Matthew 13:55

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 Matthew 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, (Matthew 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. John 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.