Jesus' Brothers and Sisters

INTRODUCTION

As we have seen, the long ‘silence’ between Our Lord’s infancy and His manhood is interrupted only by His visit to Jerusalem and His appearance before the Temple teachers at the age of twelve (see Lk. 2: 41ff). On returning to Nazareth, Luke tells us that Jesus was ‘subject’ to His ‘parents’ and that He matured intellectually and physically (see vs. 51-2). Beside Mary and Joseph, ‘relatives and acquaintances’ (v. 44) would have met Jesus. Although the information is meagre, it is nonetheless useful and important.

In case we are tempted to think that Jesus had a lonely childhood, the evidence indicates the presence of other children in the family circle. At a later period after the beginning of His ministry, they—at least the boys (!)—are even named. Teaching in the synagogue during a return visit to Nazareth, astonished and offended listeners said, “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?” (Mk. 6: 3). Since Joseph is not mentioned, he was possibly dead by now. Probably trained by Joseph, Jesus ‘the carpenter’ possibly ran the family business with His brothers after their father’s death.

MARY'S MARRIAGE AND MOTHERHOOD

More importantly, Mark’s evidence suggests that those mentioned were Jesus’ half brothers and sisters. In other words, after His own miraculous birth, Joseph and Mary— as husband and wife—had other children in a normal, natural way. Matthew’s account of Christ’s birth surely indicates this: ‘Joseph … took to him [Mary] his wife, and did not know her [in a marital sense] till she had brought forth her first born son’ (Matt. 1: 24-5; for ‘know’, see also Gen. 4: 1). While the use of ‘till’ does not necessarily imply that a previously non-occurring event took place afterwards (see Gen. 28: 15; 1 Sam. 15: 35; Ps. 110: 1; Ps. 112: 8; Matt. 12: 20), the reference to ‘brothers and sisters’ of Jesus makes it difficult to deny in this case. This view is strengthened by the fact that Matthew calls Jesus Mary’s ‘first born son’. This seems to imply that other children followed.

EARLY CHURCH CONTROVERSY

Such a view has not commanded general agreement. The identity of these ‘brothers and sisters’ was hotly debated among the early Church Fathers of the 3^rd and 4^th centuries. First, some—including Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius—argued that they were children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Thus they had no blood-relationship with Jesus. Second, Jerome and Augustine (of Hippo) argued that these ‘brothers and sisters’ were really ‘cousins’. Third, Helvidius – taking a more natural view of the evidence - taught that they were true siblings of Jesus.

In reply to the first view, there is simply no evidence for it in any of the Gospels. In reply to the second view, the Greek words translated as ‘cousin’ (anepsios, see Col. 4: 10, NKJV and sungenis, see Lk. 1: 36, AV) are not used of the ‘brothers’ of Jesus. In Mark 6: 3, Jesus is called their ‘brother’ (Gk: adelphos). Two other significant statements confirm this. First, when Jesus was teaching on a previous occasion, Mary and His brothers (and possibly His sisters) sought His attention. We read: “Look, your mother and brothers (Gk: adelphoi) are outside seeking you” (Mk. 3: 31-2). Second, when relating the attitude of Jesus’ brothers to His claims, John states that ‘even his brothers (Gk: adelphoi) did not believe in him’ (Jn. 7: 5).

NATURAL BROTHERHOOD

It is often claimed that ‘brother’ may be used in a broader sense than a sibling. This is quite true. The Israelites were to regard one another as ‘brethren’ (Heb: achim; see Gen. 14: 12, 14; Num. 32: 6), a fact confirmed in the New Testament (see Acts 13: 26). Furthermore, fellow Christians—irrespective of family or ethnic grouping—viewed one another as ‘brethren in Christ’ (see Col. 1: 2). However, these are derivative and metaphorical uses of ‘brother’ (Heb: ach; Gk: adelphos). Obviously, the very first and thus source example of the word in Genesis 4: 2 can only mean ‘brother of the same womb’. As we have seen, if ‘brother’ is used in a wider sense of ‘relatives’ or ‘kindred’, moledeth (Hb) and sungenis (Gk) rather than ach and adelphos are the words used.

It is also said that if Mary had other sons beside Jesus, Our dying Lord would not have placed His mother in the care of the Apostle John (see Jn. 19: 27). In view of the fact that—at that time—‘his brothers did not believe in him’ (Jn. 7: 5), Jesus clearly wished believing John rather than unbelieving brothers to care for her. What became of his ‘sisters’ we simply do not know. They were probably married and busy caring for their children in Nazareth or elsewhere by then.

SPIRITUAL BROTHERHOOD

Happily, ‘his brothers’ were eventually converted. They were members of the early Church together with Mary (see Acts 1: 14). The Apostle Paul supplies us with two important details about one of them. First, he tells us that the risen Lord Jesus ‘was seen by James’ (1 Cor. 15: 7). Second, Paul refers to him as ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ (Gal. 1: 19). Since Jewish Christians were ‘brothers of Christ’ in both ethnic and spiritual senses, Paul must mean that James was a ‘blood (half) brother’ as well.

Furthermore, of all Our Lord’s ‘brothers’, the career of James in the New Testament is important. After the Apostle John’s brother James was martyred by Herod (see Acts 12: 2), James - probably ‘the Lord’s brother rather than the Apostle James ‘the son of Alphaeus’ (Mk. 3: 18) - was a leader of the Jerusalem church (see Acts 15: 13). He was also the likely author of the Epistle of James. Instead of describing himself as an apostle, the author calls himself ‘a servant’ (literally ‘a slave’ from Gk: doulos). (James ‘the son of Alphaeus’ would have followed apostolic usage in his introduction had he been the author.)

 

 LESSONS LEARNED

First, unless there is something basically sinful about marriage, there is no reason to imagine that Joseph and Mary simply lived as brother and sister after the birth of Jesus. God’s gift of marriage was also available to them (see Heb. 13: 4). Apart from being the mother of the unique Son of God, Mary was also an example of motherhood in being the mother of Joseph’s sons and daughters. This is her lasting legacy to the Church, not as a ‘Mediatrix’ or ‘Queen of Heaven’ but as a dear sister in Christ. Although he and Luther seemed reluctant to question the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity, John Calvin rightly corrects the unbiblical errors of Rome’s view of Mary:

How necessary this warning became, in consequence of the gross and abominable superstitions which followed later, is known well enough. For Mary has been made Queen of Heaven, the Hope, the Life and Salvation of the world; and in fact, their insane raving went so far that they just stripped Christ and adorned her with the spoils. And when we condemn those accursed blasphemies against the Son of God, the Papists call us malicious and envious. Nay, they spread the wicked slander that we are deadly foes to the honour of the holy virgin. As if she had not all the honour that belongs to her without being made a goddess! As if it were honouring her to adorn her with sacrilegious titles and put her in Christ’s place! It is they who do Mary a cruel injury when they snatch from God what belongs to Him that they may deform her with false praises (Comment on John 2).

Second, just as physical descent from believing parents does not – of itself – make us Christians, even being a half brother to Christ did not convey spiritual life and privileges. Just as Mary trusted Christ for salvation (see Lk. 1: 47), so her other children were only Christians by faith in Him. Even James boasted no other relationship with Jesus than that enjoyed by all other believers (see Jas. 2: 1). Since Jesus is the ‘elder brother’ of all who believe (see Heb. 2: 17), may we rejoice in this precious saving spiritual relationship with Him. Irrespective of any other privileges or disadvantages, all may share this ‘belonging’ in the family of God. Amen!

 Supplied by Rev. Dr Alan C. Clifford, Norwich Reformed Church

What Is Lloyd-Jones Doing Today?

An interesting question!  He prayed for an abundant entry into the Kingdom of God.  As a child of God, he is now in the nearer presence of his Saviour whom he preached with such power and conviction. He is worshipping and adoring the Lord Jesus Christ, looking on His immaculate beauty.  Do I hear him talking to Paul and Moses and Jeremiah?  Do I see him prostrate before the Throne of the Ineffable?  Can I hear him singing hymns of praise in that melodious Welsh male voice?  Is he enjoying himself today?  Yes.  And he is enjoying himself primarily because he is enjoying being in the nearer presence of Christ. 

Do I see him having fellowship with John Calvin and Martin Luther?  He now moves over to where George Whitefield is, and with him the Wesley brothers, John and Charles.  Beside them is Richard Baxter and Daniel Rowland.  What a wonderful company of saints.  And look, over there is John Owen now discussing with Richard Baxter, each humbled by his respective theological inaccuracies, limitations and spiritual coldness.

Jonathan Edwards comes over to DMLJ, and they start talking about Christ's glory in man's dependence on His grace for eternal salvation.  Samuel Rutherford joins in as he speaks about the sheer loveliness of Christ his Redeemer.  Philip Doddridge appears and sings joyfully in praise of his great Saviour.  Oh, what would one not give to be there with such spiritual giants!  Howell Harris and Christmas Evans and Evan Roberts are mixing with the glorified spirits in heaven, and DMLJ makes his way over towards them.  Even in heaven Welshness does not seem to be eradicated.

Do I hear Cum Rhondda striking up?  Yes, and Martyn is in the front row of the singers, singing his holy heart out in praise of God for His great salvation.  They sing heartily and enjoy holy fellowship with each other, and with Christ.

Then there are numerous Christians there in that great company which no man can number and whose names we do not know; but they are all well known to God.  He has given them the same abundant and warm welcome that the great received.  And for the first time ever, they are indisputably and in reality "all one in Christ Jesus."

Oh, come, let us adore Him!

True Calvinism Challenged

I am convinced of definite atonement for the salvation of the elect, but with Murray, Macleod, DMLJ, et al, I hold that Christ in His death did something for the non-elect.  So I would describe myself as a full 5-pointer and I can only do that by holding to the efficiency of Christ's death for the elect/sufficiency for the whole world paradigm; Owen et al are but 4.5 point theologians.  With Calvin and DMLJ et al, and to be truly reformed and biblical, we must hold to the biblical balance without any negative interference from the influences of medieval scholasticism such as that promoted by Aristotle, and embraced by Owen.  

I find it amazing that Owen could say he would give up all his great learning if only he could preach like Bunyan.  Perhaps that's why there are so many ineffective preachers in today's dead churches - many, nay, most prefer Owen to Bunyan, the scholastic theologian to the Gospel preacher!  It is sad that Banner chose Owen rather than Baxter as it epitomising personality.  And LTS chose the name of Owen for it theological research centre rather than a well-known evangelistic preacher such as Whitefield.  And that is not to disparage much of Owen's works.

The Westminster standards are but subordinate standards, and Geoff Thomas confirmed to me that the 1689 Baptist confession is but subordinate to Scripture, alluding to the real possibility of abuse by reformed ministers who make it the touchstone of orthodoxy.  I have no major problem with the WCF so far as it goes; my big concern is that it does not go as far as Scripture goes.  The clogging influence of Aristotelian logic as promoted by Owen is seen in this otherwise excellent historical theological document.  Prof. John Barclay used to describe it as the "queen of confessions," and the "most mature" of all the confessions written post-reformation; yet in his prayers and teaching, and, with Calvin, referred to Christ as the 'Saviour of the world.'  This used to enrage me - until I started to read Calvin for myself.  Second-hand religion has not served me well over the years.

Why are there so many chameleon-type ministers in the church today?  All the churches have them - I know from experience. I am reminded of Paul's face to face encounter with Peter (Gal.2:11) where so many ministers today are what they are depending upon the company they are in.  They are to be blamed for not being true to their convictions.  We used to ridicule ministers who, when going to preach on supply, used the announcements to determine which sermon they would preach - if there was a prayer meeting, they'd use the Gospel sermon; if not, then another, which is no Gospel.  Sadly, we have not shed that way of working.  

Let us be concerned that we do not follow that destructive pathway.  It is all too easy to fall into that Satanic trap, and he can trip us up so easily. 

I share annoyance at those who misrepresent the views of other good men who have made their mark on the Christian church throughout history.  Their cold and lifeless orthodoxy is not reformed, whatever else they may call it.  And if it is not truly reformed, it cannot be biblical.  Calvin's theology has been distorted to a serious degree, as has DMLJ's.  Such misrepresentation "in the house of his friends" is deplorable.  There is a predisposition to squeeze everything into a particular theological mould, a great danger of systematic theology, but a danger that can be diverted by a careful reading of the Scriptures, a sound biblical theology, and a steady reading of God's greatest Gospel preachers in history.  . As J C Ryle so wisely said, 'men can be more systematic in their theology than the Bible.'

For further information on DMLJ, please visit here.

"Reformed" Ministers Resent LLoyd-Jones Soteriology

I always find it amazing that so many 'reformed men' read and benefit from the Doctor, yet do not want those who hold the same views to preach for them.  Of course, they would not want Calvin to preach in their pulpits either.  Do such men have blinkers on their eyes when they read the Doctor's evangelistic sermons, or are they living in some kind of fool's paradise?  Give me the man who is true over the man whom pretends to be one thing but is altogether something different, any day. 

Lloyd-Jones self-defined as an evangelist, the very thing many of these men are not.  They wrongly imagine that if they can preach and get very few, if any, conversions, they are somehow faithful to the Gospel.  According to DMLJ, they are not.  They are not evangelicals - the very name says otherwise; they are not Calvinists; and they are certainly not reformed.

Where have these false ideas come from?  Who has been feeding these ministers on a theological diet of evangelical liberalism (see how even language fails me in describing these men)?  Their theological professors?  Some thinking evangelicals seem to think so.  Is it because they approach the Scriptures with a predisposition that precludes allowing Scripture to speak out its own saving message?  Where has this filter come from?  Who has blinded their eyes so that they do not see the truth? 

I think I know why Owenism is the preferred filter: it's because the WCF is Owenite rather than Calvinistic, or biblical.  I believe that Owenism is the greatest contributor to liberalism in the churches and more so than the German theologians.  One just has to look at generations of PCI ministers who all signed the WCF, claiming that this is what they believed.  The ministers I had in my home congregation were all WCF men, but there was no Gospel preached by most of them.  Look at the elders within PCI who have destroyed many good men, and were backed by the denomination.  Some of them have not even read the WCF, yet claim the right to rule in the congregation.

I can remember the minister of the Nazarene church I attended near Leeds, and who was brought up in a Scottish Presbyterian manse, saying to me that WCF religion stultifies Gospel preaching and evangelism.  I disagreed with him then, but on reflection, I think he was correct in his assessment.  I am not in any way advocating Arminianism, but what I am saying is that we must get back to authentic Calvinism if we are to see the theological fogs lift and the glorious Gospel of Christ being heralded across the country.

Yet far too many men are more concerned about maintaining their current ministerial position than challenge the status quo.  It is refreshing to hear that some men are prepared to do that, and these are probably the men who are more spiritually aware than are others and seek to do something about it.  I agree that we must do the right thing, but the right thing is not always what any particular denomination says it is. I think it was Maurice Roberts who said he preferred a living Arminian church to a dead Calvinist one (whatever a 'dead' Calvinist church actually is).  I agree with Roberts' point.  Was St Peter's in Geneva a 'dead' reformed church?  Hardly.  Just read Calvin's evangelistic sermons to see and feel the force of truth on the conscience. 

I also think that denominational leaders know how dangerous it is for ministers to do their own thinking, so they have used the devil's invention of multiplying committees, and then putting those most vulnerable to critical thought on these committees to keep them from developing their theological convictions - especially if their convictions just might challenge the "accepted wisdom" received by tradition from the fathers.

Any comments?

Lloyd-Jones Anniversary 1st March

1st March marks the day on which Rev. Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) entered heaven.  His legacy to the Christ church is inestimable.  On Saturday, a conference will be held in Larne, Co Antrim, NI, to mark this event.  Speakers will include Rev. Dr Geoff. Thomas and Rev. J. J. Murray.

You might also want to read my book on the Doctor which you can purchase at this website.  Make sure you get your copy and read how one minister found DMLJ, and the influence he had on his life and ministry. 

Church and Gospel Failure

That the Gospel is needed more than anything else in Northern Ireland has been demonstrated again with the launch of a report into the extent and depth of division that still remains in our society.  The division is along religious lines - Protestant vs. Catholic.  Sectarianism is still alive and well in Ulster. 

What is the reason for this?  There is the fundamental issue of human responsibility for our behaviour.  But there is also the responsibility of the Church to preach the Gospel faithfully and passionately.  There is the responsibility upon the Church to engage in vigorous evangelism.

But what has been done instead?  The church has continued with her ecumenical activities and at the same time has failed to evangelise those in their catchment areas.  The Gospel which is God's power for the salvation of everyone who believes has been withheld for perishing sinners. 

Indeed, the entire ecumenical enterprise engaged in by the Community Relations Council has been an abysmal failure, an enterprise that shares the backing of the main churches. 

There must be a wholehearted return to the passionate preaching of the Gospel by all the Christian churches in Northern Ireland.  Our country needs to feel the power of the Gospel in a new way, a way that will bring about radically changed lives.  Inventing new ways of dealing with the problems of sectarianism that ignores the Gospel are doomed to fail.  Any new approach must be Gospel based and its realistic teaching put in place. 

The LLoyd-Jones 31st Anniversary

1st March will be the 31st anniversary of the arrival of Dr David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) in glory.  This eminent servant of Christ lived for and served the Lord while in this world and glorified Him in his ministry.

I had the privilege of hearing him preach in the flesh at a midweek service in Leeds while studying there, and what an honour it was.  To hear the greatest preacher in 20th century Britain was something I will never forget.

For forty-plus years I have been a student of DMLJ and have benefited greatly from his books.  I have prepared a personal appreciation of the Doctor which has now been made available to the wider reading public.  You can get your copy of the book at this link.

In addition to the personal appreciation, I have appended a section which runs to about half the book, detailing DMLJ's understanding of the Gospel.  For many, DMLJ was viewed as an Owenite, as a preacher who held to Westminster theology.  Nothing could be further from the truth, however.

You will discover things about DMLJ's theology, or soteriology, that will surprise you.  In fact, what you will discover about DMLJ's soteriology is that it is authentically Calvinistic.  He preaches the same Gospel as did John Calvin.  Calvin's ministry was so blessed by God that many were savingly converted to Christ and the city of Geneva and St Peter's church thoroughly reformed according to the Word of God.  DMLJ saw many sinners converted to Christ over many years of faithful ministry.  Both these ministers are reminiscent of Richard Baxter of Kidderminster who evangelistic labours saw that entire town transformed by the grace of God. 

In stark contrast stands the ministry of Anglican-turned-congregationalist, Dr John Owen.  He is not now to have had any conversions during his long ministry.  To some people, lack of conversions is a mark of a faithful ministry.  How wrong can a person be!  DMLJ's preaching exhibited a biblical balance that is nit just admirable but to be copied by every Gospel preacher in the church. 

The book demonstrates clearly, and in the Doctor's own words, what it was he preached - and it was a message that God honoured. 

As the 31st anniversary of his death approaches, why not get your copy of this book and read, in his own words, the Gospel he declared for six decades.