BROTHER (brilth'Er), (Heb. awkh; New Test.'ASeX065,ad-el-fos', brother).
This term is so variously and extensively ap plied in Scripture that it becomes important care fully to distinguish the different acceptations in which it is used.
1. It denotes a brother in the natural sense, whether the offspring of the same father only (Matt. x :2 ; Luke iii 19), or of the same father and mother (Luke vi :14, etc.).
2. A near relative or kinsman by blood, cousin (Gen. xiii :8; xiv :16; Matt. xii :46; John vii :3; Acts i :14 ; Gal. ii19)• 3. One who is connected with another by any tie of intimacy or fellowship, hence : 4. One born in the same country, descended from the same stock, a fellow countryman (Matt. v :47 ; Acts iii ;22 ; Heb. vii :5 ; Exod. :11 ; iv :18) 5. One of equal rank and dignity (Job 29; Prov. xviii :9; Matt. xxiii :8).
6. Disciples, followers, etc. (Matt. XXV :40; Heb. 12).
7. One of the same faith (Amos i :1 i ; Acts ix : 3o; xi :29; i Cor. v :it); from which and other texts it appears that the first converts to the faith of Jesus were known to each other by the title of Brethren, till the name of Christian was given to them at Antioch (Acts xi :26).
8. An associate, colleague in office or dignity, etc. (Ezra iii :2; I Cor. i :1; 2 Cor. i :I, etc.).
9. One of the same nature, a fellow-man (Gen. :8 ; xlvt :31 ; Matt. V :22, 23, 24 ; vii :5 ; Heb.ii: 17; viii:ii).
to. One beloved, i. e., as a brother, in a direct address (Acts ii :29; vi :3; 1 Thess. v :1).
1. Brethren of Jesus. In Matt. xiii :55 James. Joses, Simon, and Judas are mentioned as the brothers of Jesus, and in the ensuing verse sisters are also ascribed to him.
(1) Protestant View. The Protestant spirit of opposition to the notion about the perpet• ual virginity of Mary has led many commenta tors to contend that this must be taken in the lit eral sense, and that these persons are to be re garded as children whom she bore to her husband Joseph after the birth of Christ. On the whole we incline to this opinion, seeing that such a sup position is more in agreement with the spirit and letter of the context than any other; and as the force of the allusion to the brothers and sisters of Jesus would be much weakened if more distant rel atives are to be understood. Nevertheless there are some grounds for the other opinion, that these were not natural brothers and sisters, but near relations, probably cousins, of Christ. In Matt. xxvii :56 a James and Joses are described as sons of Mary (certainly not the Virgin) ; and again a James and Judas are described as sons of Al pheus (Luke vi :t5, 16), which Alphxus is prob ably the same as Cleophas, husband of Mary, sis ter of the Virgin (John xix :25). If, therefore, it
were clear that this James, Joses and Judas are the same that are elsewhere described as the Lord's brothers, this point would be beyond dispute; but as it is, much doubt must always hang over it.
(2) Opinions of Scholars. Dr. Wm. Smith, Bib. says : "On this question of the brethren of the Lord,' Dr. Lange maintains the cousin theory, but with a peculiar modification. He derives the cousinship not from the moth ers (the two Marys being sisters), but from the fathers (Cleophas or Alphxus and Joseph be ing brothers). See his Bibeiwerk, i, 201, and Dr. Schaff's Translation, p. 255. Professor Lightfoot thinks the words on the cross, 'Woman, behold thy son,' said of John the Evangelist, are decisive, as showing that the mother of Jesus had no sons of her own, and hence according to his view 'the brethren' must have been sons of Joseph by a former marriage (St. Paul's Ep. to the Galat., PP. 241-275). Of these two explanations (the cousin theory being regarded as out of the ques tion) Dr. Schaff (on Lange, pp. 256-26o, where he has a full note) prefers the latter, partly as agree ing better with the apparent age of Joseph, the husband of Mary (who disappears so early from the history), and also with the age of the brothers who seem at times to have exercised a sort of eldership over Jesus (Comp.Mark. iii:31 and John vii :3 ff.). Undoubtedly the view adopted in the foregoing article, that Jesus had brothers who were the sons of Mary, is the one which an un forced exegesis requires ; and, as to the fact of the Saviour's committing the mother in his last mo ments to the care of John, which this view is said to make irreconcilable with 'the claims of filial piety,' if Mary had sons of her own, it is not easy in point of principle to make out the material dif ference (affirmed by those who suppose a previous marriage of Joseph) between such Cairns of her own sons and those of stepsons. 'The perpetual virginity of Mary,' says the late Professor Edwards. 'is inferred from half a verse (Matt. i :25), which by natural implication teaches the direct con trary.' " This question is brought up again under JAMES (which see).