Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
55. the carpenter’s son ] “Is not this the carpenter?” (Mark). As every Jew was taught a trade there would be no improbability in the carpenter’s son becoming a scribe. But it was known that Jesus had not had the ordinary education of a scribe.
his brethren ] Probably the sons of Joseph and Mary. It is certain that no other view would ever have been propounded except for the assumption that the blessed Virgin remained ever-virgin.
Two theories have been mooted in support of this assumption. (1) The “brethren of the Lord” were His cousins, being sons of Cleophas (or Alphus), and Mary, a sister of the Virgin Mary. (2) They were sons of Joseph by a former marriage.
Neither of these theories derives any support from the direct words of Scripture, and some facts tend to disprove either. The second theory is the least open to objection on the ground of language, and of the facts of the gospel.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Is not this the carpenters son? – Mark says, Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary? Both these expressions would probably be used in the course of the conversation, and Matthew has recorded one and Mark the other. The expression recorded by Mark is a strong, perhaps decisive proof that he had himself worked at the business until he was 30 years of age. The people in the neighborhood would understand well the nature of his early employments. It is therefore almost certain that this had been his manner of life. A useful employment is always honorable. Idleness is the parent of mischief. Our Saviour, therefore, spent the greatest part of his life in honest, useful industry. Until the age of 30 he did not choose to enter on his great work; and it was proper before that time that he should set an example to the world of honorable though humble industry. Life is not wasted in such employments. They are appointed as the lot of man; and in the faithful discharge of duties in the relations of life, though obscure; in honest industry, however humble; in patient labor, if connected with a life of religion, we may be sure that God will approve our conduct. It was, moreover, the custom of the Jews – even those of wealth and learning – to train all their children to some trade or manual occupation. Thus Paul was a tent-maker. Compare Act 18:3.
This was, on the part of the Saviour, an example of great condescension and humility. It staggers the faith of many that the Son of God should labour in an occupation so obscure and lowly. The infidel sneers at the idea that He that made the worlds should live thirty years in humble life as a poor and unknown mechanic. Yet the same infidel will loudly praise Peter the Great of Russia because he laid aside his imperial dignity and entered the British service as a ship-carpenter, that he might learn the art of building a navy. Was the purpose of Peter of more importance than that of the Son of God? If Peter, the heir to the throne of the Czars, might leave his elevated rank and descend to a humble employment, and secure by it the applause of the world, why might not the King of kings evince a similar character for an infinitely higher object?
His brethren, James … – The fair interpretation of this passage is, that these were the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary. The people in the neighborhood thought so, and spoke of them as such.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mat 13:55
Is not this the carpenters son?
The Divine rejected in the common
Thus the spiritual gem was dishonoured because of its earthly setting, and Christ was rejected on account of that which should have secured His acceptance. A small amount of thought would have sufficed to say, Out of the soil of our common life has arisen a plant, of uncommon flower and fruit, without any special training. What cannot be explained by ordinary laws must be sought for in the extraordinary, and that which He could not have derived from men must have been given Him by God! There were probably many feelings expressed in the words.
1. Perhaps there was envy. Theft did not like to think that one of themselves should be so much above them.
2. There was a prejudice against Christ because of the worldly circumstances of His family. Poverty has always been a sore hindrance to acceptance.
3. There was certainly a feeling in the Jews against Christ from the absence of any apparent means of His attaining uncommon eminence. Whence hath this man.
4. A stronger feeling against Christ arose in their minds from the commonness and familiarity of His associations. The effect of His teaching was lost through the nearness of His lower life. Had He come from far, had He been shrouded in mystery, then they might have received His claims. They had not spirituality enough to counteract the suggestions and influences of His carnal relations. Men are still backward to recognize the Divine in connection with the common; earthly genealogy disproves the heavenly descent. Illustrations of this fact:
I. The first shall be taken from Christ himself. Christ is God manifest in the flesh: we have felt that the great God might have chosen some other and higher mode of display; have clothed Himself with light.
II. The same may be said of Christianity. None can fail to recognize the thoroughly human character of the records of the New Testament. It has been objected that they are common and insignificant, that they mention trifling matters. Men want a more stately book-but then it had lost its charm. The human is Divine.
III. A third illustration we will take from the operation in nature. We are prevented from recognizing the Divine power by the commonness of daily operations.
IV. A fourth illustration is taken from divine providence. Men seem only to recognize the Divine working in extraordinary events.
V. The last illustration is taken from our common life. There is a great craving for extraordinary positions; had we more splendid conditions how we could display the energy of our faith. All life is Divine. The Divine man makes the Divine life; seek to detect the spiritual and Divine everywhere. (A. J. Morris.)
The carpenters son
When the Emperor Julian was about to wage war against the Persians and had threatened, when the war should be over, bitterly to persecute the Christians, insolently mocking the carpenters son as one quite unable to succour them, Didymas, an ecclesiastic, pronounced this sentence upon him: This carpenters son is even now making a wooden coffin for Julian! The Emperor went into the battle, and was suddenly struck in the breast with an arrow. He pulled it out, and, finding the wound inflicted by it to be deadly, he cursed the Lord; then, taking some of the blood from the wound, he threw it up into the air, exclaiming, Thou hast conquered, O Galilean. The son of the, carpenter:-Christ was, indeed, the son of a workman; but of Him who made the frame of the universe, not by a hammer, but by His command; who disposed the composition of the elements, not by skill, but by His Word; who kindled the sun, not by earthly fire, but by His supreme heat; who made all things out of nothing, and made them, O man, for thee-that thou mightest reflect on the Artificer by considering His work, (Crysologus.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 55. Is not this the carpenter’s son?] Seven copies of the old Itala have, Is not this the son of JOSEPH the carpenter? But it is likely our Lord, during the thirty years of his abode at Nazareth, wrought at the same trade with Joseph; and perhaps this is what is intended, Lu 2:51. He went down with them (his parents) to Nazareth, and was SUBJECT unto them. An honest trade is no discredit to any man. He who spends his time in idleness is fit for any business in which the devil chooses to employ him.
Is not his mother – Mary, and his brethren, James, c.] This insulting question seems to intimate that our Lord’s family was a very obscure one and that they were of small repute among their neighbours, except for their piety.
It is possible that brethren and sisters may mean here near relations, as the words are used among the Hebrews in this latitude of meaning; but I confess it does not appear to me likely. 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? Prejudice apart, would not any person of plain common sense suppose, from this account, that these were the children of Joseph and Mary, and the brothers and sisters of our Lord, according to the flesh? It seems odd that this should be doubted; but, through an unaccountable prejudice, Papists and Protestants are determined to maintain as a doctrine, that on which the Scriptures are totally silent, viz. the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord. See Mt 1:25.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark saith the same, Mar 6:3; only he saith, Is not this the carpenter? ; which leadeth some to think that Christ, till he was thirty years of age, wrought with Joseph upon his trade. Luk 2:51, it is said, that he came to Nazareth, and was subject to his parents. Joseph was an artificer, that was certain; so signifies; but whether a carpenter, or a smith, the word will not inform us. For the brethren of Christ and his sisters, here mentioned, the most by them understand his near relations. The Jews were offended at the meanness of our Saviours parents and relations.
They were offended in him; that is, these things made them stumble at him, and not receive him as the Messias, or a prophet sent from God. How unreasonable is malice and prejudice! One would have thought that their knowledge of his friends and education should have rather led them to have concluded that he must be sent from God, and more than a man, seeing that he did not come by this wisdom by any ordinary means, nor work these great works by any human power.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
55. Is not this the carpenter’sson?In Mark (Mr 6:3) thequestion is, “Is not this the carpenter?” In alllikelihood, our Lord, during His stay under the roof of His earthlyparents, wrought along with His legal father.
is not his mother calledMary?“Do we not know all about His parentage? Has He notgrown up in the midst of us? Are not all His relatives our owntownsfolk? Whence, then, such wisdom and such miracles?” Theseparticulars of our Lord’s human history constitute the mostvaluable testimony, first, to His true and real humanityfor theyprove that during all His first thirty years His townsmen haddiscovered nothing about Him different from other men; secondly, tothe divine character of His missionfor these Nazarenes proclaimboth the unparalleled character of His teaching and the reality andglory of His miracles, as transcending human ability; and thirdly, toHis wonderful humility and self-denialin that when He was such asthey now saw Him to be, He yet never gave any indications of it forthirty years, because “His hour was not yet come.”
And his brethren, James, andJoses, and Simon, and Judas?
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Is not this the carpenter’s son?…. Meaning Joseph, who was by trade a carpenter, and whose son Jesus was supposed to be; and who very probably was now dead, which may be the reason he is not mentioned by name. The Greek word here used, signifies any mechanic, or artificer. The Syriac expresses it by a word, which signifies both a carpenter and a blacksmith; and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel renders it, , “the blacksmith’s son”. But the generally received notion of the ancient Christians is, that he was a carpenter, and that Jesus was brought up to the same business, which lay in making ploughs and yokes q. This also appears, from the answer the Christian schoolmaster at Antioch gave to Libanius the sophister; who being big with expectation of Julian the apostate’s getting the victory, asked the schoolmaster, what he thought the carpenter’s son was doing? To which, after a short pause, he replied; O sophister! the Creator of all things, whom thou callest the carpenter’s son, is making a coffin for Julian; who accordingly died in a few days after r. The Jews make mention of one Abba Joseph, , “the builder”, or carpenter s; but whether the same, is not certain. What they here say, was no doubt by way of derision and contempt; and yet the same phrase is used by them of a person of great note and fame, for his wisdom and knowledge: thus speaking of a difficult point, they t say,
“rgn rb alw rgn tyl, “no carpenter”, or smith, or a carpenter’s son, can solve this: says R. Shesheth, I am neither a carpenter, nor a carpenter’s son, and I can solve it.”
The gloss upon it is,
“a wise man, the son of a wise man.”
Is not his mother called Mary? Plain Mary, without any other title, or civil respect; a poor spinstress, that got her bread by her hand labour: the Jews say u, she was a plaiter of women’s hair, and treat her with the utmost scorn.
And his brethren; not strictly so, but either the sons of Joseph by a former wife; or Mary’s, or Joseph’s brothers or sisters sons, and so cousins to Christ; it being usual with the Jews to call such, and even more distant relations, brethren:
James; the son of Alphaeus, or Cleophas, one of Christ’s disciples,
Mt 10:3 called the Lord’s brother, Gal 1:19 and the same that wrote the epistle that bears his name:
and Joses; or Joseph, as the Vulgate Latin, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel read; and which two names are one and the same: hence, in Talmudic writings, we often read of R. Jose, who is the same with R. Joseph w: this Joses is, by Dr. Lightfoot, conjectured to be the same with Joseph, called Barsabas, who was put in nomination for apostleship, after the death of Judas, Ac 1:23
And Simon; or Symeon, the son of Cleophas, who is said x to succeed James, as bishop of Jerusalem, and to be Christ’s cousin, being son of Cleophas, the brother of Joseph, the supposed father of Christ:
and Judas; the same that is called Lebbaeus, and Thaddaeus,
Mt 10:3 and the brother of James, Lu 6:16 and the same that wrote the epistle that goes by his name. The Jews ought not to have made these remarks, since many of their great doctors were of mean parentage; as R. Zachariah was a butcher’s son y, and R. Jochanan a blacksmith’s son z; hence that advice of R. Juda ben Bethira a,
“take heed that ye do not reproach the sons of the common people, for from them comes forth the law.”
q Justin Martyr. Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 316. r Tripartit. Hist. 1. 6. c. 44. s Shemoth Rabba, sect. 13. fol. 99. 2. t T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 50. 2. u T. Bab. Sabbat. fol. 104. 2. Chagiga, fol. 4. 2. Sanhedrim, fol. 67. 1. w Vid. Juchasin, fol. 61. & 62. x Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 1. 3. c. 11. y Misn. Sota, c. 5. sect. 1. z T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 96. 1. a Ib.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” (ouch houtos estin to tou tektonos huios) “Is not this the heir-son of the carpenter?” the building technician or contractor’s son, a title by which He was frequently called, Joh 6-42; 7:41,48,52; Mr 6:3.
2) “Is not his mother called Mary?” (ouch he meter autou legetai Mariam) “Is not his mother called Mary, by name?” Mr 6:3. This indicates that His family members were well known by names, as follows:
3) “And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” (kai hoi adelphoi autou lakobos kai loseph kai Simon kai loudas;) “And the fraternal brothers of him called James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” Mr 6:3. Here four brothers of Jesus are named, younger brothers, born to Mary and Joseph, after the Virgin birth of Jesus. As recounted Mat 1:18-25. It is therefore an error of fact to claim that Mary remained a virgin, had no more children after the birth of Jesus, and was bodily assumed into heaven, avoiding natural death, as it is taught in the myth of the “assumption” of the virgin Mary into heaven.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
55. Is not this the carpenter’s son? It was, we are aware, by the wonderful purpose of God, that Christ remained in private life till he was thirty years of age. Most improperly and unjustly, therefore, were the inhabitants of Nazareth offended on this account; for they ought rather to have received him with reverence, as one who had suddenly come down from heaven. They see God working in Christ, and intentionally turn away their eyes from this sight, to behold Joseph, and Mary, and all his relatives; thus interposing a veil to shut out the clearest light. The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned. (347)
(347) Jerome replied to Helvidius in a work entitled, Contra Helvidium de Beatoe Marioe Virginitate CAVIN has formerly alluded to the controversy between these two authors, (Harmony, vol. 1. p. 107.) — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(55) Is not this the carpenters son?In St. Mark, the question appears in the form, Is not this the carpenter? and it is, of course, in the nature of things probable that He both helped in the workshop during Josephs life, and assisted the brethren to carry on the work after his death. Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 88) relates that in his time articles said to have been made by Him, such as rakes and harrows, were in demand as relics. The apocryphal Gospel of the Infancy, after its manner, makes Him instruct Joseph when he was bungling at his work.
And his brethren.See Note on Mat. 12:46.
Joses.The authority of MSS. is in favour of the reading, Joseph. It was, of course, probable that the name of the father should be borne by one of those who were in some sense his children. Joses. however, was probably but a softened form of the same name.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
55. Is not this the carpenter’s son? Most conclusive question! It is probable that many of them had seen our Saviour, in his youth, labouring at the occupation of his father. Thus had he honoured and sanctified the labourer’s calling, and shown that the secular duties rightly performed are a true service and acceptable to God. And if Christianity shows our Saviour as a carpenter, and his apostles as fishermen, how ought they to be ashamed of their mean pride who scorn the useful avocations of the labourer! Well would it be for society if there were less of extravagance and effeminate pride, and if Christians would adopt the maxim of the ancient Jews, that every man, however high his rank or intellectual his profession, should learn the mastery of some manual trade.
And his brethren In regard to the brothers of our Lord, and the supposed perpetual virginity of the blessed mother, we may make the following remarks:
1 . The supposed perpetuity is contradicted by the obvious, though not the necessary meaning of Mat 1:25. See note on the passage. 2. It is plain that while there were three if not four cousins of our Lord in the number of his disciples, his brothers remained at Nazareth, not even believing upon him. 3. When his mother and brothers came from Nazareth, (Mat 12:46-50) probably to induce him to retire from his ministry, his brothers and his cousins must have belonged to different parties. 4. Alford says that the phrase “brethren of the Lord” occurs ten times in the New Testament, and they are never called cousins. It is incredible, therefore, that they should have been other than literal brothers. 5. This presumption is increased by the fact that these brothers are mentioned in connection and in company with his sisters and his mother, all of whom collectively are called his “house” or family. If the mother was a literal mother, the sisters must have been literal sisters, and the brethren literal brothers. 6. Our Lord speaks of his house or family as a place wherein, as a prophet, he has no honour. But if this house consisted of cousins, and three or four of these cousins were his own disciples, who in addition to his mother believed upon him, how was he unhonoured in his own house?
Against this mass of reasoning there are two counter-arguments which admit of easy replies: 1. It appears that the cousins of Jesus, the sons of Mary, sister of the blessed mother, were named James, Joses, and Jude. It appears also that the brothers of Jesus were also named James, Joses, Jude, and Simon. Hence it is inferred that they were the same, and that the so-called brothers were only cousins. But we reply, although it may be singular that three or four couples of cousins should bear the same names, it was by no means improbable. It is quite credible that two sisters, themselves of the same name, should purposely give correspondent names to three of their children. 2 . The second counter-argument is derived from the fact that our Lord committed the keeping of his mother not to these brethren, but to the apostle John. How could he thus prefer an unrelated friend above a brother? For the same reason, we reply, that he could choose disciples from strangers rather than from his own house. He did not choose his beloved disciple from among his cousins who were his disciples. His brothers of his own house did not believe, did not honour him. He dealt in sharp words with them. Joh 7:7. They were not found among his believers until after the resurrection. It cannot be wonderful then that these brethren should be set aside in comparison with the beloved disciple.
Upon the whole, we think it a clear case that the brethren of our Lord, so-called, were not cousins, but literal half brothers. The idea, therefore, that Mary was at once a wife and a nun, is an ecclesiastical tradition unsupported by Scripture, and is the offspring of the false notion of the superior sanctity of celibacy.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
a “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?”
There was no doubt about the strength of the evidence against His claimed status. He was the son of the local carpenter, and therefore Himself a carpenter. They knew His mother and that she was called Mary, and that there was nothing special about her. They knew the names of each of His brothers, and had seen them playing in the streets, and generally getting up to mischief. They even knew His sisters, who now still lived among them, probably now married, although it was not worth mentioning their names, possibly because being married they were no longer seen as ‘close family’. Thus they knew His place in society. How then could He be special? And how could He possibly have a genuine religious understanding of any outstanding nature? He was simply an artisan. (There is absolutely no reason for doubting here that Mary was the mother of them all, Jesus, the brothers, and the sisters).
‘Is not this the carpenter’s son?’ Matthew is here contrasting unbelief with belief. Unbelievers see Him as ‘the son of the carpenter’, Pharisees see Him as in league with the Devil (Mat 9:34; Mat 12:24), some who are possessed or blind and seek healing see Him as ‘the son of David’ (Mat 9:27; Mat 12:23; Mat 15:22; Mat 20:30), but His believing disciples see Him as ‘the Son of God’ (Mat 14:33; Mat 16:16).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 13:55. Is not this the carpenter’s son? In St. Mark, Mar 6:3 it is, Is not this the carpenter? ‘ ; Accordingly Justin Martyr tells us, and the ancient Christians were all of the same opinion, that Jesus was employed in this occupation. Their canons required that all parents should teach their children some trade; and probablythe poverty of the family engaged Christ, while he was at home with Joseph, to work at his. What an additional proof this, of the humiliation of the blessed Redeemer for our sakes! By comparing ch. Mat 27:56., Mar 15:40., Joh 19:25., with this passage, it appears, that the four persons mentioned here were the sons of Mary, sister to the virgin Mary, and the wife of Cleophas or Alpheus, which is the same name. See ch. Mat 10:3 Mat 12:46. By James is meant James the Lesser, whom St. Paul calls our Lord’s brother, Gal 1:19. Joses or Joseph (for it is the same name) is the only son of Mary, the wife of Alpheus, who never was an Apostle. Simon is he who is called the Canaanite or Zealot, to distinguish him from Simon Peter. And Judas or Jude is the author of the Epistle which goes under that name, wherein he styles himself the brother of James.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 13:55 ff. ] of the carpenter , which, however, also embraces other workers in wood (the cabinetmaker, the cartwright, and such like). See Philo, Cod. apocr . I. p. 368 f.; Justin, c. Tryph . 88; Suicer, Thes . II. p. 1254 f. In Mar 6:3 , Jesus Himself is spoken of by the people as , and certainly not without reason; see note on that passage.
] See note on Mat 12:46 .
According to the reading , there was only one of the sons of that Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus, who was certainly of the same name, viz. James (Mat 27:56 ; on the Judas, brother of James, see note on Luk 6:16 ). But if this Mary, as is usually supposed, had been the sister of the mother of Jesus, we would have been confronted with the unexampled difficulty of two sisters bearing the same name. However, the passage quoted in support of this view, viz. Joh 19:25 , should, with Wieseler, be so interpreted as to make it evident that the sister of Jesus’ mother was not Mary, but Salome . Comp. note on Joh 1:1 .
] therefore hardly to be understood, as some of the Fathers did (in Philo, Cod. apocr . p. 363), as meaning only two .
Observe, further, that in the course of what is said about the relatives, there is not the slightest indication of their being supposed to be different from the ordinary inhabitants of the place .
(not ) . . . . is (Joh 4:44 ) a principle founded on experience, which is found to apply to the present case only as relatively true, seeing that, under different conditions, the contrary might prove to be the case.
The . , in his own family (Mat 12:25 ), corresponds with Joh 7:3 , comp. Mar 3:20 . See also the note on Mat 12:46-50 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Ver. 55. Is not this the carpenter’s son? ] Why, but was he not architect of the world? St Mark hath it, “Is not this the carpenter?” Why, yes; it may be so. Justin Martyr, an ancient writer, testifieth, that our Saviour, ere he entered upon the ministry, made ploughs, yokes, &c. a But was not that an honest occupation? And did not this carpenter make a coffin for Julian, that persecuting apostate, as a Christian schoolmaster fitly answered Libanins, sarcastically demanding what the carpenter’s son was now doing? Thus those three miscreants, Saul, Shimei and Sheba, took occasion to despise David, as the son of Jesse, who was vir bonus et honestus, minus tamen clarus, as one saith of him, a good honest man, but there’s little said of him.
a Pater Christi politicus, putativus. Fabrum fuisse lignarium, et aratra ac iuga, caeteraque eiusmodi fabricasse. Justin.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
55. ] It is an enquiry of much interest and some difficulty, who these were. After long examination of the evidence on the subject, I believe that the truth will best be attained by disencumbering the mind in the first place of all priori considerations , and traditions (which last are very inconsistent and uncertain), and fixing the attention on the simple testimony of Scripture itself . I will trace the or . through the various mentions of them in the N.T., and then state the result; placing at the end of the note the principal traditions on the subject, and the difficulties attending them. (I) The expression . occurs nine times in the Gospels, and once in the Acts. Of these the three first are in the narratives of the coming of His mother and brethren to speak with Him, Mat 12:46 ; Mar 3:31 ; Luk 8:19 ; the two next are the present passage and its [130] in Mar 6:3 , where they are mentioned in connexion with His mother and sisters; the four others are in Joh 2:12 ; Joh 7:3 ; Joh 7:5 ; Joh 7:10 , in the first of which He and his mother and brethren and disciples are related to have gone down to Capernaum: and in the three last His brethren are introduced as urging Him to shew Himself to the world, and it is stated that they did not believe on Him. The last is in Act 1:14 , where we read that the Apostles ‘continued in prayer and supplication with the women, and with Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren .’ In another place, 1Co 9:5 , Paul mentions , . . , . . Such are all the places where the meaning is undoubted , that persons called, and being in some usual sense, brethren of the Lord , are mentioned. (Besides these the Lord Himself uses the words Mat 28:10 ; Joh 20:17 , but apparently with a wider meaning, including at least the eleven Apostles in the term, as He does in Mat 12:49 [131] .) Now I would observe ( ) that in all the mentions of them in the Gospels, except those in Joh 7:1-53 , they are in connexion with His mother: the same being the case in Act 1:14 . ( ) That it is no where asserted or implied that any of them were of the number of the twelve; but from Joh 7:5 , following upon Joh 6:70 (by Mat 7:1 ), they are excluded from that number . John would certainly not have used the words . . . , had any of them believed on Him at that time (see this substantiated in note ad loc.): and again in Act 1:14 , by being mentioned after the Apostles have been enumerated by name, and after the mother of Jesus, they are indicated at that time also to have been separate from the twelve , although then certainly believing on Him. ( ) Their names , as stated here and in Mar 6:3 , were JACOB, JOSEPH (or JOSES), SIMON, and JUDAS, all of them among the commonest of Jewish names. Of JOSEPH (or JOSES; certainly not the Joseph Barsabas Justus of Act 1:23 ; see ib. Act 1:21 ) and SIMON (not Simon Cananus or Zelotes: see above) we know from Scripture nothing . Of the two others we have the following traces ( ) JACOB (JAMES) appears in the apostolic narrative as , Gal 1:19 ; he is there called an apostle . This however determines nothing as to his having been among the twelve (which is a very different matter); for Paul and Barnabas are called apostles , Act 14:1-28 :(4) 14, and Paul always calls himself such. See also Rom 16:7 ; 1Th 2:7 compared with Mat 1:1 . That he is identical with the James of Gal 2:9 , whom Paul mentions with Cephas and John as having given him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, fourteen years after the visit related ib. Gal 1:19 , does not appear for certain, but has been pretty generally assumed. (See this whole subject discussed in the prolegg. to the Epistle of James.) ( ) The JUDE who has left an epistle, and was brother of James, not only does not call himself an apostle, Mat 13:1 (as neither does James, nor indeed John himself, so that this cannot be urged), but in Mat 13:17 (see note there) seems to draw a distinction between himself and the Apostles. Whether this indicate that the James and Jude, the authors of the Epistles, were two of these . , is uncertain; but it may at least be mentioned in the course of our enquiry.
[130] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25 , the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified , thus, ‘ Mk.,’ or ‘ Mt. Mk.,’ &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others .
[131] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25 , the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified , thus, ‘ Mk.,’ or ‘ Mt. Mk.,’ &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others .
I shall now state the result of that enquiry, which has been based on Scripture testimony only . (1) That there were four persons known as . or . , NOT OF THE NUMBER OF THE TWELVE. (2) That these persons are found in all places (with the above exception) where their names occur in the Gospels, in immediate connexion with Mary, the mother of the Lord . (It is a strange phnomenon in argument, that it should have been maintained by an orthodox writer, that my inference from this proves too much , because Joseph is here introduced as His father: as if a mistake of the Jews with regard to a supernatural fact, which they could not know, invalidated their cognizance of a natural fact which they knew full well.) (3) That not a word is any where dropped to prevent us from inferring that the and were His relations in the same literal sense as we know to have been; but that His own saying, where He distinguishes His relations according to the flesh from His disciples (ch. Mat 12:50 [132] ), seems to sanction that inference . (4) That nothing is said from which it can be inferred whether Joseph had been married before he appears in the Gospel history; or again, whether these . were, according to the flesh, older or younger than our Lord. (5) That the silence of the Scripture narrative leaves it free for Christians to believe these to have been real (younger) brethren and sisters of our Lord, without incurring any imputation of unsoundness of belief as to His miraculous conception . That such an imputation has been cast, is no credit to the logical correctness of those who have made it, who set down that, because this view has been taken by impugners of the great Truth just mentioned, therefore , it eventually leads, or may fairly be used, towards the denial of it (see Dr. Mill on the Brethren of our Lord, p. 224); for no attempt is made to shew its connexion with such a conclusion. The fact is, that the two matters, the miraculous conception of the Lord Jesus by the Holy Ghost, and the subsequent virginity of His Mother, are ESSENTIALLY AND ENTIRELY DISTINCT; see note on Mat 1:25 ; see also, respecting a supposed difficulty attending this view, note on Joh 19:27 . (II) I will now state the principal traditionary views respecting the brethren of the Lord. (1) That they were all sons of Alphus (or Clopas) and Mary the sister of the mother of our Lord; and so cousins of Jesus, and called agreeably to Jewish usage His brothers .
[132] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25 , the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified , thus, ‘ Mk.,’ or ‘ Mt. Mk.,’ &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others .
This is the view taken in the remarkable fragment of Papias, quoted in Dr. Mill, p. 238, adopted by Jerome (cont. Helvidium 13, vol. ii. p. 219), and very generally received in ancient and modern times. But it seems to me that a comparison of the Scripture testimonies cited above will prove it untenable. One at least of the sons of this Alphus was an apostle, of the number of the twelve , viz. (see all the lists, on ch. Mat 10:3 ); which (see above) would exclude him from the number of the brethren of the Lord . But even if one of the four could be thus detached (which, from Joh 7:5 , I cannot believe), it is generally assumed that (see Luke’s two lists as above) is Jude the brother of James; and if so, this would be another son of Alphus, and another subtraction from the number who did not believe on Him. Again Matthew (see note on Mat 9:9 ), if identical with Levi ( Mar 2:14 ), was another son of Alphus: which would make a fifth brother, and leave therefore, out of five, three believing on Him at the time when it was said . . . . This view besides labours under the difficulty arising from these brethren accompanying and being found in connexion with Mary the mother of our Lord, whereas throughout that time their own mother was living . The way in which the assertors of this view explain Joh 7:5 , is either by supposing that all the brethren are not there implied, or that all are not here mentioned; both suppositions, it seems to me, very unlikely (compare e.g. John’s minute accuracy where an exception was to be made, ch. Mat 6:23-24 ). (2) That they were children of Joseph by a former marriage (or even by a later one with Mary wife of Clopas, to raise up seed to his dead brother , as Clopas is said to have been: but this needs no refutation). This view was taken by several early Fathers, e.g. Hilary, Epiphanius, and mentioned by Origen, who (Winer, Realwrterbuch, i. p. 663) says respecting it, . This however, while by no means impossible , and in some respects agreeing with the apparent position of these brothers as older (according to the flesh) than the Lord ( Joh 7:3 ), has no countenance whatever in Scripture, either in their being called sons of any other woman, or in any distinct mention of Joseph as their father, which surely in this case would be required. (III) On the priori considerations which have influenced opinions on this matter, see note on Mat 1:25 ; and on the traditional literature , see the tract of Professor Mill on the Brethren of our Lord. See also Winer, Realwrterbuch, Art. Jesus , 3. Greswell, Dissertations, vol. ii. Diss. iii. Blom, Disputatio Theologica de . . . . Lug. Bat. 1839. Wieseler, Stud. und Kritiken, 1842, i. 96 ff. (these two last I have not seen); also, a letter on this my note, referred to above under I. 2, in the Journal of Sacred Literature for July, 1855. This letter is too much based on priori considerations, but contains some valuable suggestions on this confessedly difficult question.
Neander, Leben J. p. 48, brings out the importance of the view which I have above, under (I), endeavoured to justify, as shewing that the account of the miraculous conception is not mythical , in which case all would have been arranged to suit the views of virginity from which it had arisen, but strictly historical , found as it is with no such arrangements or limitations.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 13:55 . . : Mk. has , which our evangelist avoids; the son of the carpenter , one only in the town, well known to all. , etc., names given of mother and brothers, to show how well they know the whole family. And this other man just come back is simply another of the family whose name happens to be Jesus. Why should He be so different? It is an absurdity, an offence, not to be commonplace. The irritation of the Nazareans is satisfactory evidence of the extraordinary in Jesus.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
and. Note the Figure of speech Polysyndeton (App-6), emphasizing each one individually.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
55. ] It is an enquiry of much interest and some difficulty, who these were. After long examination of the evidence on the subject, I believe that the truth will best be attained by disencumbering the mind in the first place of all priori considerations, and traditions (which last are very inconsistent and uncertain), and fixing the attention on the simple testimony of Scripture itself. I will trace the or . through the various mentions of them in the N.T., and then state the result; placing at the end of the note the principal traditions on the subject, and the difficulties attending them. (I) The expression . occurs nine times in the Gospels, and once in the Acts. Of these the three first are in the narratives of the coming of His mother and brethren to speak with Him, Mat 12:46; Mar 3:31; Luk 8:19; the two next are the present passage and its [130] in Mar 6:3, where they are mentioned in connexion with His mother and sisters; the four others are in Joh 2:12; Joh 7:3; Joh 7:5; Joh 7:10, in the first of which He and his mother and brethren and disciples are related to have gone down to Capernaum: and in the three last His brethren are introduced as urging Him to shew Himself to the world, and it is stated that they did not believe on Him. The last is in Act 1:14, where we read that the Apostles continued in prayer and supplication with the women, and with Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. In another place, 1Co 9:5, Paul mentions , . . , . . Such are all the places where the meaning is undoubted, that persons called, and being in some usual sense, brethren of the Lord, are mentioned. (Besides these the Lord Himself uses the words Mat 28:10; Joh 20:17, but apparently with a wider meaning, including at least the eleven Apostles in the term, as He does in Mat 12:49 [131].) Now I would observe () that in all the mentions of them in the Gospels, except those in Joh 7:1-53, they are in connexion with His mother: the same being the case in Act 1:14. () That it is no where asserted or implied that any of them were of the number of the twelve; but from Joh 7:5, following upon Joh 6:70 (by Mat 7:1), they are excluded from that number. John would certainly not have used the words . . . , had any of them believed on Him at that time (see this substantiated in note ad loc.):-and again in Act 1:14, by being mentioned after the Apostles have been enumerated by name, and after the mother of Jesus, they are indicated at that time also to have been separate from the twelve, although then certainly believing on Him. () Their names, as stated here and in Mar 6:3, were JACOB, JOSEPH (or JOSES), SIMON, and JUDAS, all of them among the commonest of Jewish names. Of JOSEPH (or JOSES;-certainly not the Joseph Barsabas Justus of Act 1:23; see ib. Act 1:21) and SIMON (not Simon Cananus or Zelotes: see above) we know from Scripture nothing. Of the two others we have the following traces-() JACOB (JAMES) appears in the apostolic narrative as , Gal 1:19; he is there called an apostle. This however determines nothing as to his having been among the twelve (which is a very different matter); for Paul and Barnabas are called apostles, Act 14:1-28 :(4) 14, and Paul always calls himself such. See also Rom 16:7; 1Th 2:7 compared with Mat 1:1. That he is identical with the James of Gal 2:9, whom Paul mentions with Cephas and John as having given him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, fourteen years after the visit related ib. Gal 1:19, does not appear for certain, but has been pretty generally assumed. (See this whole subject discussed in the prolegg. to the Epistle of James.) () The JUDE who has left an epistle, and was brother of James, not only does not call himself an apostle, Mat 13:1 (as neither does James, nor indeed John himself, so that this cannot be urged), but in Mat 13:17 (see note there) seems to draw a distinction between himself and the Apostles. Whether this indicate that the James and Jude, the authors of the Epistles, were two of these . , is uncertain; but it may at least be mentioned in the course of our enquiry.
[130] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25, the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified, thus, Mk., or Mt. Mk., &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others.
[131] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25, the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified, thus, Mk., or Mt. Mk., &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others.
I shall now state the result of that enquiry, which has been based on Scripture testimony only. (1) That there were four persons known as . or . , NOT OF THE NUMBER OF THE TWELVE. (2) That these persons are found in all places (with the above exception) where their names occur in the Gospels, in immediate connexion with Mary, the mother of the Lord. (It is a strange phnomenon in argument, that it should have been maintained by an orthodox writer, that my inference from this proves too much, because Joseph is here introduced as His father: as if a mistake of the Jews with regard to a supernatural fact, which they could not know, invalidated their cognizance of a natural fact which they knew full well.) (3) That not a word is any where dropped to prevent us from inferring that the and were His relations in the same literal sense as we know to have been; but that His own saying, where He distinguishes His relations according to the flesh from His disciples (ch. Mat 12:50 [132]), seems to sanction that inference. (4) That nothing is said from which it can be inferred whether Joseph had been married before he appears in the Gospel history;-or again, whether these . were, according to the flesh, older or younger than our Lord. (5) That the silence of the Scripture narrative leaves it free for Christians to believe these to have been real (younger) brethren and sisters of our Lord, without incurring any imputation of unsoundness of belief as to His miraculous conception. That such an imputation has been cast, is no credit to the logical correctness of those who have made it, who set down that, because this view has been taken by impugners of the great Truth just mentioned, therefore, it eventually leads, or may fairly be used, towards the denial of it (see Dr. Mill on the Brethren of our Lord, p. 224); for no attempt is made to shew its connexion with such a conclusion. The fact is, that the two matters, the miraculous conception of the Lord Jesus by the Holy Ghost, and the subsequent virginity of His Mother, are ESSENTIALLY AND ENTIRELY DISTINCT; see note on Mat 1:25; see also, respecting a supposed difficulty attending this view, note on Joh 19:27. (II) I will now state the principal traditionary views respecting the brethren of the Lord. (1) That they were all sons of Alphus (or Clopas) and Mary the sister of the mother of our Lord; and so cousins of Jesus, and called agreeably to Jewish usage His brothers.
[132] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25, the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified, thus, Mk., or Mt. Mk., &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others.
This is the view taken in the remarkable fragment of Papias, quoted in Dr. Mill, p. 238, adopted by Jerome (cont. Helvidium 13, vol. ii. p. 219), and very generally received in ancient and modern times. But it seems to me that a comparison of the Scripture testimonies cited above will prove it untenable. One at least of the sons of this Alphus was an apostle, of the number of the twelve, viz. (see all the lists, on ch. Mat 10:3); which (see above) would exclude him from the number of the brethren of the Lord. But even if one of the four could be thus detached (which, from Joh 7:5, I cannot believe), it is generally assumed that (see Lukes two lists as above) is Jude the brother of James; and if so, this would be another son of Alphus, and another subtraction from the number who did not believe on Him. Again Matthew (see note on Mat 9:9), if identical with Levi (Mar 2:14), was another son of Alphus: which would make a fifth brother, and leave therefore, out of five, three believing on Him at the time when it was said . … This view besides labours under the difficulty arising from these brethren accompanying and being found in connexion with Mary the mother of our Lord, whereas throughout that time their own mother was living. The way in which the assertors of this view explain Joh 7:5, is either by supposing that all the brethren are not there implied, or that all are not here mentioned; both suppositions, it seems to me, very unlikely (compare e.g. Johns minute accuracy where an exception was to be made, ch. Mat 6:23-24). (2) That they were children of Joseph by a former marriage (or even by a later one with Mary wife of Clopas, to raise up seed to his dead brother,-as Clopas is said to have been: but this needs no refutation). This view was taken by several early Fathers, e.g. Hilary, Epiphanius, and mentioned by Origen, who (Winer, Realwrterbuch, i. p. 663) says respecting it, . This however, while by no means impossible, and in some respects agreeing with the apparent position of these brothers as older (according to the flesh) than the Lord (Joh 7:3), has no countenance whatever in Scripture, either in their being called sons of any other woman, or in any distinct mention of Joseph as their father, which surely in this case would be required. (III) On the priori considerations which have influenced opinions on this matter, see note on Mat 1:25; and on the traditional literature, see the tract of Professor Mill on the Brethren of our Lord. See also Winer, Realwrterbuch, Art. Jesus, 3. Greswell, Dissertations, vol. ii. Diss. iii. Blom, Disputatio Theologica de . . . . Lug. Bat. 1839. Wieseler, Stud. und Kritiken, 1842, i. 96 ff. (these two last I have not seen); also, a letter on this my note, referred to above under I. 2, in the Journal of Sacred Literature for July, 1855. This letter is too much based on priori considerations, but contains some valuable suggestions on this confessedly difficult question.
Neander, Leben J. p. 48, brings out the importance of the view which I have above, under (I), endeavoured to justify, as shewing that the account of the miraculous conception is not mythical, in which case all would have been arranged to suit the views of virginity from which it had arisen,-but strictly historical, found as it is with no such arrangements or limitations.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 13:55. – , of the carpenter-His mother) Hence it may be inferred that Joseph had long been dead, and that Mary had lived in obscurity.–, Mary-James) They speak of them thus as if they had nothing but a name, by which name they were well known.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
James
Son of Alphaeus. (See Scofield “Mat 4:21”)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
is not this: Mat 1:18-20, Luk 1:27, Luk 2:5-7
the carpenter’s: Psa 22:6, Isa 49:7, Isa 53:2, Isa 53:3, Mar 6:3, Luk 3:23, Luk 4:22, Joh 1:45, Joh 1:46, Joh 6:42, Joh 7:41, Joh 7:42, Joh 9:29
and his: Mat 12:46, Mat 12:48, Mat 27:56, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47, Mar 16:1, Luk 24:10, Joh 19:25, Gal 1:19
Reciprocal: 1Sa 10:11 – What is this 1Sa 20:27 – the son Mat 11:6 – whosoever Mat 12:32 – whosoever Mar 3:18 – James Luk 2:7 – and wrapped Luk 8:20 – thy brethren Joh 2:12 – and his brethren Act 1:14 – with his Act 9:21 – Is not 1Co 9:5 – the brethren Jam 1:1 – James
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3:55
The people were acquainted with much of the family history of Jesus and never knew of any training he had gone through to give him the talents he was now displaying. There could be no question about his general standing as a citizen for they knew all of these nearest relatives and could mention them by name. For comments on the term brethren see those at chapter 12:46.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 13:55. The carpenters son. The word rendered carpenter is sometimes applied to artisans in general, but it means strictly a worker in wood. The question, though not contemptuous, implies: He is one of us, no better than we are, etc. They knew His family, and mention the name of His mother and brothers, speaking also of His sisters, who possibly still resided in Nazareth. On the brothers of our Lord, see the close of the section.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 55
His brethren; near relatives, perhaps cousins. The words signifying the various degrees of relationship were used among the Jews with great latitude. The reason for supposing the persons here referred to to be the cousins of our Lord, is that apparently the same person who is named in John 19:25, as our Savior’s mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, is mentioned, in Matthew 27:56, as the mother of James and Joses.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
The words of Jesus’ critics reveal wounded pride. They did not like His having wisdom and power superior to theirs since they had the same background. Their questions reveal denial of His Messiahship. By referring to Joseph as "the carpenter" and to Jesus as his son, they were implying that Jesus should have followed in His father’s footsteps. The definite article before "carpenter" suggests that there may have been only one carpenter in Nazareth. Carpenters did all types of work with wood and stone. Jesus was more of a builder than just a carpenter. [Note: Ken M. Campbell, "What Was Jesus’ Occupation?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48:3 (September 2005):501-19; France, The Gospel . . ., p. 549.]
In one sense these questions were legitimate. However the people of Nazareth rejected Jesus’ claim to being a prophet (Mat 13:57 b). They "took offense" at Him in the sense that His claim caused them to stumble. It was their reaction to His claim, however, not the claim itself, that stumbled them.
"(Incidentally, their questions render impossible the fanciful miracles ascribed to Jesus’ childhood by the apocryphal gospels.)" [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 336.]
We must be careful not to confuse Jesus’ half-brothers-James, Simon, and Judas-with the disciples who had the same names. There is no evidence that Jesus’ half-brothers believed on Him until after His resurrection. His brother James eventually became the leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 11).