different form. Here is a case:
"You sit and speak against your brother;
You slander your own mother’s son." (Psalm 50:20).
Abraham and Sarah
When Abraham and Sarah travelled about the world, he asked her to say that she was his "sister:" "Say, I
pray thee, thou art my sister ['achowth']: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because
of thee." (Genesis 12:13). Roman Catholic language study has revealed that this is no more than to say that she is related
to him in some unspecified fashion, which she surely was, she was his wife. That is not how Abraham explains it, though: "And
yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became
my wife." (Genesis 20:12).
Consanguinity
The same Roman Catholics who claim that the Hebrew word 'ach' means, not 'brother' but 'male kinsman,' themselves base their rulings
on permissible degrees of consanguinity in marriage on Moses' legislation
in this area -- understanding 'ach' to mean 'brother,' not 'cousin': "Again, because the acts performed by husband
and wife are associated with a certain natural shame, it is necessary that those persons to whom respect is due because of the
bond of blood should be prohibited from performing such actions with each other. Indeed, this reason seems to have been suggested
in the Old Testament law, in the text which states: 'Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy sister' (Lev. 18:9), and also
in other texts." (That Matrimony Should not Take Place between Close Relatives, Chapter 125, Summa Contra Gentiles, Thomas
Aquinas, Book Three, Part II). This is the same way that Moses' regulations on marriage were understood in New Testament
days: "For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother
Philip’s wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, 'It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s
wife.'" (Mark 6:17-18). If Roman Catholics seriously believe that 'ach' means 'male kinsman of unspecified degree,'
why do they not 'correct' their teaching on permissible degrees of consanguinity to reflect this
understanding?
Unconstitutional
Under the American legal system, a law which is unconstitutionally vague
cannot stand judicial scrutiny. This is what happened to the vagrancy laws
which used to be a fixture of the American urban scene. Why are the cops
harrassing this Bowery bum, while leaving that jet-setter alone? The laws
could not be written so as to distinguish between travelling salesmen and
hoboes, so they were tossed out.
While Moses was under no obligation to the U.S. Constitution, it's a fact that any workable legal code must be so written as
to have a definable meaning. What can one say of a legal code which is so written that nobody knows what is allowed and what
is prohibited? If the Roman Catholics are right about 'ach,' that's just the state Moses' law is in.
In some cases 'ach' is defined by the statute itself, like 'adelphos:' "If your brother, the son
of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly
entices you..." (Deuteronomy 13:6). But more to the point are those instances where 'ach' is not defined:
"And the LORD said to Moses, 'Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron,
and say to them: ‘None shall defile himself for the dead among his people,
except for his relatives who are nearest to him: his mother, his father,
his son, his daughter, and his brother; also his virgin sister who is near
to him, who has had no husband, for her he may defile himself. Otherwise
he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane
himself." (Leviticus 21:1-4).
According to Moses, death defiles, and the list of those for whom the priests
may incur this uncleanness is a short one, because they are set apart to be holy:
"Contact with a corpse, or even contiguity to the place where it lay, entailing ceremonial defilement (Numbers 19.14),
all mourners were debarred from the tabernacle for a week; and as the exclusion of a priest during that period would have been attended
with great inconvenience, the whole order were enjoined to abstain from all approaches to the dead, except at the funerals of relatives,
to whom affection or necessity might call them to perform the last offices. Those exceptional cases, which are specified, were strictly
confined to the members of their own family, within the nearest degrees of kindred." (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Commentary Critical
and Explanatory on the Whole Bible).
Or is it? According to the Roman Catholics, the priests have just been given permission to attend funerals of all their male
relatives of whatever degree. If 'ach' is as vague as they claim, this law has no definable scope or limitation.
Twelve
"And they said, 'Your servants are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; and in fact, the youngest
is with our father today, and one is no more....Send one of you, and let
him bring your brother; and you shall be kept in prison, that your words
may be tested to see whether there is any truth in you; or else, by the
life of Pharaoh, surely you are spies!'" (Genesis 42:13-16).
If, as Roman Catholics say, the Hebrew 'ach' is a vague word meaning no more than 'male relative of unspecified degree,'
it's unclear why Joseph's brothers would have limited their 'brother' count
to twelve and no more, nor is it clear how such a count could be verified
or "tested." Since we're all children of Adam, we're all related;
if 'ach' means no more than 'male relative of unspecified degree,' no 'ach'-count could ever
be delimited nor verified.
Joseph demanded they produce their "youngest brother:"
"And bring your youngest brother to me; so your words will be verified, and you shall not die." (Genesis 42:20).
If what Joseph is actually demanding is that they produce their 'youngest
male relative of unspecified degree,' what would prevent them from producing
Reuben's two sons (Genesis 42:37)?
Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?
At its most minimalist, in English or in Hebrew, 'brother' is a pleasantry, a polite way of addressing someone you do not
know: "And Jacob said to them, 'My brethren, where are you from?' And they said, 'We are from Haran.'" (Genesis
29:4). When Jacob called these men 'brothers,' he cannot have thought it
likely they were relatives, inasmuch as Abraham's people were strangers
in Haran, having emigrated from their homeland of Ur. It strains credulity
to imagine that when two named individuals are identified as 'brothers'
one of another, this usage is in view, as for instance, "So the anger
of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and He said: 'Is not Aaron the Levite
your brother?'" (Exodus 4:14).
Jonathan and David
David calls Jonathan his "brother," though the two were unrelated:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very
pleasant to me; your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women."
(2 Samuel 1:26).
These two had made a "covenant" before the Lord:
"So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “Let
the LORD require it at the hand of David’s enemies.” Now Jonathan again
caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved
his own soul...And as for the matter which you and I have spoken of, indeed
the LORD be between you and me forever.”" (1 Samuel 20:16-23).
We have a similar custom; those who join fraternal orders enter into a
compact of brotherhood. Without impugning the sincerity of those who thus
vow to be as brothers to one another, no one would expect, reading in a
biography that James, Jose, Jude and Simon were the subject's "brothers,"
that this means they belonged to the same fraternal organization.
The nation of Israel and the inhabitants of Lebanon had entered into such a pact:
"Thus says the LORD: 'For three transgressions of Tyre, and for four,
I will not turn away its punishment, because they delivered up the whole
captivity to Edom, and did not remember the covenant of brotherhood. But
I will send a fire upon the wall of Tyre, which shall devour its palaces.'"
(Amos 1:9-10).
Hiram of Lebanon calls Solomon his "brother" because of this
treaty, though they were not kinsmen: "Then Hiram went from Tyre to
see the cities which Solomon had given him, but they did not please him.
So he said, 'What kind of cities are these which you have given me, my brother?'" (1 Kings 9:12-13).
Corporate Personality
The Bible often speaks of a nation as if it were one man. Jerome's speculative reconstruction equating 'cousins' with 'brothers'
draws upon this language. Is his analysis compatible with Paul's rival analysis?:
Abraham and Lot
This verse is the linch-pin of the 'cousins' theory:
"So Abram said to Lot, 'Please let there be no strife between you
and me, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brethren.'"
(Genesis 13:8)
Why does Abraham say that Lot is his brother? The reason cannot be linguistic
incompetence, because the narrator has just specified their biological
relationship as that of uncle/nephew: "Then Abram took Sarai his wife
and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered,
and the people whom they had acquired in Haran, and they departed to go
to the land of Canaan." (Genesis 12:5). Since the narrator knows how
to say "brother's son," why does he here say 'brother'? In fact
all of Abraham's children are brothers and sisters, as anyone can verify
by visiting a Bible-believing church!
All God's children call one another 'brother' and 'sister.' A 'brother' is anyone who is not a 'foreigner:' "And
this is the form of the release: Every creditor who has lent anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not require it
of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the LORD’S release. Of a foreigner you may require it; but you shall give
up your claim to what is owed by your brother, except when there may be no poor among you; for the LORD will greatly bless
you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance..." (Deuteronomy 15:3); "...you shall
surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you
may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother." (Deuteronomy 17:15).
Why are the children of Israel brothers? God explained why this is so, and He did not explain it by dumbing down 'ach' to
mean 'kinsman,' rather,
"Have we not all one father? has not one God created us? why do we
deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant
of our fathers?" (Malachi 2:10).
"Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: 'Israel is My son, My firstborn.'" (Exodus 4:22).
All Israel are brothers, not because 'brother' means anything other than 'son of the same parent,' but because it does mean
just that. God is the common parent. But their sonship and consequent
brotherhood fell short of expectations:
"Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth!
For the LORD has spoken:
'I have nourished and brought up children,
And they have rebelled against Me;
The ox knows its owner
And the donkey its master’s crib;
But Israel does not know,
My people do not consider.'" (Isaiah 1:2-4).
The Lord taught the same concept of brotherhood, while also making its
realization possible:
"But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call
anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." (Matthew 23:8-9).
We in the church are part of Abraham's family, children not of the slave
but of the free woman: "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children
of promise." (Galatians 4:28), and we follow his linguistic usages.
I doubt anyone spying on the church's freedom to call one another 'brother'
and 'sister' can succeed in dumbing it down to 'kinsman,' inasmuch as believers
hail from "every tribe and tongue and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9).
Can the Lord's 'brothers' be explained in this way? All Jews are 'brothers:' "And the next day he appeared to two of them
as they were fighting, and tried to reconcile them, saying, ‘Men, you are brethren; why do you wrong one another?’" (Acts 7:26).
Yet were those 'within' not Jews, just as those 'without'? And His brothers were 'without:' "And it was told Him by some, who
said, 'Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.'" (Luke 8:20). And all believers
are 'brothers:' "Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king." (1 Peter 2:17).
Yet His "brothers" did not believe: "For even His brothers did not believe in Him." (John
7:5), not until later, when they turn up in the upper room. Since the sense
in which all the children of Abraham are brothers cannot be the intended
sense, it cannot be thought these named individuals are brothers in any
but the common sense: children of Mary, who was the Lord's mother according
to the flesh.
James the Just
James, the brother of Jesus, turns up on the pages of several extra-Biblical authors:
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought
before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions];
and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who
seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was
done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had
already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria,
and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent." (Josephus, Antiquities
of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9).
He is the "brother," not the 'cousin,' of the Lord. Contrary
to what Roman Catholics have convinced many to believe, these people did
know how to say 'cousin' and could have said so had they wished. Another
early writer, Hegesippus, also calls James the "brother of the Lord."
His writings do not survive independently, but excerpts are included in
Eusebius' later church history:
"But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book
of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction
with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Savior to the present day; for there were many that bore
the name of James. He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came
upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place;
for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon
his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly
bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the
Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, Bulwark of the people and ‘Justice,’
in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him. Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people
and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him, ‘What is the gate of Jesus? and he replied that he was the
Savior. On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe
either in a resurrection or in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on
account of James. Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and
Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore
in a body to James they said, ‘We entreat thee, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he
were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have
confidence in thee. For we bear thee witness, as do all the people, that thou art just, and dost not respect persons. Do thou
therefore persuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have confidence
in thee. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from that high position thou mayest be clearly seen, and that thy
words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together on account of the
Passover.’ The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and
said: Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified
one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’ And he answered with a loud voice,’ Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus,
the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds
of heaven.’ And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David,’
these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another,’ We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But
let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.’ And they cried out, saying, ‘Oh! oh! the
just man is also in error.’ And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, ‘ Let us take away the just man, because he
is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.’ So they went up and threw down the just man, and
said to each other, ‘Let us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he
turned and knelt down and said, ‘I entreat thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ And while
they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by
Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, ‘Cease, what do ye? The just one prayeth for you. And one of them, who was a fuller,
took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they
buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews
and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.” (quoted by Eusebius in Church History, Book 2, Chapter 23).
Race-Baiting
Jerome was aware that all Jews could call one another 'brother.' He thought
it a question of "race:"
"As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy, 'If thy
brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve
thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from
thee.'" (Jerome, Against Helvidius, 16).
Is this the testimony of the Bible? In the New Testament, of course, the
Gentiles stream into the "Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). But
even in the Old Testament, "race" is not the bottom line. Does
the law of Moses specify that descendants of Jacob who turn their backs
on the living God remain part of the people, or are they cut off from the
people? On the other side of the coin, are those of another "race"
who cling to the living God turned away at the gate, or are they welcomed
in and joined to the people?:
"Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, “The LORD
has utterly separated me from His people”; nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD: “To the
eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and
within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not
be cut off." (Isaiah 56:3-5).
Jerome is aware that the brotherhood of Israel cannot be the reason why
Jesus' "brothers" are so called, because,
"I now ask to which class you consider the Lord’s brethren in the
Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say. But Scripture
does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of Joseph. Shall
we say they are brethren by race? But it is absurd to suppose that a few
Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time might upon this
principle have borne the title." (Jerome, Against Helvidius).
In spite of realizing that the people of God have always called one another
'brother,' Jerome nevertheless differentiates this usage from the case
of Abraham and Lot. Abraham and Lot were the people of God in the world
of that day. Abraham was the "friend of God," (James 2:23), and
Lot was was "righteous man:" "...and delivered righteous
Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous
man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day
by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)..." (2 Peter 2:7-8). These
two, and those who listened to them, were the people of God in that day,
and they called one another "brother," as the people of God have
ever done. Yet Jerome imports into the Bible alien considerations from
Roman law to explain why Abraham and Lot call one another "brother."
A grown man, in Rome, was not emancipated until his father died; before
his father died, his children were his father's children; in other words,
cousins were the same as brothers. But this is such a unique set of laws,
how can they be imported into ancient Palestine as if all the people in
the world have always thought cousins were the same as brothers?
Error Checking
If an unbelieving sociologist were to walk into a Bible-believing church,
he would overhear the congregation call one another "brother"
and "sister." At first a few congregants trickle in. Our sociologists
quizzes them to discover what they mean when they say "brother."
He inquires into their ancestry. The first two he quizzes are, it turns
out, brother, and son, of the same person: they are uncle and nephew. 'Aha!'
our sociologist exults. 'When these people say 'brother,' they mean 'uncle'
or 'nephew' (or 'cousin' or whatever).' Pleased to have solved the riddle,
he sits back in the pew. But then more people come in. They, too, call
one another "brother" and "sister." Upon inquiry, it
is discovered these people are camped out at the RV park outside of town,
and, not only are they not related to the first group, they are not even
acquainted. Is it time to drop the 'cousin' theory...or it is time to insist
upon it with renewed vigor?
Laban calls Jacob his "brother:"
"And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me
for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?" (Genesis 29:15).
Laban is in fact Jacob's uncle, his mother's brother:
"And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the
sheep of Laban his mother’s brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the flock
of Laban his mother’s brother." (Genesis 29:10).
So does Laban understand "brother" to mean 'nephew,' or 'cousin,'
or 'male relative of unspecified degree?' Let's wait and see who else they
call "brother:"
"Whereas you have searched all my stuff, what have you found of all
your household stuff? set it here before my brethren and thy brethren,
that they may judge between us both." (Genesis 31:37).
They call all the members of their group "brothers," just as did our country
church. At this point, do we discard the 'cousins' theory as a failed hypothesis,
or cling to it with renewed vigor? Notice Jacob and Laban are no longer
calling one another "brother." What do they do to restore the
broken bond of brotherhood? They sacrifice to the living God:
"The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father,
judge betwen us. And Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac. Then
Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, and called his brethren to eat
bread: and they did eat bread, and tarried all night in the mount. And
early in the morning Laban rose up, and kissed his sons and his daughters,
and blessed them: and Laban departed, and returned unto his place."
(Genesis 31:53).
If the route to restore their broken fellowship ran through the living
God, did it first come about through a different route? At this Roman Catholics
protest, 'Jacob and Laban were pagans.' I do not think it possible that
Jacob was a pagan; God would not call Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob (Exodus 3:15) if Jacob were a pagan. Admittedly, he lies, cheats
and steals. But God loved him anyway: "'Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?'
says the LORD. 'Yet Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated...'"
(Malachi 1:2-3). As to why Rachel stole the idols, as any pagan could have
told you, it is irreligious people who rob temples, not religious ones.
The religious ones are scared to death the god who inhabits the temple
will avenge this desecration; the irreligious ones know better. Perhaps
they were gem-encrusted; pagans often put the best they had onto their
idols. Perhaps Rachel believed that diamonds are a girl's best friend.
If she believed them to be truly gods, why would she sit on them, which
does not show respect?
Laban has one foot in each camp, the pagan and the Yahwist. He uses Yahwist
language in talking with Jacob, even claiming to be the recipient of visions
from the living God. Is he insincere in using such language? If so, perhaps
he was also insincere in calling Jacob his "brother;" he certainly
does not deal with him as one would deal with a brother. It is not the
lexicographer's task to redefine words until all statements come out as
the unvarnished truth.
Terah, Abraham's father, was an idolator: "And Joshua said to all
the people, 'Thus says the LORD God of Israel: '‘Your fathers, including
Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other
side of the River in old times; and they served other gods.'" (Joshua
24:2). But God called out Abraham. There must have been arguments between
Abraham and other family members. Did they say, 'You must be schizophrenic
if you think God is talking to you'? Or were they sympathetic? The Koran
discusses these issues at length, the Bible does not. At the very least,
there remained enough amity between the branches of the family that sons
of the Yahwist branch were willing, and welcomed, to return to Haran to
find wives. In any case, if, as they say, Laban was a pagan Aramaean, then
why do the Roman Catholics care what he understood language to mean? They
are asserting there to be a Jewish idiom whereby 'cousins' are called 'brothers,'
not a pagan one; whoever they were, the Lord's "brothers" cannot
have been pagan Aramaeans.
Suppose our sociologist try a new tack, and ask the people in our country church why they call each
other "brothers." They begin to sing, "I'm so glad I'm a part of the family of God," etc. This
is just how the Bible explains the same Bible idiom: "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?
why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?" (Malachi 2:10).
This is a very literal understanding of what 'brother' means: offspring of a common parent,-- not a metaphorical one. It's on a
different plane than biological parentage. And it is not the earthly father who sets the standard of what fatherhood is, rather
the heavenly: "For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven
and earth is named..." (Ephesians 3:14-15).
Since this is the only explanation offered, either in scripture or in our
country church, why try to go behind it? The same explanation is offered
in both testaments, though it's only in the second that sonship comes out
of the shadows of failed theory into the light of day. In the broadest
possible sense, all created things are "offspring" by virtue
of creation: "
"...for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of
your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ Therefore, since
we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature
is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising."
(Acts 17:28-29).
Israel was specially chosen by God for adoption as sons: "...who are Israelites, to whom pertain
the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God,
and the promises..." (Romans 9:4). Jesus raised the bar, demanding
to see a family relationship: "Jesus said to them, 'If God were your
Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor
have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.'" (John 8:42). He gave to Israel,
not only the calling to be sons, but the power to become so: "But
as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on his name..." (John 1:12), by giving the
spirit that calls, 'Abba, Father:' "And because you are sons, God
has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, 'Abba,
Father!'" (Galatians 4:6).
Older Brothers
The other theory advanced by Roman Catholics is that the Lord's "brothers"
were Joseph's children from a prior marriage. This theory is older than
the 'cousins' theory and does not wrench language so out of joint; members
of a 'blended' family might well have been called 'brothers.' Is there
any reason to believe this theory?
Protevangelium of James
This theory came into the world through a sweet fable called the 'Protevangelium
of James' which depicts little Mary traipsing about the Holy of Holies
of the Jewish temple:
"...And Joseph arose from off the sackcloth
and called Mary and said unto her O thou that wast cared for
by God, why hast thou done this?- thou hast forgotten the Lord
thy God. Why hast thou humbled thy soul, thou that wast nourished
up in the Holy of Holies and didst receive food at the hand
of an angel?" (Protevangelium XIII:2).
"And the priest said: Mary, wherefore hast thou done this, and wherefore hast thou
humbled thy soul and forgotten the Lord thy God, thou that wast
nurtured in the Holy of Holies and didst receive food at the
hand of an angel and didst hear the hymns and didst dance before
the Lord, wherefore hast thou done this?" (Protevangelium XV:3).
In real life, only the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies, not little children: "...no
small enormities were committed about the temple itself, which,
in former ages, had been inaccessible, and seen by none; for Pompey
went into it, and not a few of those that were with him also,
and saw all that which was unlawful for any other men to see,
but only for the high priests..." (Josephus, Antiquities of the
Jews, Book XIV, Chapter IV, 4).
Only the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, and then not without blood:
"Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always
went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. But
into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without
blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed
in ignorance..." (Hebrews 9:6-7). Failure to observe these precautions
was potentially deadly: "...and the LORD said to Moses: 'Tell Aaron
your brother not to come at just any time into the Holy Place inside the
veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die; for I will
appear in the cloud above the mercy seat.'" (Leviticus 16:2).
Given such an oversight, the Protevangelium does not sound like an authentic
production of apostolic circles.
|
