by Bobby L. Graham
Were the brothers of Jesus, mentioned in Matthew, 12:47 His natural brothers or His cousins?
When Jesus was addressing the crowd, as recorded in Matthew 12:46-50, someone told Him that His mother and brothers were outside trying to speak to Him. He then stated the principle that His spiritual family consisted of those willing to do the will of the Father in heaven. The question arises about the identity of the brothers mentioned here.
Their identity was not questioned in ancient times, because the human doctrines concerning the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary had not yet been formulated. When Mary is allowed to bear children after Jesus was born, according to the Scriptures, then it is not necessary to "cover-up" her children and claim they were cousins. "It was only in ages after men had invented religious doctrines incompatible with the obvious truth of Matthew's words, that ingenious interpretations were devised to relieve the embarrassment," says Burton Coffman in commenting on this verse.
When Jesus suffered rejection by His peers in His boyhood hometown of Nazareth, His detractors, who were most surely qualified to know of whom they spoke in matters of the family, then also mentioned His brothers—James, Joses, Simon, and Judas in Matthew 13:55. In commenting on this verse, Adam Clarke wisely says, "Why should the children of another family be brought in here to share a reproach which it is evident was designed for Joseph the carpenter, Mary his wife, Jesus their son, and their other children?" (Clarke, Vol. 5, 152)." It does seem in this instance, as in many others, the inventors of religious fables and myths have crafted a solution that does not solve anything by inserting the brothers of a sister of Mary named Mary, wife of Cleophas. Even if her sons had similar names to those of Jesus' brothers, the natural, obvious, necessary, and simple meaning of "brothers" in this context is circumvented by this unnatural explanation.
Another line of reasoning which we consider, also supporting the natural meaning of "brothers," is the contextual connection to "mother." The verse mentions "mother" and "brothers," and Mark 6:3 also mentions "sisters" in a parallel account. Yes, it is true that "brother" does sometimes refer to relatives in a broader sense, like cousins; however, it is highly unlikely that cousins were here intended, because others in Jesus' immediate family were included. If the real mother of Jesus was meant and the real sisters also, then it would be incredible for the writer to change from one meaning to another in the same account when mentioning "brothers." Birth mother, real sisters, but something-other-than-real brothers? Never. It defies both reason and logic!
Clarke, Adam. Clarke's Commentary. New York: Abingdon Cokesbury Press. No Date.
Coffman, Burton. Burton Coffman Commentary on the Whole Bible. StudyLight.org. http://classic.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=013.
Author Bio: Bobby actively participates in fill-in preaching, Belize trips, teaching an hour each day at Athens Bible School, and in gospel meeting work. He and his wife, Karen, have three children. He can be reached at bobbylgraham@pclnet.
