In Part 1, I started to respond to a discussion on Romanism vs. Biblical Christianity taking place between Rand of a pattern of sound words and Funky Dung of Ales Rarus.

Continuing on…

Jesus’ Brothers And Sisters

Rand wrote:
Romanism - Jesus did not have half-brothers and half-sisters.
Biblical Christianity - Mary and Joseph had sons and daughters after the birth of Christ (Luke 8:20).

Funky Dung’s response:
The Hebrew and Aramaic words for “brother” and “sister” have broader meaning than most modern languages. There are frequent uses of those words to mean “cousin”, “uncle/aunt”, or even the incredibly vague “relative”. There are frequent uses of the imprecise meanings of those words in the Old Testament. I don’t know them off the top of my head. Perhaps one of my readers can help out. You may ask, though, “Since the New Testament was written in Greek, shouldn’t the Greek forms of those words mean precisely what they say?” It is not uncommon for a speaker/writer of a second language to use idiomatic expressions and/or words meanings from his primary language. There are examples of this phenomenon as well, but I must again appeal to my readers for references.

This strikes me as “reading into the text” a meaning which is desired. There are many passages where the Bible mentions Jesus having brothers and sisters. For example:

While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.

(Matt. 12:46, NASB)

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him.

(Mark 6:3, NASB)

After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.

(John 2:12, NASB)

But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

(Gal. 1:19, NASB)

Both accounts of Jesus’ birth also imply that Jesus was not an only child:

and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

(Matt. 1:25, NASB)

I.e., Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born.

And she gave birth to her first-born son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

(Luke 2:7, NASB)

Note that “first-born” is specified. Such a designation is only meaningful if there is also at least a “second-born”.

And finally, from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

αδελφως (adelphos) (from a copulative and delfus, from the same womb; cf. agastoœr) (from Homer down);

1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matt. 1:2; 4:18, and often. That ‘the brethren of Jesus,’ Matt. 12:46,47 (but WH only in marginal reading); 13:55f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19f; John 2:12; 7:3; Acts 1:14; Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N.T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i.e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot’s Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which adelfos like the Hebrew [it looks like ‘ah] denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Gen. 14:16; 1 Sam. 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chr. 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matt. 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of huion proœtotokon, the expression huion monogeneœ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord’s brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Iakoœbos, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word Brother; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N.T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matt. 13:55.)

Jesus’ Hairstyle

Rand wrote:
Romanism - Jesus was a long-haired, bearded, skinny guy.
Biblical Christianity - Jesus knew that it was shameful for a man to have long hair, so he had short hair (1 Corinthians 11:14).

Funky Dung’s response:
Now this is just silly. First century Jewish culture and 21st century American or European culture bear little resemblance to each other. In Jesus’ time, it was not uncommon for men to wear their hair to their shoulders. That was still considered short because women often had hair to their buttocks or lower. Besides, if you’re going anathematize Roman Catholics for depicting Jesus with “long hair”, etc, then you’re going to have to send a whole lot of Protestants packing with them. Granted, I’m not fond of seeing Jesus looking less like a 1st century Jew from Nazareth and more like a Caucasian hippy, but it’s hardly an issue to be damned over.

Simple question for Rand: Why does this matter? (Remember Samson?)

More to come in Part 3…

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2