Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?

There are many instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned.

"While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to
him" (Matt. 12:46).

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3).

"For even his brothers did not believe in him" (John 7:5).

"All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers" (Acts 1:14).

"Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" (1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, the first thing to notice that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a very wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi).

The Old Testament shows that the term "brother" had a very wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers"), as well as kinsman such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or law though not related to you by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (1 Sam. 9:13; 20:32; 2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham's "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Aran, Abraham's brother (Gen. 11:26-28), he was actually Abraham's nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chron. 23:21-22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives, as in the above examples. Sometimes they meant kinsman (Deut. 23:7, Neh. 5:7, Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kings 10:13-14).

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin." speakers of those languages used either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of the sister of my father." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews naturally enough took to using "brother."

When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ's birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, even for true cousins. You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41-51).

Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." The Greek expression implies he is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary's sons, not even when they are called Jesus' "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

There are other passages that indicate that the "brethren" of Jesus were older than He, and therefore not "brothers" in the literal sense, since Jesus was Mary's "firstborn".

But for me, the most telling point was at the crucifixion when, his death immanent, Christ gives care of his mother to John. "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home" (John 19:26-27). Now the Gospels mention four of his "brethren," James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

In His Love,

Lisa Alekna
Monday, August 30, 1999