BROTHERS OF THE LORD, οἱ ἁδελφοἱ τοὑ Κυρἱου . The Lord Jesus Christ was not ashamed (Heb. 2:11) to call all His disciples (Matthew 28:10; John 20:17) and His followers, redeemed by Him, reborn and adopted to God, as His brothers, as well as the apostle. Paul (Rom. 8:29) on the same basis expresses about Him that He is “the firstborn among many brothers.” But in the Gospel and in other New Testament writings, in addition to this spiritually grace-filled brotherhood, the Lord’s brothers in the flesh are also mentioned. The Gospels and other apostolic writings contain the following information about these “brothers of the Lord.” According to the testimony of St. John (2, 12), Lord Jesus Christ, after He performed the first miracle in Cana, on a short time went to Capernaum - with His Mother, brothers and disciples. According to Matt. 13, 54-57 and Mrk. 6:2-4 (cf. Luke 4:16-24), the inhabitants of Nazareth, listening to the teaching of the Lord in their synagogue, said in amazement: “Where does he get such wisdom and strength? Isn't he the son of carpenters? Isn’t his mother called Mary, and his brothers, Jacob and Joses, (according to some, Joseph), and Simon and Judas, and his sisters, aren’t they all among us?” Answering those who were tempted about Him, the Savior said: “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his relatives, and in his own house” (Luke 4:24; John 4:44). The last words hint that the “brothers of the Lord” did not believe in His messianic dignity until now. The same is not directly stated in the following. story told by the first three evangelists: Matt. 12, 46-50; Mrk. 3, 21, 31-35; OK. 8, 19-21. When the scribes from Jerusalem spread the rumor that Jesus Christ had lost his temper and was performing miracles by the power of the prince of demons, His mother and brothers came and wanted to take Him; but to the news of their desire to see Him, He replied: “Who are my mother and brothers? My mother and brothers are those who hear and do the word of God.” The idea of the initial unbelief of the “brothers of the Lord” in the testimony of St. is definitely expressed. John, 7, 2-7, that they insisted that the Lord “reveal Himself to the world,” (v. 4), for (v. 5) “and His brothers did not believe in Him,” and, in contrast to the apostles, still belonged world (cf. John 7:7 with 15:19). On the contrary, after the resurrection and ascension of the Lord, His brothers, according to Acts. 1, 13-14, constantly stayed in the upper room of Zion and spent time in unanimous prayer. As the faith spread and the Church of Christ was established, the brothers of the Lord took a high position in the Church, on a par with the apostles, although they still differed from them: 1 Cor. 9, 5. St. took first place among the brothers and in the Church of Jerusalem. James, brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19; Acts 12:17; 15:4-29; 21:18ff.), supplied by the apostle. Pavel along with App. John and Peter (Gal. 2:9). This James, by all accounts, belongs to the first epistle in the series of “conciliar” epistles (James 1:1); the seventh conciliar epistle - St. Judah - belongs to the “brother of Jacob” (Jude 1) - Judah is also the brother of the Lord.
What kind of relationship with the Lord were the brothers and sisters of the Lord mentioned in the gospel story? As F. W. Farrar observes, entire volumes have been written on this subject; the evidence is so equivalent, the difficulties of each opinion are so obvious, that to insist dogmatically on any positive solution to this question would be contrary to the interests of conscientious research (Life of Jesus Christ, translation from the 30th English edition, Prof. A. P. Lopukhin, p. 61, 681). Agreeing that this question almost does not allow for a positive solution, we will indicate, however, the main directions in resolving it, we will make a comparative assessment of these solutions. Both in the ancient church and in modern times the following three views on this subject were expressed.
I. First of all, let us note the view of Western christian church. Its main exponent in ancient times Blessed Jerome appeared. According to this view, the brothers of the Lord were cousins of the Lord, from the sister of the Mother of God. “We believe,” said the blessed one. Jerome, the brothers of the Lord are not the children of Joseph, but the cousins of the Savior, the children of Mary, the aunt of the Lord, who is also called the mother of Jacob Malago and Josiah, who was the wife of Alphaeus” (Min, Pat. L. 26, 84-85, cf. 23, 205-206). At the same time, blzh. Jerome identified James, the brother of the Lord, with James Alphaeus, the apostle of the 12 (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16). The look of the blzh. Jerome, who was also shared by Augustine, thanks to the authority of these church teachers, became dominant in the Western Church. Later supporters of this view identified not only James, the brother of the Lord, with James Alpheus, but also the brothers of the Lord Simon and Judas - with the apostles of the same name from the 12, Simon the Zealot and Judas, called Lebeus or Thaddeus. In addition to Roman Catholic scholars (for example, Cornelius a-Lapide, Min, Corneli, Bisping) - in the comments on the epistle of St. Jacob, this identification and the mentioned view of Jerome are shared by many Protestant scholars (Baumgarten, Lange, Starke, etc.), as well as Orthodox Russian theologians: Philaret, Metropolitan, Moscow (Church Biblical History, 1857, p. 431), Filaret, Archbishop. Chernigov (Addition to Chernigov. Eparch. Izvest. 1863, 91-93), prot. Theologian (Holy East. New Testament, St. Petersburg 1861, 308), prof. Cheltsov (Historical Church. St. Petersburg, 1861, I, 41, 78), prot. Smaragdov (A Guide to Good Reading and Listening to the Word of God, 1861, 104-105), etc.
II. On the contrary, in the East the prevailing view was that the brothers of the Lord were the children of Joseph the betrothed from his first wife (in the apocryphal gospels called either Estha or Solomiya, from the tribe of Judah). It was shared by: Origen (Min 13, 876-77), St. Epiphanius (Min 42, 311), St. John Chrysostom (Min 57, 58), St. Gregory of Nyssa (Min 46, 647), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Min 69, 352), St. Ambrose of Mediola (Min 16, 315-17), Hilarius of Poitiers (Min 9, 922). The same kind of evidence is found in the apocryphal gospels: pseudo-Matthew, first gospel of James, Gospel. Thomas, in the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior, in the history of Joseph the Woodmaker, etc.; in the apostolic decrees (6, 12, 14); in pseudo-Clementines; from Eusebius of Caesarea (Ts. Histor. 1, 12; 7, 19; 2, 1). In modern times, many Protestant scholars defend this view, for example. Beishlyag, Thirsch, Olshausen and others, from Russian prof. Theologian, Hieromonk George (Yaroshevsky), author of the below-mentioned study on the message of St. Jacob and others
III. In the second half of the 4th century, Eunomius, Helvidius and in general the heretics - anti-Dicomarianites (who denied the ever-virginity of the Mother of God and the need for Her veneration) stated that the brothers of the Lord were in the proper sense the fleshly brothers of Jesus Christ, the children of Mary, the Mother of God, and Joseph, born by her after Jesus Christ - Firstborn, Matthew. 1, 25; OK. 2, 7. In modern times, this view is shared by many Protestant scholars: Keim, Pressanse in his “lives” of Jesus Christ, Kredner, Bleek, Hoffman in the comments on the last. Jacob and many others.
The latter view seeks support for itself in the literal meaning of the Greek word brother - ἁδελφὁς, (according to Hesychius: ἁδελφοἱ - coming from one womb), in the name of Jesus Christ as the firstborn in Luke. 2, 7 (and gave birth - the Virgin Mary - to her son, firstborn, τὁν πρωτὁτοχον), as in the words of Ev. Matthew: “And without knowing her (Joseph the Virgin Mary), until she gave birth to her firstborn son” 1, 25; finally, in the general tone of the Gospel narratives on the subject, which almost always (excepting only John 7:2-7) mention the Lord’s brothers together with His Mother. But all these arguments are not decisive. Greek ἁδελφὁς; similar to the Hebrew אח Oh in biblical usage it often means not a brother in the strict sense, but a relative in general (Gen. 13, 8; 14, 14; 29, 12, 15; 31, 32, 46; Lev. 10, 4; 1 Sam. 23, 21, 22), therefore, it is possible that the “Brothers of the Lord” were, for example, only cousins of the Lord, or His half-brothers, or, finally, stood in a different degree of kinship with the Lord. The Greek πρωτὁτοχος, indeed, expresses the idea of the opposition of the first-born son to the subsequent ones (in this respect it is directly opposite to the meaning of the word μονογενἡς only-begotten); but it itself is not adequate to the Hebrew bekhor (“first-born”), which conveys: the latter does not at all contain the mentioned opposition, but is an absolute designation of any “opening of lies” (see, for example, Ex. 13, 2; 34, 19 ). But if the proof thus rests on the non-existence in Greek. language words corresponding to Hebrew. bekhor, then it is meaningless. In fact, the only son was called the firstborn, bekhor, as can be seen, for example, from the command of Jehovah to dedicate to Him all the firstborn of Israel (see cit. mm. and Num. 8, 16-17), at least one of them and there were no sisters or brothers (cf. Ex. 12:29). The conclusion drawn from the words of Ev has no force either. Matthew: without knowing, dondezhe (ἑως οὑ)... The expression dondezhe (Hebrew hell-ki), as used in the Bible, means an indefinite duration of time or state and is equivalent to the expression: never; eg Isa. 46, 4: I am, and until you grow old, I am. Life 28, 15: I am not left to you, until I create everything with me, great verbs (cf. also Gen. 8, 7; Deut. 34, 6; 1 Sam. 15, 35); ps. 109, 3: sit at My right hand, until I will put down your enemies... From these examples it is clear that this expression in many cases does not mean such a limit or moment after which an action that did not previously take place came into force; that in the case under consideration, it does not at all state that γιγνὡσχειν took place after the event of the birth of the Savior. And the fact that the brothers of the Lord in the gospel history appear for the most part together with the Mother of the Lord does not at all mean that they were Her children, and not stepsons, etc. - especially since the Mother of God is nowhere called their mother, which is natural would be expected, in view of the noted circumstances, as long as this assumption were correct. On the contrary, it would be completely incomprehensible - if they were Her sons - why the Lord entrusted His Mother on the cross (John 19: 26-27) to John the Theologian, and not to one of the “brothers” - the supposed sons of the Mother of God, whose care is in In this case, it would be their first duty. The Son of the Virgin Mary in the New Testament is only the Lord Jesus Christ and, in contrast to His brothers, He is directly called the “Son of Mary”, Mark. 6, 3. The very image of the Savior’s expression on the cross - in addressing His beloved disciple - shows precisely that He was the only son of the Virgin Mary: “behold your son,” in which expression the member would not have existed if there had been other people besides Jesus Christ other sons of Mary, mother of God. - In addition to this, a circumstance unfavorable for the view under consideration, the church’s faith in the ever-virginity of the Mother of God directly and decisively speaks against it (meanwhile, all the reasons given by ancient heretics and modern rationalists in favor of this view, in essence, stem from prejudice against ἁειπαρθενἱα and tendentious denial the miraculousness of the fact of the birth of Jesus Christ), as well as the moral Christian feeling, which will never reconcile with the idea that the Blessed Virgin, having become the Mother of the Lord, had children from Joseph. This was also impossible on the part of Joseph - already because at the time of his betrothal to Mary he was eighty years old (as evidenced by church tradition recorded by St. John of Damascus in the word for the Nativity of Christ), and also because of his reverence for the mystery of the incarnation , into which he was initiated, and the supernatural events at and after the birth of Jesus Christ, which he witnessed. Church teachers, not without reason, saw a foreshadowing of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God in the words of the prophet Ezekiel about the closed gates of the temple, Ezek. 44, 2 (Amvr. in Min 16, 319-320). On the contrary, references (for example, Kremer, Major) to ps. 49, 20; 68:9 as proof that the brothers of Christ were the sons of His Mother. Finally, the behavior of the Lord's brothers is exactly the kind of guardianship that they wanted to have over Him at the beginning of His ministry, Mark. 3:21, and even before the end of It, John. 7, 2 ff - shows that they were the elder brothers of the Lord, meanwhile, according to this view, the eldest of the brothers (“firstborn”) was the Lord.
Based on everything that has been said, this view should be rejected, although the fact that the brothers of the Lord almost always act together with the Mother of God and live with Her finds its explanation with it.
This fact cannot be explained from the point of view of the theory of blzh. Jerome and others of his supporters. In fact, if the brothers of the Lord were the sons of Mary Cleopas, the wife of Cleopas-Alpheus and the sister of the Mother of God, then it is not clear why her own children are never mentioned in connection with her, but always together with the Mother of God, while Mary Cleopas was one of the Lord's constant companions. Cited to explain this, the conjecture about the early death of Mary-Cleopas' husband is arbitrary and hardly compatible with the story of Luke. 24 about the appearance of the risen Lord to two Emmaus travelers, of whom one was Κλεὁπας, v. 18, (it is possible, however, that this is the name of another person, and not Mary’s husband, who was called Κλωπἁς, John 19:25).
Regardless, this theory is based on the trace. three equally dubious assumptions: 1) that Mary of Cleopas, John 19:25, was the sister of the Mother of God; 2) that, since she was the Matter of Jacob Malago and Josiah (Matt. 27, 56; Mark 15, 40), then Jacob Malago is one person with Jacob, the brother of the Lord, James Alphaeus - the apostle of the 12, and equally and Simon and Judas, two other brothers of the Lord, were identical with the apostles of these names from among the 12; 3) that Cleopas, Κλωπἁς; or (?) Κλεὁπας one person with Alpheus, "Αλφαἱος, father of James, apostle of the 12 (Matt. 10, 3; Mark 3, 18; 6, 15). 1) Against the first of these provisions it can hardly to say the seeming improbability of two living sisters being called by the same name of Mary, since the custom of giving the same names in a family, with the limited number of names in use, was as widespread among ancient and modern Jews as among the ancient Romans (for example, of the four daughters of Octavia, the sister of Augustus, two were called Marcellus, and two Antonia). , the words “His Mother’s sister, Mary of Cleopas” are the name of the same woman, in Peshito it stands: “His mother’s sister” and “Mary of Cleopas”, i.e. the mentioned words designate two different women And based on parallels to this place. : Matthew 27, 56 and Mark 15, 40, it seems that this is exactly what is said in all three of these places, except for the Mother of God; the mother of Jacob (malago τοὑ μιχροἱ, Mrk.) and Josiah (among the weather forecasters), admittedly, is identical with Mary of Cleopas (among John); The third woman in Matthew is called the mother of the sons of Zebedee, in Mark - Salome, in John - the sister of the Mother of God; but the first two designations are undoubtedly identical, one might think that the parallel expression is evang. Joanna - “sister of His Mother” is only a vague designation of the same Salome, the mother of the evangelist himself. Such a vague way of designating one’s mother would be quite similar to the same way the Evangelist John used to designate himself: “disciple, his beloved Jesus,” “another disciple.” In this case, Salome’s request to the Lord to grant Her sons an approximate position in His kingdom would be very understandable (Matthew 20:20-23); it would be especially clear why the Lord entrusted His Mother to her. John, who was not only the closest spiritually beloved disciple of the Lord, but, perhaps, also His relative in the flesh, - cousin Him, nephew of the Virgin Mary. Tradition recorded by Nicephorus, Church. Histor. II, 3 indeed states this. 2) As for the second assumption or basis of this theory - that the names of the brothers of the Lord are identical with the names of at least three of the 12 apostles (James, Judas, Simon) and the (alleged) four sons of Alpheus - then identification, first of all, it is unlikely because all these names were very common among Jews (the New Testament mentions five or six Jude, the same number of Jacobs, nine Simons; Josephus has 20 Simons, 17 Josiah, 16 Jude). Obviously, the same name different persons, in view of this, does not prove their identity. It is unfounded, in particular, to assert the theory that Judas, the brother of the Lord, is "Ιοὑδας "Ιαχὡβου OK. 6, 15; Acts 1, 13, and it is assumed that this last Judas is the brother of James, the brother of the Lord (Jude 1) - James Alpheus. More natural, on the contrary, it translates: son (υἱος) of Jacob ( unknown to history) and consider Judas, the brother of the Lord, to be a different person from the Apostle Jude from the 12 (Luke 6:15; D. 1:13: John 14:22). It is equally, if not more, unfounded to erase from the gospel or apostolic history James, the brother of the Lord, as a person different from James Alpheus (ap. of the 12) - the primate and pillar of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15. Gal. 2:19), whom tradition represents only as an apostle out of 70 (see, for example, Cheti-Min., under January 4, October 23); the relegation of Jacob from the 12 to the 70 by tradition would be absolutely incomprehensible if this tradition had no historical basis. In general, the Greek-Eastern Orthodox Church has always distinguished and distinguishes the brothers of the Lord from the 12 apostles of the same name (in the Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and Slavic monthlies there are special days for celebrating the memory of the first and last). Passing over the philological basis of the identity of Cleopas with Alpheus among the newest supporters of the theory, as too unnatural, we note that the attempt to identify James, the brother of the Lord, with Jacob Alpheus on the basis of Gal. 1:19, since the “other” here refers not to James, but to Peter, v. 18, so in the words of Gal. 1:19 James, the brother of the Lord, is not counted among the 12 apostles, but rather is opposed to them.
Contrary to these imaginary identifications of “brothers” and apostles, in many places in the New Testament they are directly and sharply different from the latter, opposed to them, for example. Acts 1, 14; 1 Cor. 9, 5; Of particular importance is the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ in the quoted words of Mark. 3, 31-35 (and parallels) contrasts His disciples, who believe in Him, with brothers as unbelievers, as well as the positive testimony of St. John (7:5), that the brothers of the Lord did not believe in Him. It’s remarkable that, like Ev. Mark's words of the Lord immediately follow the mention of the election of the 12 apostles, and so do St. John makes this remark after mentioning the already formed circle of 12 apostles (John 6:70-71). If the circle of 12 apostles had already been formed, and the “brothers” still remained unbelievers, then clearly not one of them could belong to the number of 12 apostles. Explanations of the unbelief of the brothers in a relative sense - incomplete faith (in Farrar, Lange, etc.), as well as in the sense of the unbelief of some only brothers and sisters of the Lord - are clearly artificial and do not in the least shake this position.
As a result, despite the authoritative testimony of the blj. Jerome in favor of this view, it cannot be accepted by us (it should be noted that Jerome himself did not adhere to this view with stability, and sometimes distinguished, for example, James, the brother of the Lord, from the 12 apostles, see Christ. Read . 1841, part 3, pp. 91-92), as inconsistent with the New Testament data on the subject and with the evidence of tradition and the month. Orthodox Church, where the brothers of the Lord are revered and glorified as special persons, different from the 12 apostles, who had their own special lot and suffered special exploits and labors of serving the Word of the Gospel and the establishment of the Church of Christ (cf. Archimandrite, now Archbishop, Sergius, Complete Months of the East, t . II. M. 1876, pp. 3, 108, 163, 281, and S. Bulgakov, Months and Triodion of the Orthodox Church I 1895, pp. 6-7, issue III, 151-152, etc. .
All the more important of the mentioned difficulties are avoided by the view of Eastern church teachers, according to which the “brothers of the Lord” were the children of Joseph from his first marriage (A peculiar modification of this view is based on the testimony of Hegesippus that Joseph the Betrothed and Cleopas, the husband of Mary, were brothers , the assumption that after the early death of Cleopas, Joseph, according to the law of cohabitation, entered into a levirate marriage with his widow and had from her four sons and several daughters, who, by virtue of the said law, bore the name of the deceased Cleopas, but together were considered the sons of Joseph - by adoption; on the same basis, they were called “brothers” of the Lord. But in the gospel history this assumption has no support; on the contrary, in view of the fact that, after the famous incident with the twelve-year-old Jesus, Joseph is no longer mentioned, some believe that. Joseph died shortly thereafter, and his family moved to live in the family home of Cleopas). With this view, it is clear why the “brothers” always surround the Mother of God, and why, however, Jesus Christ on the cross entrusted Her not to them, but to the Apostle John: they formed one family with the Mother of God, but during the life of Jesus Christ, their lack of faith in His messianic dignity removed them , alienated them from the Lord and His Mother; the obscurity of all of them in the gospel history before the death of the Lord and their subsequent transformation into men of apostolic zeal for Christ and the rapid rise in the church of one of them - Jacob; It is clear together how they differ from the 12 apostles and their relationship to the latter. Therefore, this view, which, moreover, finds indisputable confirmation in the tradition of the Orthodox Church, should be considered the most justified, although, as was noted, it does not eliminate all the difficulties in the question of who the brothers of the Lord were (such, for example, a difficulty with this view is the circumstance , that St. Luke in Acts 12, speaking about the murder of Jacob of Zebedee, v. 2, further, v. 17, and in ch. Chapters 1-2, refers specifically to James, the brother of the Lord. Meanwhile, until chapter 12 of the book of the Acts of the Apostles, St. Luke named only one famous James - the apostle of the 12, James Alpheus, Acts 1, 13. would be, of course, in Acts 12, 15 and 21. - It is possible, however, that this difficulty has a more formal exegetical meaning and character. , for St. Luke had no need to designate Jacob, the brother of the Lord, who remained in Jerusalem in Jerusalem, who, of course, became very famous not only in the Jerusalem church, but also in many areas of the diaspora (this fame is evidenced by the Council Epistle belonging to him), by special additions to his own name. In any case, the position and meaning of James in the book of Acts (chap. 12, 15, 21) completely coincides with the position and meaning of James, the brother of the Lord, according to the Apostle Paul and the church teachers who held the view we accept).
Literature. On the question of the brothers of the Lord in general, in addition to the mentioned essay by Wieseler, one can name: Ign. Dimme, Fuerit ne Jacobus frater Domini apostolus, 1839; Schaff, Das Verhaltniss des Jacob. Brud. d. Herrn zu Jac. Alph.., 1842 , etc.; Russian: Prof. M. I. Bogoslovsky, “Orthodox Sobesedn.”, 1886, part III. about the brothers of the Lord. These are: Cornel, a Lap., Commentar. in Acta Apostolica, canonicas epistolas, et Apocalyps, 1617, Scr. Compl., t. 25. 1842. Credner, Einleitin dos N. T. ., Th., 1, 1836;
D. Brief des Jacobus. 1854; Bisping, Erklarung der Sieben katholischen Briefe, 13.8, 1871. Lange Bibelwerk des N. T., Th. 13: D. Brief. des Jacobus. 1866. Schegg, Jacobus der Bruder d. Herrn und sein Brief, 1883, etc. In Russian literature: Farrara, The First Days of Christianity, trans. prof. A. P. Lopukhina, 1888, book. 4. Then, in addition to the translation of the interpretative works of St. Chrysostom and blessed Theophylact, original: Bp. Alexei (Tomsk), Some features from the life of St. James, brother of God, “Read. in General Love. spirit. enlightenment", 1876, II; 1877, I; his, Introduction to the Council. Message of St. Jacob, ibid., 1877. I; him, Tolkov, personal. last Jacob, ibid., 1878, I, II. D. P. Bogolepova, Cathedral. last, up. Jacob, ibid., 1872, I; N. A. Voskresensky, Teachings of St. Apostle James on the relationship between faith and goodness. affairs, in the same place, 1883, I; Ep. Michael, the Intelligent Apostle, book. 2: Council Epistles, 1890; Priest I. Kibalchich, St. James, Brother of the Lord, 1882; N. Teodorovich, Tolkov, on the conciliar. last St. ap. Jacob. 1897, Articles in “Sunday. Thu." (vol. I, III, V, X), interpretations by F. Mochulsky, Metropolitan. Gabriel and Archimandrite Nikanora. The crown of all Russian works on the Epistle of St. ap. James is: “Conciliar Epistle of St. Apostle. Jacob" (An experience of isagogical-critical research), Hieromonk George (Yaroshevsky), Kyiv 1900, - remarkable especially for the exemplary exegesis of the message.
* Alexander Alexandrovich Glagolev,
Master of Theology, Associate Professor
Kyiv Theological Academy.
Text source: Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. Volume 2, page 1113. Petrograd publication. Supplement to the spiritual magazine "Strannik" for 1901.
The Holy Gospel repeatedly tells us about the brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus Christ. According to the customs of the eastern peoples of that time, brothers were called not only siblings, but also cousins, second cousins, and generally close relatives.
The Lord had no siblings, for the Most Holy Virgin Mary, in her early youth, within the walls of the Jerusalem Temple, gave to God
Celibacy. Saint Joseph was only Her betrothed - the guardian of Her virginity.
The Orthodox Church calls the Mother of God the Ever-Virgin. Being a Virgin before the Nativity of Christ, she remained so in the Nativity and after the Nativity of the Divine Child. And this is the great mystery of God.
The symbol of the Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God is depicted on all Her icons. These are three stars decorating the maforium - the cloak that covers the shoulders and head of the Most Pure One.
According to Holy Tradition, brothers and sisters in the flesh could be brought to the Lord by cousins and second cousins only through the line of His Most Pure Mother.
By His eternal birth from God the Father, Jesus Christ was the true Son of God, and by His carnal birth from the Virgin Mary, the true Son of Man. Two natures - Divine and human - were unfused and inseparable in Christ.
The Gospel does not explain how His brothers were related to Jesus. Although we know their names: Jacob, Josiah, Simon, Judah. If they really were relatives of Jesus Christ in the flesh, then they could only be His second cousins. Since their mother, Mary of Cleopas, according to the testimony of St. John the Theologian, was cousin Blessed Virgin Mary. My own sister Our Lady did not. She was the only and long-awaited Daughter of Joachim and Anna.
There is another tradition in the Church. According to him, the brothers of the Lord are the children of Joseph from his first and actual marriage, which took place long before Joseph’s betrothal to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Tradition tells that righteous Joseph had a wife, Salome, and six children: four sons - Jacob, Simon, Judah, Josiah - and two daughters - Esther (read: Esther) and Tomar.
After the death of his wife, Joseph lived for a long time as a widow and spent his days in purity. His blameless life was testified in the Gospel.
God honored Joseph with high honor and high service: the Most Pure Virgin Mary was betrothed to him. And he served Her and the Lord Jesus Christ, born of Her, with great reverence. When the Savior reached adulthood and had already begun His public ministry, He came preaching the Kingdom of Heaven to the Galilean city of Nazareth, where he was raised. In the Nazareth synagogue, Christ announced the fulfillment of the times and His Divine dignity.
As the Gospel tells, all who listened to the Savior "" (Luke 4:22). And yet people did not believe Christ and said: “ “ (Mark 6:2,3).
The hearts of the arrogant people of Nazareth were turned to stone. They did not recognize in Jesus Christ the true Messiah - the Savior of the world. The hard-hearted Nazarenes expected another Messiah - a great king and liberator of the Jews from Roman rule.
Even Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him at first. But the love of God conquered their unbelief and made them followers of the teachings of Christ.
One of them - James, the brother of the Lord - became an apostle and the first bishop of the Jerusalem Church. During his thirty years of episcopal service, the Apostle James converted many Jews to Christianity and suffered martyrdom for his preaching.
The Holy Church honors him as the first author of the order of the Divine Liturgy. The Epistle written by the Apostle James is part of the Holy Books of the New Testament.
The Bible says that Jesus' mother was a virgin at the time of birth, and therefore there is no question about His real parents: Jesus was the son of a mortal mother and a Divine Father. However, nowhere is it said that she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. She was already engaged when she learned that she had been chosen as the mother of the Savior, and Joseph learned that he was to become the child's guardian.
Although some Christians claim that Jesus' siblings were Joseph's children from a previous marriage, the Scriptures prove otherwise, as Jesus is called the only begotten Son of the Father, but the firstborn of Mary. This definitely means that Mary had other children after Jesus, but God was no longer their father.
Matthew 13 says a little about Jesus' brothers and sisters:
55 Is not this the son of carpenters? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers Jacob and Joses and Simon and Judas?
56 And are not His sisters all among us? where did He get all this from?
57 And they were offended because of Him. Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.
Of course, we know that Joseph was only the adoptive and not the biological father of Jesus, but the above verses refer to four brothers and sisters in the plural. Verse 57 also hints that all was not well in Jesus' house. Jesus mentions that a prophet has no honor in his house, implying that at least His brothers did not recognize His divinity. John 7:5 says this directly: “For even His brothers did not believe on Him.”
This is confirmed by the fact that, while dying, Jesus appointed an Apostle to take care of His mother. If His brothers had been present and supported His mission, they would have been the ones who would have taken care of Mary.
Fortunately, after the resurrection of the Savior, His brothers repented and became what we now call Christians. James achieved an important position in the Church after seeing his resurrected brother, and became the author of one of the books in the New Testament: “Then he appeared to James, and also to all the apostles” (1 Corinthians 15:7).
Perhaps James, the brother of Jesus, took the place of another Apostle, also James, who was the brother of John and was killed by Herod Agrippa. We know that Jesus' brother became an Apostle because of Paul's letter to the Galatians: “But I saw no other apostle, except James the brother of the Lord” (Galatians 1:19).
His brother Jude also wrote a letter that is included in the Bible and calls himself the brother of Jesus: “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, the brother of James, to those who are called, who have been sanctified by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:1).
Researcher Gerald N. Land adds: “The New Testament says nothing about Simon and Josiah, but an ancient record preserved for us by the early church historian Eusebius says that Simon subsequently became bishop of the church in Jerusalem and was eventually crucified during Roman persecution under the Emperor Trajan."
Sources:
Carlfred B. Broderick, “The Brothers of Jesus: Loving an Unbelieving Relative,” Liahona, March 1987, 50
Robert J. Matthews, “Mary and Joseph,” Liahona, December 1974, 13
In November 2002, the world was shocked by one of the largest archaeological finds in the history of Christianity, which was directly related to Christ. I'm talking about a 2,000-year-old crypt where an urn containing bones rested. On the urn there was an inscription: Aramaic: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
If this were so, humanity would have received the first physical evidence of the existence of Christ. If this crypt and urn were not real, then humanity would be faced with the greatest fake in history.
Behind the discovery or “discovery” of a crypt with bones lies an even greater theological problem - did Jesus Christ have brothers? This issue has long divided Catholics and Protestants.
For Catholics, Mary, Joseph and Jesus are a family, as they say, in itself. Catholic theology considers Jesus the Son of God, born of the immaculate virgin Mary, who gave birth to no one after that. So who are these “brothers” that are mentioned in the Gospel of Mark? The Rev. James Martin, author of Jesus and His Journey, calls the relationship between Jesus and James "very complex." Martin writes: “He, of course, quite clearly called Jesus a brother from God. Well, the Greeks use a completely ordinary word for the word “brother”.
Catholics believe in the permanent virginity of Mary. Therefore, Marinus suggests that Jacob and Joseph's other children were from his marriage to Mary. After all, he was much older than her. "So Jesus may have had brothers on his father's side in some sense of the word," Martin concludes. Other Catholic scholars consider Jesus and James to be cousins. This idea originated in the 4th century. When Saint Jeremiah was translating the Bible into Latin, he entered into a controversy with the theologian Helvedius, who believed that Mary and Joseph had other children. Jeremiah believed that the children were born from Mary of Clopas, Jesus' aunt. Jeremiah said that the Greek word adelphios, applied to the brothers and sisters of Christ, could mean both cousins and twins in Greek.
Protestants, however, view the family of Christ as devoid of any ambiguity. They consider it quite possible that Mary and Joseph had several children. Ashbury Theological Seminary professor of biblical interpretation Ben Witherington holds the view that Jesus and James were blood brothers. Both by father and mother, and Jesus was the elder brother. Witherington writes: “The New Bible says nothing about Mary being continually blameless. In this state, she conceived and gave birth to Jesus alone. And this naturally allows that she could have other children after Christ. Therefore, those whom we call the brothers and sisters of Jesus must be considered as such.”
Jesus leaves his family and wanders around Galilee and Judea, has his own church and followers. He entrusts Jacob's other brothers and sisters, as well as the entire family, Witherington said. But for some Protestants, the fact that Jesus left his family is somewhat incomprehensible. Being the eldest son, he was obliged to shoulder the care of his loved ones after Joseph's death.
Who took the place of Christ in the family? Jacob. Whether he was the brother, half-brother, or cousin of Jesus, he became a very important figure in this Christian community due to his connections with Christ.
James led the Christian movement in Jerusalem until he was executed around 64 AD. Dying, like Jesus, he forgave his killers.
And now let's climb into the famous crypt again. What did people find there - truth or fake?
Two questions about the book of Genesis:
- Why does the Bible tell the origin of man twice: once in the sixth [Gen. 1:23-29], and the second time - the seventh day of creation [Gen. 2:2-8] and [Gen. 2:15-24]?
- Why is the creation/creation of man different on the sixth and seventh days of creation?
Vladimir
Priest Mikhail Samokhin
Hello, Vladimir!
Some researchers believe that during the time of Ezra, when editing the books of the Old Testament, two stories about the creation of man were combined: a shorter one and a more detailed one explaining it.
***
God created Adam and Eve, the first people. They had children, Cain and Abel, then Cain killed his brother. As punishment, Cain was prescribed “exile and eternal wandering on the earth” (“and Cain went from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife”).
Where did his wife come from?
Tatiana
Hello Tatiana!
The Bible says, “Adam begat sons and daughters” (Gen. 5:4-5).
Adam lived 930 years. Bible scholars claim that if Cain had lived as long as his father and married at the age of three hundred, he would have had 100,000 brides from which to choose a wife.
Of course, it could easily have happened that Cain's bride would have been his sister, niece or cousin. In those days when the human race was not yet so overwhelmed by sin, close kinship did not pose a threat of degeneration, which was later prevented by the law of Moses.
Sincerely, Archpriest Mikhail Samokhin
***
Why are most commandments given by God through denial? After all, it would seem simpler and clearer to use “save life” instead of “don’t steal,” “live honestly,” and so on.
Sergey
Hello, Sergey!
What you mean was supplemented by Jesus Christ in the New Testament, in the Sermon on the Mount, in particular. This is a great height, the bar here is greatly raised compared to the Old Testament, where all these commandments come from. But for most people, in order to grow to more, it is first more accessible and understandable to restrict themselves through the denial of something undue and undesirable (by the way, this is exactly how children are raised from the very beginning, and many adults have not yet outgrown the Old Testament).
All 10 commandments essentially boil down to the following: do not do to others what you do not want to do to yourself. Jesus says differently: “In everything, whatever you want people to do to you, do so to them” (Matthew 7:12).
***
The book of Numbers (14:18) says: “The Lord punishes the children for the sins of the fathers, and punishes the grandchildren and great-grandchildren.” The book of the prophet Ezekiel (18:20) says: “The soul that sins, it will die, the son will not bear the guilt of the father, and the father will not bear the guilt of the son, the righteousness of the righteous remains with him, and the iniquity of the wicked remains with him.”
Don't these two statements contradict each other? If yes, which one is true?
Maria
Priest Philip Parfenov
Dear Maria!
Of course, the second statement is true. God is love, in the light of the Christian revelation, and He does not wish harm to anyone, but desires salvation for everyone.
Another thing is that some defects in their health or bad predispositions or inclinations can be passed on to their children as an inheritance. These are known things at the genetic level. They were observed in ancient times, and then they were explained by the “punishment” of God or a curse. The Christian view cannot be satisfied with such an explanation, but in this case it rather calls for parents to be held accountable for their own life, which, if mired in sins, can have a detrimental effect on their children (we are all connected to each other in one way or another, and even more so parents with children).
Sincerely, priest Philip Parfenov
***
In the Gospel of Mark (chapter 3) we read: “And His mother and His brothers came and, standing outside the house, sent to Him to call Him. The people were sitting around Him. And they said to Him: Behold, Your mother and Your brothers and Your sisters are outside the house asking You.” Of course, I know the continuation (“... whoever does the will of God is My brother, and sister, and mother”), but still I am concerned with the question: could our Lord Jesus Christ really have had brothers and sisters? And further, in chapter 6: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Josiah, Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here, between us? And they were offended because of Him.”
Explain, please!
Catherine
Archpriest Alexander Ilyashenko
Hello, Ekaterina!
The Jews called brothers not only siblings, but also cousins, second cousins, and distant relatives. The brothers of Christ mentioned in the Gospel were not His own brothers - these are the children of the righteous Joseph from his first marriage, and the children of Mary of Cleopas, whom the Evangelist John the Theologian calls the sister of the Virgin Mary, are also called His brothers (John 19:25).
***
What was Jesus Christ's profession? I know that He was a carpenter, but the Holy Scriptures only say that He was the son of a carpenter: “Is not this the son of carpenters? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers Jacob and Joses and Simon and Judas?” (Matthew 13:55). How then did they know that Jesus was a carpenter, since this was not stated directly?
Daria
Hello, Daria!
The question of Christ's profession has different assumptions. The famous theologian Archbishop Averky (Taushev) wrote that the Greek word “tekton”, used in the Gospel, can be translated not only as “carpenter”, but also as “builder” or “mason”.
Priest Antony Skrynnikov
Be that as it may, it must be said that in those days children most often continued the work of their parents, and if Saint Joseph was a carpenter (in the Russian version), then it is logical to assume that Christ was trained in this craft from childhood.
Sincerely, priest Antony Skrynnikov
***
What is the reason for the negative assessment of the betrayal of Christ into the hands of Pilate, incriminated against the Jews, carried out through the betrayal of Judas? After all, if Judas had not betrayed Jesus to the high priests, if He had not died on the cross for his sins, the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah would not have come true (Ps. 21, Is. 53, etc.), and the Divine project for the salvation of mankind would not have been realized. Jesus would have died as a very old man somewhere in the province of Galilee, revered as a prophet (as the apostles recognized him (Luke 24:19)), and there would have been no Christianity.
Shouldn't we, according to the logic of thinking, be grateful to the Jews and Judas personally? Sorry if it sounds a little blasphemous, but that’s how it turns out.
Svetlana
Hello Svetlana!
Firstly, history does not know the subjunctive mood - “if” this and that had not happened, could something else have happened, etc. We proceed from what happened, and not what could have happened under different assumed options (and you can multiply all sorts of additional assumptions ad infinitum, you understand).
Secondly, God’s providence most often manifests itself in such a way in the history of people that, allowing some kind of evil, He later turns it to good consequences. Evil does not cease to be evil in itself; people who commit it sin and bear their share of responsibility for sins, but God is in the end ready to forgive everyone and save everyone...
A clear biblical story depicting one such situation is the fate of righteous Joseph, the son of the patriarch Jacob. Joseph had eleven brothers, they disliked him and envied him for his beauty and other abilities. One day they conspired to kill him and tell his father that his brother had been torn to pieces by animals. At the last moment they did not kill him, but sold him into slavery. Joseph ended up in Egypt, soon rose in rank, then was slandered, imprisoned, then acquitted, and eventually became the second person in the country after Pharaoh.
In his homeland one day there was a famine due to a crop failure, and in Egypt there were grain reserves. Jacob's family moved from the land of Canaan to Egypt to escape starvation. There they meet Joseph, their brother, who ultimately saves the entire family. The brothers were naturally afraid that he would take revenge on them for the past, but Joseph assures: “Do not be afraid, for I fear God; Behold, you intended evil against me, but the Lord turned it into good to do what is now: to save the lives of a great number of people...” (Genesis 50:20).
Joseph is one of the brightest prototypes of Christ in the Old Testament (he is even remembered at the service of Holy Week, on Holy Monday). To what extent did Judas or Pilate themselves understand what they were doing, or were they unique instruments of Providence, like Joseph’s brothers, and nothing more? This is a different question, and there may be different points of view. The actions they committed cannot be approved in any way, this is obvious.
Judge for yourself: is it necessary for each of us to do evil in order for good to come out?.. It is unlikely that you will answer this question positively. God is constantly correcting the situation behind us, repairing everything around us. But if people lived in a greater degree of kindness and love, then God would need, accordingly, less radical ways to correct the situation and intervene in it! There is a not unfounded opinion, which was expressed by some holy fathers, that God would have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen away through Adam and Eve. It’s just that then the history of people would be completely different! However, this is again from the “if only…” series.
Sincerely, priest Philip Parfenov
***
“Paul, fixing his gaze on the Sanhedrin, said: Men and brethren! I have lived with all my good conscience before God until this day. The high priest Ananias ordered those standing in front of him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him: God will beat you, you whitewashed wall! you sit to judge according to the law, and, contrary to the law, you order me to be beaten. Those present said: Do you revile the high priest of God? Paul said: I did not know, brethren, that he was a high priest; for it is written: Thou shalt not curse the ruler of thy people” (Acts 23:1-5).
Question: what should Paul have done if he knew who was before him? Suffer blows to the lips and respond at the same time? How could he answer?
Dmitriy
Hello Dmitry!
The Apostle Paul, being in the Sanhedrin, might not have recognized the high priest. Having found out, he himself said that he should have acted a little more softly. First of all, because the apostle had a missionary goal. And insulting the eldest and most respected person in the congregation would contribute very poorly to missionary work. Therefore, the apostle apologized, citing Holy Scripture.
Sincerely, Archpriest Mikhail Samokhin
***
Why do clergy and theologians say that you cannot interpret Scripture yourself? But what about Christ’s phrase: “For, I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”? To surpass something, you need to thoroughly know and understand this subject.
Yes, and at the Judgment of God we will answer one by one, each for his own thoughts and words, and not with the interpreters of the Holy Scriptures. Is it possible to answer God: “So and so saint said this”?
Alexei
Hello, Alexey!
Let me ask you a counter question: is it possible to answer God at the trial: “So what? And that’s what I think!” The interpretation of Holy Scripture is also a scientific work, it is a study. Before you start researching, you need to at least familiarize yourself with what other people have done in the same direction. These are the kind of people Orthodox theologians are. These are professionals in their field.
Moreover, misinterpretation of Scripture is sometimes a sin. Remember the temptation of Christ in the desert by the devil.
Sincerely, priest Nikolai Guleyko
***
Isn’t it from the Bible the phrase: “There is no pity for him who knows no pity”?
Svetlana
Hello Svetlana!
In the New Testament there is a phrase: “Judgment without mercy to those who have shown no mercy,” but this refers only to the Judgment of God awaiting us, and not to our attitude towards the people around us. In relation to others, we must be guided by the words of the Savior: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Sincerely, Archpriest Alexander Ilyashenko
