Open Letter to a Protestant: On the brothers of the Lord

B---,

Since you think the title "brethren of the Lord" refers to the offspring of Joseph and Mary, rather than to his cousins, I thought I would pass on the following three quotes so that you can provide clear refutations of the arguments for the Catholic position as well as lay out arguments for the orthodox Protestant position, taking into account the points raised in the following passages. Since you have merely stated your disbelief (of which I was already aware), rather than formed an argument for your own position or against the Catholic position, I am here providing you with material for your counter-argument. (This is, after all, how debate works: you show the flaws in your opponent's argument and construct a positive case for your own position.) It seems to me that the Catholic interpretation is based on a reading more careful and close than the quick and easy Protestant interpretation, which is based on the immediate impression of the word "brother" rather than the cultural and linguistic context. (Which by the way I assume you are already are familiar with so I have not bothered to include them here.)

The first is taken from this site (again):

A speaker on the "Bible Answer Man" radio program denied Mary's perpetual virginity. He claimed that James, called one of the brothers of the Lord in Matthew 13:55, was one of Mary's "other" sons. He insisted that it was a different James who was the son of Mary the wife of Cleophas--this Mary stood at the foot of the cross.

The New Testament speaks of two men called James who were close followers of the Lord. One is James the Greater, the son of Zebedee (see Matt. 4:21, 10:2, 26:37, Mark 1:19-20, 3:17, 10:35, Luke 5:10, John 21:2). This James and his brother, John, were nicknamed by Jesus Boanerges or "sons of thunder."

The second James, known as the Less because of his short stature, was the son of Mary, the wife of Cleophas (a man whose name is also rendered as Clopas and Alphaeus). He is the one mentioned in Matthew 13:55 (see also Matt. 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13). The problem for those who insist that James the Less was Jesus' literal brother is that both of these Jameses are identified as sons of other men and women, not sons of Mary and Joseph. Some biblical concordances give the impression that there were three different men named James in the New Testament: James, son of Zebedee; James, son of Cleophas; and James, the "brother of the Lord." This distinction is not accurate because the James who is called the "brother of the Lord" in Matthew 13:55 is identified in Matthew 27:56 as the son of Mary, the wife of Cleophas.

The second is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, "Brethren of the Lord," which I recommend reading in full, though I will only quote this part:

It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matt 12:46; Mk 3:31; Lk 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Lk 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matthew 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons?

And the third, from this site:

Evangelical Protestants are quite adamant about Christ being born of a virgin; but they object to the idea that Mary remained a virgin. “He had brothers; it says so in the Bible!” they trumpet triumphantly, whenever the ever-virgin doctrine is proposed.

To begin with, to be completely literal, which every good Evangelical insists on: if they are brothers at all, they are “step-brothers,” because none of them had the same father as Jesus.

Furthermore, there is only one word in Aramaic for male relative. Thus, the same word used for the brothers of the Lord, when rendered in Greek—Adelphos—is used to describe, for example, the familial relationship of Abraham and Lot.[8] Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). I hadn’t known this, and I had always jumped to the same conclusions that all of the anti-Catholic apologists jump to. Now I wasn’t so sure.

Mary is the woman by whom, or, better, through whom and with whom God “fathered” His only begotten Son. This was an immensely striking thought. In any human culture and especially in the Hebrew culture, to speak of “fathering” a child is to speak of a special relationship between father and mother. It is, of course, a spousal relationship. I began to see that calling Mary the Spouse of the Holy Spirit is a most appropriate way to describe her relationship to God.[9] Without it she becomes a sort of surrogate mother whose womb God borrows for nine months, but who, after giving birth is then not treated by the Father as if she were really the Mother of His only Son. I began to see that the Protestant view of Mary fosters precisely this surrogate mother view, which has the effect of diminishing Christ’s humanity. I could see that you need a real mother and a real father to have a real child. Jesus’ humanity and all that it means becomes less real if Mary’s relationship to God is, to put it bluntly, a “one-night stand.” As I pondered these things, the star of Mary’s uniqueness began to radiate more brilliantly in my theological sky.

I meditated on the whole thing from Joseph’s point of view. If I were Joseph and this woman to whom I was betrothed had a baby by the Living God, would I pursue the normal spousal relationship of husband-and-wife once the baby was born? God the Father, who had been, in a sense, “with” Mary (though not sexually). There had been no severing of that “spousal” relationship by death or divorce. It began to be clear: if I were Joseph I would not pursue relations with Mary. She belongs to someone else; as far as conjugal intimacy goes, she is off limits. She is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Taking offense at this idea began to seem the same as taking offense at the Incarnation itself.

In all honesty, the Protestant reading seems irresponsible to me. James and Joseph are the sons of another Mary, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary" (Mt 13:55; 28:1; cf. Mt 27:56). They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression (Cf. Gen 13:8; 14:16; 29:15; etc).

Oh, yeah. The objection against Mary's perpetual virginity from the word "until" in Matt 1:25 is based on a misunderstanding of the temporal sense of the word. In Matt 28.20 Jesus says, "I am with you always, until the end of the age." Does that mean he will not be with us after the end of the age? Obviously not. And 2 Sam 6.23 says, "no son was born to Michol, the daughter of Saul until her dying day." Does that mean she had children after her death? Again, obviously not. I just thought I would say this in case you tried to argue that angle.

Peace, etc.