Christ Manifests Himself as the High Priest in his Sufferings; Being Rejected—(a.) By his own City Nazareth
Mat_13:53-58 (Mar_6:1-6; Luk_4:14-30)
53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables [of the kingdom of heaven], he departed thence. 54And when he was come [having come,
ἐëèþí
] into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch [so] that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works [the miracles]?55Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren 56[brothers], James, and Joses [Joseph], and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57And they were offended in [at] him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58And he did not many mighty works [miracles] there because of their unbelief.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
According to Schleiermacher and many others, the passage before us is identical with Luk_4:16. But this view is controverted by Wieseler, Ewald, and Meyer. The opinion of Schleiermacher is, however, supported by the fact, that in both passages the people of Nazareth are described as putting the question: Is not this the carpenter’s son, or the son of Joseph? and that in both cases the Saviour replies that a prophet is not without honor, etc. But the chronological arrangement seems to be rightly given by Luke, as his narrative fully accounts for the removal of Jesus to Capernaum. Matthew indeed furnishes different details as to the time and circumstances of this occurrence ( Mat_13:53-54). But we would suggest as probable, that the Lord may, after His controversy with the Pharisees, have retired for a time with His disciples into the mountains and to Nazareth. This may explain the introduction of this narrative. When recording the stay at Nazareth, Matthew, in his usual pragmatic method, also relates some events which had formerly taken place there. At the same time, it will be observed that the Evangelist only states the great outlines of this conflict of Jesus with His fellow-citizens, without repeating the details connected with it.
Mat_13:54. His own city.—On the situation of Nazareth, and the meaning of the word, comp. the Exegetical Notes on Mat_2:23.
Whence hath this man?—
ôïýôø
. By way of contempt, as if they were inquiring what schools He had attended while in their city.
Mat_13:55. The carpenter’s son.—The word
ôÝêôùí
(artifex), faber lignarius in the widest sense (carpenter, wright, etc.).
[The occupation of a carpenter was always regarded as an honorable and respectable employment; hence this question was not a question of contempt, but of surprise. The Nazarenes regarded Jesus not as their inferior, but themselves as His equals, and doubted only His claim to superiority, which was forced upon
them by His wisdom and miracles. It is the same natural surprise which is always felt if an old acquaintance meets his former humble associates with a distinguished rank or reputation as a scholar, or artist, or statesman, or merchant-prince.—P. S.]
A prophet.—A fact of experience—exculpatory in its general bearing, but condemnatory in its special application in this instance.
Mat_13:58. He did not many miracles.—Mark: “He could there do no mighty works;” i. e., He found them not prepared to receive, and therefore would not as He could not. The latter expression indicates not a want of power, but the moral limits which Himself imposed on the exercise of His power. However, it also implies that we are not to regard these displays of Christ’s power as merely the manifestations of absolute might.
Mat_13:55-57. The brothers of Jesus.
Mat_13:55. James, Joses, Simon, Judas (Mar_6:3).
Mar_15:40. James the Less, Joses, their mother Mary.
Joh_19:25. (Mary the wife of Cleophas.) The Apostles.
Mat_10:3
. James (the son of Alphæus or Cleophas).
Simon Zelotes.
Lebbeus (Thaddeus) (or Judas, the brother of James. Luk_6:16).
Act_1:13. James, the son of Alphæus.
Simon Zelotes.
Judas, the brother of James.
From the above we conclude:
(1) That three brothers of the Lord bore the names of James, Simon, andJudas;
That three Apostles also bore the names of James, Simon, and Judas:
(2) That James, the brother of the Lord, had a brother called Joses [Joseph];
That the Apostle James, the son of Alphæus, had a brother called Joses:
(3) That the father of the Apostle James the Less bore the name of Alphæus;
That the father of Joses, the son of Mary, bore the name of Alphæus:
(4) That the Apostle Judas had a brother called James;
That Judas, the brother of Jesus, had a brother called James:
(5) That the wife of Clopas or Cleophas was called Mary, and that she was the mother of James and Joses.
(6) Hence that
Cleophas was the father of James and Joses;
Cleophas was the father of the Apostle James;
Cleophas was the father of Judas, the brother of James.
(7) Besides, we have Simon, Brother of the Lord; Brother of James (brother of the Lord); Apostle of the Lord.
Manifestly, then, the brothers of the Lord and the Apostles whom we have just named are identical. The relationship existing between them was probably as follows: Clopas (Cleophas), or Alphæus, was a brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus (Eusebius, Mat_3:11). It is a mistake to suppose that Mary the wife of Cleophas was the sister of the mother of the Lord. Alphæus probably died early [?], and Joseph [the poor carpenter?] adopted his family [of at least six children? and this, when their mother was still living, Joh_19:25?—P. S.]; so that the cousins of Jesus became His adopted brothers, and in the eye of the law were treated as His brothers. Probably they were older than Jesus, and hence appear to have interfered on several occasions with His work. Although at an early period they were in the faith, some time elapsed before they attained to full obedience. Besides these sons, Alphæus seems also to have left daughters [?].
The idea that the Apostles James the Less and Judas were different from the brothers of the Lord, originated among the Judæo-Christian sect of the Ebionites. The oldest Catholic tradition, on the contrary, has always regarded them as identical (Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen). For further particulars, see my article Jakobus in Herzog’s Real Encyclop. [vol. vi., p. 406 sqq. Comp. also Alford on Mat_13:55; Dr. Mill: On the Brethren of our Lord (quoted by Alford and Wordsworth, as defending the cousin-theory), and Sam. S. Andrews: The Life of our Lord, N. Y., 1863, p. 104 sqq.—P. S.]
[Note on the Brothers of Jesus.—After a renewed investigation of this difficult exegetical and historical problem, I beg leave to differ from the cousin-theory, even in the modified form so plausibly defended by Dr. Lange here and elsewhere. I shall present as clearly and concisely as I can the principal exegetical data in the case, on which the right conclusion must be based. For a fuller treatment I refer to my monograph on James (Berlin, 1842), where the whole subject is discussed exegetically and historically, with special reference to James the brother of the Lord and his relation to James the Less. (Compare also my History of the Apostolic Church p. 378, and the notes in previous parts of this Commentary, on Mat_1:25; Mat_12:46-47; Mat_13:55 above.)
1. The brothers of Jesus, four in number, and bearing the names Jacob or James, Joseph (or Joses), Simon, and Jude, are mentioned with or without their names, fourteen or fifteen times in the N. T. (not ten times, as Alford in loc. says), twice in connection with sisters (whose number and names are not recorded), viz., twelve times in the Gospels, Mat_12:46-47; Mat_13:55-56 (
ἀäåëöïß
and
ἀäåëöïß
); Mar_3:31-32; Mar_6:3 (here the sisters are likewise introduced); Luk_8:19-20; Joh_7:3; Joh_7:5; Joh_7:10;—once in the Act_1:14;—and once by St. Paul, 1Co_9:5, to which must be added Gal_1:19, where James of Jerusalem is called “the brother of the Lord .” Besides, the Saviour Himself speaks several times of His brothers (brethren), but apparently in a wider sense of the term, Mat_12:48-50; Mar_3:33-35; Mat_28:10; Joh_20:17.
In the former fourteen or fifteen passages it is agreed on all hands that the term brothers must be taken more or less literally of natural affinity, and not metaphorically or spiritually, in which sense all Christians are brethren. The question is only, whether the term means brothers proper, or cousins, according to a somewhat wider usage of the Hebrew
àָç
.
2. The exegetical or grammatical (though not perhaps the dogmatical) a priori presumption is undoubtedly in favor of the usual meaning of the word, the more so since no parallel case of a wider meaning of
ἀäåëöüò
(except the well-known and always apparent metaphorical, which is out of the question in our case), can be quoted from the New Testament. Even the Hebrew
àָç
is used only twice in a wider sense, and then only extended to nephew (not to cousin), viz., Gen_13:8; Gen_14:16; of Abraham and Lot, who was his brother’s son (Gen 11:27, 31), and Gen_29:12; Gen_29:15, of Laban and Jacob his sister’s son (comp. Mat_13:13). Here there can be no mistake. The cases are therefore not strictly parallel with ours.
3. There is no mention anywhere of cousins or kinsmen of Jesus according to the flesh; and yet the term
ἀíåøéüò
, consobrinus, cousin, is well known to the N. T. vocabulary (compare Col_4:10, where Mark is called a cousin of Barnabas); so also the more exact term
õἱὸò ôῆò ἀäåëöῆò
, sister’s son (comp. Act_23:26, of Paul’s cousin in Jerusalem); and the more general term
óõããåíÞò
, kinsman, relative, occurs not less than eleven times (Mar_6:4; Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58; Luk_2:44; Luk_14:12; Luk_21:16; Joh_18:26; Act_10:24; Rom_9:3; Rom_16:7; Rom_16:11; Rom_16:21).
Now, if the brothers of Jesus were merely His cousins (either sons of a sister of Mary, as is generally assumed, or of a brother of Joseph, as Dr. Lange maintains), the question may well be asked: Why did the sacred historians not in a single instance call them by their right name,
ἀíåøéïß
, or
õἱïὶ ôῆò ἀäåëöῆò ôῆò Ìáñßáò
, or
ôïῦ ἀäåëöïῦ ôïῦ ἸùóÞö
, or at least more generally
óõããåíåῖò
? By doing this they would have at once prevented all future confusion among commentators: while by uniformly using the term
ἀäåëöïß
, without the least intimation of a wider meaning, they certainly suggest to every unbiased reader the impression that real brothers are intended.
4. In all the passages where brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned, except in John 7 (where they are represented in conflict with the Lord), and 1 Corinthians 9 (which was written probably after the death of Mary), they appear in close connection with Him and His mother Mary as being under her care and direction, and as forming one family. This is certainly surprising and unaccountable, if they were cousins. Why do they never appear in connection with their own supposed mother, Mary the wife of Clopas (or Alphæus), who was living all the time, and stood under the cross (Mat_27:56; Joh_19:25), and at the sepulchre (Mat_27:61)?
Lange calls to his aid the double hypothesis of an early death of Clopas (whom he assumes to have been the brother of Joseph), and the adoption of his children by the parents of Jesus, so that they became legally His brothers and sisters. But this adoption, if true, could not destroy their relation to their natural mother, Mary, who was still living, and one of the most faithful female followers of Christ. Besides, both the assumption of the early death of Clopas and the adoption of his children by Joseph, is without the shadow of either exegetical or traditionary evidence, and is made extremely improbable by the fact of the poverty of the holy family, who could not in justice to themselves and to their own Son adopt at least half a dozen children at once (four sons and two or more daughters), especially when their own mother was still living at the time. We would have to assume that the mother likewise, after the death of her husband, lived with the holy family. But would she have given up in this case, or under any circumstances, the claim and title to, and the maternal care of, her own children? Certainly not. The more we esteem this devoted disciple, who attended the Saviour to the cross and the sepulchre (Mat_27:56; Mat_27:61; Joh_19:25), the less we can think her capable of such an unmotherly and unwomanly act.
5. There is no intimation anywhere in the New Testament, either by direct assertion or by implication (unless it be the disputed passage on James, in Gal_1:19), that the brothers of Christ, or any of them, were of the number of the twelve Apostles. This is a mere inference from certain facts and combinations, which we shall consider afterward, viz., the identity of three names, James, Simon and Judas, who occur among the brothers of Christ and among the Apostles, and the fact that a certain Mary, supposed to be an aunt of Jesus, was the mother of James and Joses (but she is never called the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude), and with the fact of the eminent, Apostle-like position of James, the brother of the Lord, in the church at Jerusalem.
6. On the contrary, the brothers of Jesus are mentioned after the Apostles, and thus distinguished from them. In Act_1:13-14, Luke first enumerates the eleven by name, and then adds: “These all [the Apostles] continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren.” Here they seem to form a distinct class with their mother, next to the Apostles. So also 1Co_9:5 :
ïἱ ëïéðïὶ ἀðüóôïëïé êáὶ ïἱ ἀäåëöïὶ ôïῦ Êõñßïõ
. Such distinct mention of the brothers after the Apostles was not justified if three of the four, as is assumed by the cousin theory, were themselves Apostles; consequently, only one remained to make a separate class. The narrative, Mat_12:46-50, likewise implies that the brothers of Jesus who stood without, seeking to speak with Him, were distinct from the disciples (Matthew 13:69), who always surrounded Him.
7. More than this: before the resurrection of Christ, His brothers are represented in the Gospel of John, in Mat_7:3-10, long after the call of the Apostles, as unbelievers, who endeavored to embarrass the Saviour and to throw difficulties in His way. This makes it morally impossible to identify them with the Apostles. Even if only one or two of the four had been among the twelve at that time, John could not have made the unqualified remark: “Neither did His brethren (brothers) believe in Him” (Mat_7:5); for faith is the very first condition of the apostolate. Nor would Christ in this case have said to them: “My time has not yet come; but your time is always ready; the world cannot hate you; but Me it hateth” ( Mat_13:6-7); nor would He have separated from them in His journey to Jerusalem. It will not do here to weaken the force of
ðéóôåýåéí
, and to reduce their unbelief to a mere temporary wavering and uncertainty. The case of Peter, Mat_16:23, and that of Thomas, Joh_20:25, are by no means parallel. The whole attitude of the brothers of Christ, as viewed by Christ and described by John, is entirely inconsistent with that of an apostle. It is an attitude not of enemies, it is true, but of doubtful, dissatisfied friends, who assume an air of superiority, and presume to suggest to Him a worldly and ambitious policy. After the resurrection they are expressly mentioned among the believers, but as a distinct class with Mary, next to the Apostles.
All these considerations strongly urge the conclusion that the brothers of Christ were real brothers, according to the flesh, i. e., either later sons of Mary and Joseph, or sons of Joseph by a former marriage (more of this below), unless there are very serious difficulties in the way, which make this conclusion either critically, or morally, or religiously impossible.
Let us now approach these difficulties.
8. There are serious but no insurmountable objections to the conclusion just stated.
(a) The first objection is the identity in name of three of these brothers with three of the Apostles, viz., James, Simon, and Jude. But it should be remembered that these were among the most common Jewish names. Josephus mentions no less than twenty-one Simons, seventeen Joses’s, and sixteen Judes. Why could there not be two or three persons of the same name in the apostolic Church? We have at all events two James’s, two Simons, and two Judes among the twelve Apostles. This difficulty is more than counterbalanced by the opposite difficulty of two sisters with the same name.
(b) The second objection, likewise of a critical and exegetical character, is derived from Gal_1:19 : “But other of the Apostles saw I none, save (
åἰ ìÞ
) James, the Lord’s brother.” Here James, who was one of the brothers of Jesus, seems to be included among the Apostles, and this must have been James of Alphæus, or James the Less. But the passage bears the exactly opposite interpretation, if after
åἰ ìÞ
we supply simply:
åῖäïí
, and not
åῖäïí ôὸí ἀðüóôïëïí
, viz.: “I saw none other of the Apostles (besides Peter, Mat_13:18), but only (I saw) James, the Lord’s brother.” This interpretation is very old, and is defended by some of the highest grammatical authorities of our age. I think with Meyer that James is here distinguished from the twelve to whom Peter belonged, and yet at the same time mentioned with the Apostles in a wider sense of the term. In other words, he is represented as a man who, on account of his close natural relationship to Christ, and of his weight of character and piety, enjoyed an apostolic dignity and authority among the strict Jewish Christians. He was the acknowledged head and leader of this branch and the first bishop of Jerusalem, where he permanently resided and died, while the apostles proper were not fixed in a particular diocese, but traveling missionaries, with the whole world for their field of labor. That this was precisely the position of James is evident from various passages in the Acts, in the epistle to the Galatians, from Josephus, Hegesippus, and the traditions of the Eastern Church.”
(c) The third objection is of a moral character, and derived from the consideration that Christ on the cross could not have commended His mother to the care of John if she had other sons (Joh_19:26-27). “But why,” we may ask with Andrews, “if James and Judas were Apostles and His cousins, sons of her sister and long inmates of her family, and it was a question of kinship, did He not commend her to their care? “The difficulty then remains, and must be solved on other grounds. The brothers of Jesus at that time, as appears from John 7, were not yet full believers in Christ, although they must have been converted soon after the resurrection (Act_1:14). Moreover, John was the most intimate bosom friend of the Saviour, and could better sympathize with Mary, and comfort her in this peculiar trial than any human being. If the modern interpretation of Joh_19:25 be correct, as it probably is, Salome (not Mary, wife of Clopas) was a sister of Christ’s mother, consequently John His cousin. But we would not urge this as an additional reason of the commendation, which must be based on a deeper spiritual affinity and sympathy.
(d) The fourth objection is religious and dogmatical, arising from the pious or superstitious belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the apparent impropriety of the birth of any later descendants of the house of David after the birth of the Messiah. The perpetual virginity of the mother of our Saviour is an article of faith in the Greek and Roman Church; it is taught also in a few of the older Protestant symbols, and held to this day by many evangelical divines. Bishop Pearson says that the Church of God in all ages has maintained that Mary continued in the same virginity, Olshausen takes the same view, and Lange, though the latter only as far as offspring is concerned. Dr. Jos. Addison Alexander, a Presbyterian, who will not be accused of any sympathy with Romanism, says with apparent approbation: “Multitudes of Protestant divines and others, independently of all creeds and confessions, have believed, or rather felt, that the selection of a woman to be the mother of the Lord, carries with it as a necessary implication that no others could sustain the same relation to her; and that the selection of a virgin still more necessarily implied that she was to continue so; for if there be nothing in the birth of younger children inconsistent with her maternal relation to the Saviour, why should there be any such repugnance in the birth of older children likewise? … The same feeling which revolts from one hypothesis in some, revolts from both hypotheses in both.”
A doctrine or feeling so old and widely spread must be treated with proper regard and delicacy. But it should be observed:
In the first place, that these doctrinal objections hold only against the view that the brothers of Christ were younger children of Mary, not against the other alternative left, that they were older children of Joseph by a former marriage.
Secondly, the virginity of Mary can be made an article of faith only as far as it is connected with the mystery of the supernatural conception and the absolute freedom of Christ from hereditary as well as actual sin. But neither His nor her honor require the perpetual virginity after His birth, unless there be something impure and unholy in the marriage relation itself. The latter we cannot admit, since God instituted marriage in the state of innocence in Paradise, and St. Paul compares it to the most sacred relation existing, the union of Christ with His Church.
Thirdly, the Apostles and Evangelists, who are certainly much safer guides in all matters of faith and religious feeling than even fathers and reformers, seem to have had no such feeling of repugnance to a real marriage between Joseph and Mary, since they not only frequently mention brothers and sisters of Christ, without any intimation of an unusual or indefinite sense of the word, but Matthew and Luke (Mat_2:7) call Christ the first-born son of Mary, and Matthew moreover says (Mat_1:25), that Joseph knew not Mary, i. e., did not cohabit with her as man and wife, till she had brought forth her first-born son. I admit that neither
ðñùôüôïêïò
nor
ἕùò ïὗ
are conclusive in favor of subsequent cohabitation and offspring, but they naturally look that way, especially in a retrospective historical narrative, and in connection with the subsequent frequent mention of the brothers and sisters of Christ by the same writers. At all events, we are warranted to say that those terms could not have been used by the Evangelists if they had regarded legitimate cohabitation as essentially profane, or in any way degrading to Joseph and His mother. The Old Testament, it is well known, nowhere sustains the ascetic Romish views on the superior merits of celibacy, and represents children as the greatest blessing, and sterility as a curse or misfortune.
Finally, it may be regarded as another proof of the true and full humanity and the condescending love of our Saviour, if He shared the common trials of family life in all its forms, and moved a brother among brothers and sisters, that “He might be touched with a feeling of our infirmities.” This last consideration, however, has its full weight if we adopt Dr. Lange’s modification of the cousin-hypothesis, viz., the formal adoption of Christ’s cousins into the holy family.
9. It remains to be seen whether the cousin-theory is more free from difficulties. This theory is comparatively late and cannot be traced beyond the time of Jerome in the fourth century, but has since been adopted by the whole Latin Church, and by the older Protestant divines, who, however, paid very little critical attention to this question. Jerome’s view did not obtain credit and currency without an undue weight of dogmatical considerations connected with the perpetual virginity of Mary and the superior sanctity of celibacy (as is very evident from Jerome’s violent work against Helvidius). It has moreover to contend with all the facts presented under No. 1–7, which are as many arguments against it. And finally it has to call to its aid two assumptions, which are at least very doubtful, and give the theory an intricate and complicated character. These assumptions are:
(a) That Mary, the mother of James and Joses (Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40), was a sister of the Virgin Mary, and that consequently her children were cousins of Jesus. But who ever heard of two sisters bearing the same name without any additional one by which to distinguish them? Then, the only passage on which the alleged relationship of the two Marys is based, Joh_19:25, admits of a different and more probable explanation, by which the term “His mother’s sister” is applied to Salome, who stood certainly under the cross (seeMat_27:56; Mar_15:40), and could not well be passed by in silence by her own son, St. John, while he, with his accustomed modesty and delicacy, omitted her name, and intimated her presence by bringing out her relation to Mary.
(b) That Clopas, or Cleophas, the husband of Mary, the supposed sister of the Virgin Mary, is the same with Alphæuns, the father of James, the younger Apostle of that name, who is called
ἸÜêùâïò ὁ ôïῦ Ἀëöáßïõ
(Mat_10:3; Mar_2:14; Mar_3:18; Luk_6:15; Act_1:13). But this, though not improbable, and supported by the testimony of Papias, is at least not certain. Besides, Matthew (or Levi) was also a son of Alpbæus, Mar_2:14, and if
Ἰïí
̓
äáò ἸáêÜâïõ
, and Simeon, two of the twelve, were likewise among the brothers of Christ, we would have four Apostles, of whom it is said in John 7 that they did not believe. Finally, Mary, it should be remembered, is called the mother of James and Joses only, but never the mother of Simon and Jude, the other two brothers of Jesus, and both of them supposed to have been Apostles, which Joses was not. It is nowhere intimated that she had more sons than two, or any daughters at all; and even from her two sons, one, Joses, must be exempt from being a namesake, since Joseph, and not Joses, according to the correct reading, in Mat_13:55, is the second brother of Christ.
Dr. Lange, it is true, avoids some of these difficulties by giving up the sisterhood of the two Marys, and assuming in its place the brotherhood of Clopas, or Alphæus, and Joseph, as the basis of the cousinship of their sons, and calling to his aid the additional hypothesis of the early death of Alphæus and the adoption of his children into the holy family,—but all this without a shadow of exegetical proof. The absence of all allusion in the Evangelists to Mary, the real and still living mother of these children, when they are collectively mentioned, is a surprising fact, which speaks as strongly against Lange’s hypothesis as against the older and usual form of the cousin-theory.
10. We conclude, therefore, that the strict grammatical explanation of the term brothers and sisters of Christ, though not without difficulties, is still far more easy and natural than the explanation which makes them mere cousins.
But from the exegetical data of the New Testament we are still at liberty to choose between two views:
(a) The brothers of Jesus were younger children of Joseph and Mary, and hence His uterine brothers, though in fact only half-brothers, since He had no human father, and was conceived by the Holy Spirit overshadowing the Blessed Virgin. This view may be supported by the
ἕùò
and the
ðñùôüôïêïò
in Mat_1:25 and Luk_2:7, and has been adopted by Tertullian, Helvidius, and many modern Protestant divines of Germany, as Herder, Neander, Winer, Meyer, Wieseler, Rothe, Stier, and by a few English divines, Alford (on Mat_13:55), T. W. Farrar (in W. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i., p. 231), and, though not decidedly, by Andrews (Life of our Lord, p. 114). This view of the case is the most natural, and would probably be taken by a majority of commentators, if it were not from the scruples arising from the long and widely cherished doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Once clearly and fully established on the testimony of Scripture and history, this theory would give a powerful polemical weapon into the hands of Protestants, and destroy by one fatal blow one of the strongest pillars of Romish Mariology and Mariolatry, and the ascetic overestimate of the state of celibacy. But the case is by no means so clear at the present state of the controversy that we could avail ourselves of this advantage; and Protestants themselves, as already remarked, differ in their views, or feelings, or tastes, concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary.
(b) The brothers of Jesus were older sons of Joseph from a former marriage, and thus in the eyes of the law and before the world, though not by blood, brothers and sisters of Christ. This view has the doctrinal advantage of leaving the perpetual virginity of Mary untouched. It seems, moreover, to have been the oldest, and was held not only among the Ebionites, and in the pseudo-apostolical constitution, but by several early fathers, as Origen, Eusebius (who calls James of Jerusalem a “son of Joseph,” but nowhere of Mary), Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius (who even mentions the supposed order of birth of the four sons and two daughters), Hilary, Ambrose, etc. It is equally consistent with the Scripture data on the subject as the other alternative, and in some respects even more so. For it agrees better with the apparent difference of age between Joseph (who early disappears in the gospel history) and Mary, and especially with the patronizing and presumptuous air of the brothers of Christ, when they sought an interview with Him at a particular crisis (Mat_12:46), and when they boldly dared to suggest to Him a more expeditious and ostentatious Messianic policy (Joh_7:3-10). This is at least more readily explained, if they were older according to the flesh; while on the other theory some of them must have been almost too young to figure so prominently in the gospel history. It is true, they are nowhere called sons of Joseph; but neither are they called sons of Mary. The reason in both cases must be found in the fact, that Christ is the great central figure in the Gospels, round which all others move. On the other hand, however, it is difficult to believe that God should have selected an old widower with at least six children, as the husband of the mother of Christ. And the old tradition on which this view rests, may itself be explained as an attempt to escape the force of scriptural statements against the cherished belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.—P. S.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. In this narrative the Evangelist sets before us the circumstances under which the sufferings of our High Priest were introduced—by successive rejections of His person and claims. This in all probability induced him to relate in this connection that Christ was rejected even in His own city. But the historian drops a veil over the particulars and circumstances of His rejection. Nazareth adjoined Matthew’s native city, and, perhaps, lay even within the district of his home.
2. On the fact that our Lord had no uterine brothers or sisters, comp. my Leben Jesu,Mat_2:1, p. 139 sqq. To our mind, there seems nothing offensive in the idea, that Joseph and Mary lived on conjugal terms; but it appears to us inconceivable that the mother of Jesus should afterward have given birth to other children. Besides, the brothers of the Lord are introduced as speaking and acting like persons who claim to have more enlarged experience than Jesus, or, as we infer, as His seniors.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The question: “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” or prejudice.—How the people of Nazareth condemned themselves, while imagining that they judged Jesus.—How they unconsciously verified the exclamation of Nathanael: “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”—How every prejudice against Christianity contains the germ of its own condemnation. For, 1. it evidences a want of proper faith, (a) in the power of God, (b) in humanity, (c) in the miracles of history, (d) in the deeper recesses of our own inner life; 2. and yet even prejudice must confess that the wisdom and the works of Christ are most mysterious and inexplicable. Hence such persons readily have recourse to lying and hostile criticisms.—The offence of the people of Nazareth on account of the humble origin of the Lord, a picture of all other offences in Him. 1. An offence, (a) in His terrestrial state and existence; (b) in His human lowliness; (c) in His brothers and sisters with their human weaknesses. 2. Yet an offence which will leave us self-condemned, since it implies an admission of His wisdom and of His deeds. 3. A most fatal offence, since unbelief deprives us of the blessings of Christ’s wondrous works.—The saying of Christ, “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own home:” 1. As an extenuation; 2. as a reproof.—Jesus rejected by His own city.—The rejection of Jesus in Nazareth a prelude to His rejection by the people.—Nazareth, so poor, yet casting out the Lord of glory: 1. Nazareth in Galilee; 2. the land of Judea so poor; 3. the earth so poor.—The inmost characteristic of unbelief is, that it implies contempt of our own being and higher nature.—Whenever we read that the Lord “could not do,” or else that He “knew not,” the circumstances connected with it show that it was not from weakness or ignorance, but that His infinite power and wisdom were controlled and limited by supreme love and faithfulness.—How the King gradually merged into the High Priest.
[Matt. Henry:
Mat_13:58. Unbelief is the great obstruction to Christ’s favor.—If mighty works are not wrought in us, it is not for want of power or grace in Christ, but for want of faith in us.—P. S.]
Starke:—Canstein: Jesus is in truth the son of the carpenter; but of that Carpenter who made heaven and earth.—Ungrounded prejudices are too often obstacles in the way of faith, Joh_7:40-42.—Jerome: Naturale prop modum est cives civibus in videre.—Homines familiaria con’emnere, peregrina exosculari et in admiratione ac pretio habere solent.
Gerlach:—Carnal men look at the outward appearance; and this state of mind repels them from the Son of God, appearing in the form of a servant.
Heubner:—Jesus does not force His love or His blessings upon us.—Pride brings its own punishment. (Of this, history furnishes ample confirmation.)
Footnotes:
Mat_13:53.—[That is an unnecessary interpolation placed before when in Cranmer’s and James’s versions, or before he departed by Tyndale and the Geneva Bible, and is omitted by Wiclif, the N. T. of Rheims, also by Conant in his work on Matthew, but restored before he departed, in the revised Vers. of the Am. Bible Union.—P. S.]
Mat_13:54.—[Lange, as also de Wette, Ewald, and others, translate
ðáôñßäá
here: Vaterstadt, paternal (maternal) town, for Vaterland (Luther), fatherland. Nazareth is meant as the residence of his mother and reputed father. Euthym. Zigab.:
ëÝãåé ôὴí Íáæáñὲô
,
ὡò ðáôñéäá ôῆò ìçôñὸò áὐôïῦ êáὶ ôïῦ íïìéæïìÝíïõ ðáôñὸò áὐôïῦ
,
êáὶ ὠò ôñáöåὶò ἐò áὐôῇ
.—P. S.]
Mat_13:54.—[
ÁἱäõíÜìåéò
, de Wette: die Wunder; Lange: die Wunderkräfte; Ewald: die Heilsmächte, Comp. the note on Mat_11:20, p. 210. The definite article here is more emphatic than the demonstrative pronoun of the E. V.—P. S.]
Mat_13:55.—[Comp. my note on Mat_12:46, p. 231.—P. S.]
Mat_13:55.—B., C, and several translations read
ἸùóÞö
. So Lachmann, Tischendorf. Many uncial MSS. D., E., F., G., etc.,
ἸùÜííçò
;—K., L., etc.,
Ἰùóῆò
. In the parallel passage of Mark the reading Joses is by far better supported than Joseph. According to Lightfoot the Talmudists write
éåֹñֵé
for
éåֹñֵó
. Perhaps the person in question was called by both names already in the apostolic age. [Dr. Lange, in his German translation, retains Joses from the received text. But Joseph is undoubtedly the true reading according to the ancient authorities, including Cod. Sinaiticus, and is adopted also by Meyer, Tregelles, Alford Conant. The reading has some bearing on the question concerning the brothers of Christ. For if
ἸùóÞö
be the true reading, there remains but one brother of Christ, viz. James, of the same name with one of the two sons of Mary, the wife of Alphæus (supposed to be the same with Cleophas), Mat_27:56 (“Mary the mother of James and Joses”); and this argues against the view defended by Dr. Lange, that the brothers of Christ were merely his cousins. See below.—P. S.]
(Or rather Joseph. See the critical note above.—P. S.]
Comp. Wieseler in the Studien und Kritiken for 1840. p. Matt 648: “There stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and the sister of His mother—i. e. , Salome—, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” Joh_19:25. Comp. Mar_15:40; Mat_27:56.
[But it must be added, that the oldest tradition, including the most distinguished Greek and Latin fathers, as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Hilary, and Ambrose, regarded the brothers of Christ as sons of Joseph by a former marriage. See the passages in full in my book on James, p. 80 sqq.—P. S.]
Hegesippus (ap. Euseb. H. E. Mat_4:22) speaks of cousins of Christ, calling Simeon, the successor of James in Jerusalem:
ἀíåöéὸí ôïῦ Êõñßïõ äåýôåñïò
.
Hegesippus (in Eusebius’ H. E. iii. 11) asserts that Clopas was the brother of Joseph. Lange denies that Mary, the wife of Clopas, was the sister of the Virgin Mary. But Lichtenstein (Lebensgeschichte des Herrn, Erlangen, 1856, p. 124) assumes, that the two brothers, Joseph and Clopas, married two sisters, both named Mary. Clopas dying, Joseph took his wife and her children into his family. Schneckenburger reverses the hypothesis and assumes that Mary, after the early death of Joseph, moved to the household of her sister, the wife of Clopas.
Dr. Lange, in his article Jakobus in Herzog’s Encycl., vol. vi., p. 412, calls this die Unhaltbarkeit einer dreinamigen Doppelgängerlinie in dem apostolischen Kreise, and afterward eine unerhörte swei- bis vierfache Doppelgängerei.
So Schneckenburger on the Epistle of James, and all the commentators on Galatians who adopt the cousin-hypothesis, also Ellicott ad Gal_1:19, who, however, does not enter into a discussion of the general question.
Victorinus, in his Commentary in loc., says: “Paul disclaims James as an apostle, saying, that he saw no other apostle besides Peter, but only James.”
Winer, Grammatik, 6th ed., p. 557 (§ 67, sub I. e); who quotes for a similar use of
åἰ ìÞ
Act_27:22 and Rev_21:27; Fritzsche, Comment. in Matt., p. 482. who translates: alium apostolum non vidi, sed vidi Jacobum; Bleek (in Studien und Kritiken for 1836, p. 1059), and, as to the inference drawn, also Meyer and Hilgenfeld ad Gal_1:19.
In his Comment. on Gal_1:19.
This subject is fully discussed in my book on James.
The Lift of our Lord upon the Earth, p. 115.
The Articles of Smalkald, Pars. I. art. IV. (p. 303. ed. Hase): “Ex Maria pura, sancta, semper virgine.” The Form of Concord, p. Matt 767: “Unde et vere
èåïôüêïò
, Del genetrix est, et tamen virgo mansit.” Even Zwingli shared in this view, Comment. in Mat_1:18; Mat_1:25. and the Helvetic Confession speaks of Jesus as “natus ex Maria semper virgine.”
Exposition of the Creed, art. III.
Commentary on Mat_13:56, pp. 388 and 384, and in the same language. Com. on Mar_6:3. Dr. Alexander does not decide one way or the other (though leaning to the cousin-theory), and thinks that the difference of taste and sensibility on this subject is likely to continue to affect the interpretation until the question has received some new and unequivocal solution.
[Dr. Wordsworth and others would carry the cousin-theory to Papias in the second century, and quote a fragment, ascribed to his name, on the four Marys (ap. Routh, Reliquiæ sacræ, ex Cod. MSS. 2397): “I. Maria, mater Domini. II. Maria, Cleophæ sive Alphæi uxor, quæ fuit mater Jacobi Episcopi et Apostoli, et Simonis, et Thadei [Judæ Jacobi], et eujusdam Joseph. III. Maria Salome, uxor Zebedei, mater Joannis evangelistæ. et Jacobi. IV. Maria Magdalena.” But this extract is evidently a part of a dictionary written by a mediæval. Papias, which still exists in MS. both at Oxford and Cambridge.—P. S.]
Calvin for instance regards the question as one of idle curiosity in Mat_1:25 : “Certe memo unquam hac de re questionem movebit nisi curiosus; nemo vero pertinaciter insistet nisi contentiosus rixator.”
This explanation was brought out first clearly by Wieseler (in the Studien und Kritiken for 1840. p. 648 sqq.), and adopted by Meyer, Lange, and Alford. But the old Syriac version already implied this interpretation by inserting a
êáß
before
Ìáñßá
, and translating: “And there were standing near the cross of Jesus, His mother, and His mother’s sister [Salome], and Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.”
Hegesippus, in Eusebius’ H. E. iii. 11, comp. 4:29, asserts, that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, but it does not appear whether he uses the term brother strictly, or for brother-in-law.
See my book on James, p. 80 sqq. Chrysostom may also be included in this class; at least he clearly separates the brothers of Christ from the apostles, for the reason that they were for a long time unbelievers (Hom. 5 in Matt.).
Eusebius, however, H. E. ii. 1, calls James of Jerusalem a “son of Joseph.”
[In this point Lange differs from the view of the Greek and Latin Churches, which deny every conjugal intercourse as degrading the character of the holy Virgin.—P. S.]
[Comp. the proverbs: “Familiarity breeds contempt;” “Distance lends enchantment to the view;” “Es ist nicht weit her” (It is not far off).—P. S.]
