What does Lord (2) mean in the Bible?

Dictionary

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament - Lord (2)
LORD.—This title is used as the translation of three different words in the Gr. Gospels: (1) ὁ δεσπότης. This word occurs only once in the Gospels, in the prayer of Simeon, ‘Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word’ (Luke 2:29). It is the proper correlative of δοῦλος. In thus addressing God, Simeon thinks of himself as His slave. (2) οἱ μεγιστᾶνες. This word also occurs but once in the Gospels, in Mark 6:21 ‘Herod … made a supper to his lords.’ It describes the chief men or nobles of a city or kingdom. (3) κύριος, ὁ κύριος. Except in the above instances, this is the word which stands for ‘Lord’ and ‘lord’ in the Gospels. It occurs with great frequency. With or without the article, it is found at least 244 times. The frequency of its use is concealed from readers of the English versions. It is sometimes translated ‘master’ (‘Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master’s table,’ Matthew 15:27), or ‘sir’ (‘I go, sir, and went not,’ Matthew 21:30), or ‘owner’ (‘the owners therefore said, Why loose ye the colt?’ Luke 19:33). Fundamentally the title describes one who has power or authority (ὁ ἔχων κῦρος) over persons or things. Strictly speaking, it implies ownership, but it is also used as a title of reverence or courtesy. In the Gospels it is applied in a wide variety of relationship.
1. It is frequently used as a name for God.—(1) In most cases as a name for God, it is used without the article. It occurs in all 59 times (17 in Matthew , 8 in Mk., 30 in Luke , 4 in Jn.). It is found in quotations from the OT, as ‘Thou shalt not tempt (the) Lord thy God’ (Matthew 4:7); and in phrases of OT origin, as ‘the angel of (the) Lord’ (Matthew 1:20 || Luke 1:11); ‘the law of (the) Lord’ (Luke 2:23); ‘the power of (the) Lord’ (Luke 5:17). It is noteworthy that the only instances in the Gospels where the title is used in direct address to God, are found in the prayers of Jesus: ‘I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth’ (Matthew 11:25 || Luke 10:21). In both cases the title is found in exactly the same phrase. (2) The use of the name with the article is infrequent, occurring in all 11 times (twice in Mt., once in Mark , 8 times in Lk.): e.g. ‘Perform unto the Lord thine oaths’ (Matthew 5:33); ‘Tell how great things the Lord hath done for thee’ (Mark 5:19); ‘Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest’ (Luke 10:2). In the application of this name to God, with and without the article, the Gospels follow the usage of the LXX Septuagint .
2. It is also used with great frequency as a general title of courtesy, or as a name for a master or owner. (1) Without the article, it is employed in direct address, as the salutation of a son to a father, ‘I go, sir’ (Matthew 21:30); of servants to their master, ‘Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field?’ (Matthew 13:27); ‘Lord, let it alone this year also’ (Luke 13:8); of the Greeks to Philip, ‘Sir, we would see Jesus’ (John 12:21); of the Pharisees and priests to Pilate, ‘Sir, we remember that this deceiver said’ (Matthew 27:63). This use of the title, as a general term of courtesy in direct address, is not found in Mk., but it occurs 9 times in Matthew , 8 times in Lk., and twice in John. As the name for a master, without the article it is found only in Matthew 6:24 ‘No man can serve two masters,’ and in Luke 16:13, the parallel passage. (2) With the article, it is a frequent name for a master or owner, as ‘the lord of the vineyard’ (Matthew 20:8), ‘the lord of that servant’ (Luke 12:46), ‘the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth’ (John 15:15). In Luke 16:8 it is the ‘lord’ of the unjust steward who commended his dishonest method of providing for himself.
3. It is most frequently of all employed as a title of courtesy in direct address to, or as a name for Jesus.
(1) Without the article, it is used (a) by His disciples, as ‘Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water’ (Matthew 14:28). This title in direct address to Jesus by disciples is never found in Mark. It is most frequent in Jn., as is to be expected, since he records most of the private intercourse between Jesus and His disciples. (b) By others than disciples, as ‘Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean’ (Matthew 8:2). In Mk. it is employed only once in this relation, by the Syrophœnician woman, ‘Yes, Lord’ (Mark 7:28). In most cases, the title as used by others than disciples is found in narratives of miracle. (c) By Jesus Himself, as ‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (Matthew 7:21). (d) It is also found in the words of the angel to the shepherds, ‘Unto you is born this day … a Saviour, who is Christ (the) Lord’ (Luke 2:11). This phrase (χριστὸς κύριος) is found in Ps-Sol 17:36. Briggs (Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 34, 35, notes) says it is probably to be interpreted on the basis of אדני Psalms 110:1 (‘The Lord said unto my Lord’), but adds that Schürer, Ewald, Wellhausen, and W. R. Smith regard the phrase in Ps-Sol as a mistranslation of סשיח יהוה (‘Anointed of (the) Lord,’—a phrase which is found in Luke 2:26’ (the) Lord’s Christ’). Dalman, on the other hand (Words of Jesus, T. & T. Clark, p. 303 f.), thinks it incredible that a translator should have made such a mistake. We agree with him in regarding κύριος (Lord) as a word added by the Evangelist to interpret the Jewish title Messiah (χριστός) to his Gentile readers. (The same necessity of interpretation accounts for the phrase ‘Christ, a king’ (Luke 23:2), in the accusation made before Pilate. The claim that Jesus was ‘the Christ’ had no political significance to the Gentile governor. It had to be interpreted to him as ‘king’ before he could receive the charge as an accusation). In Acts 2:36 the phrase ‘God hath made that same Jesus … both Lord and Christ’ (κύριον καὶ χριστόν), is to be explained in the same way. ‘Lord’ is an addition by the Evangelist, to interpret ‘Christ’ to Gentile Christians. We may add that the same necessity of interpreting ‘Christ’ to Gentiles accounts for the curious phrase in the address of Peter to Cornelius, which has been found so difficult—‘Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all, πάντων κύριος),’ Acts 10:36. The clause in brackets is added to interpret the confessional title ‘Christ.’ It may be due to Lk., but it is more likely that it was added at the time by Peter. He was speaking to a Gentile, who, though he was ‘a devout man and one that feared God,’ may not have understood the confessional significance of the term ‘Christ.’ Without the addition of the interpretation, Cornelius might have regarded it as part of the name of Jesus. The title ‘Christ’ did become a proper name, but that use of the term did not arise till a later date. If the interpretation was given by Peter when speaking to Cornelius, it provides an interesting illustration of the way in which the first preachers of Christianity adapted themselves to the new conditions in which they found themselves, when they began to preach to Gentiles. The Saviour of the world must not have a local or national confessional title, (cf. the words of Paul and Silas to the Philippian jailer as they are given in אAB, and accepted by Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, and other critical editors, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus (i.e. believe on Jesus as Lord), and thou shalt be saved,’ Acts 16:31. Also, ‘No man can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost’ (1 Corinthians 12:3), and ‘every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father,’ Philippians 2:11). To the Jewish Christian, Jesus was the ‘Messiah,’ to the Hellenistic Christian Jew He was ‘the Christ,’ and to the Gentile Christian He was ‘the Lord.’ The Hellenistic and Gentile terms are combined in our familiar name ‘the Lord Jesus Christ.’ The interpretation of ‘Christ’ as ‘Lord’ enables us to understand that the essential idea of the first term is that of Sovereignty or Lordship. The Saviour is the Lord, the Possessor and Ruler of the Kingdom of God.
This title readily acquired its highest significance as one of Divine honour among the Gentile Christians, especially in the East. ‘Oriental religions are fond of expressing the relationship between the divinity and the devotee, as that of the “Lord” or “Lady” to a slave’ (Deissmann). The higher significance of the title was most likely assisted also by the fact that among Hellenistic Jewish Christians κύριος was in use as a Divine title applied to God.
(2) With the article, the title is applied to Jesus (a) by Himself, directly, as ‘Ye call me Master and Lord’ (more literally, ‘the Teacher and the Lord’) (John 13:13), and indirectly, as ‘(The) Lord said unto my Lord (τῷ κυρίῳ μου), Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool’ (Matthew 22:44). (b) The historical application of the title, with the article, to Jesus is specially significant. Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort omit the title in this form, in the only place where it is found in Mt. (Matthew 28:6). It occurs twice in Mk. (Mark 16:19-20), i.e. in that part of the Gospel which is regarded by critical editors as not belonging to the original Manuscripts . Therefore it is only in the Gospels of Lk. and Jn. that the title in this form is applied historically to Jesus. This is a strong argument for the earlier composition of Mt. and Mk., for the title became so common in the Apostolic Church that its absence from these Gospels can be explained only by their early date. The title occurs 18 times in Luke , 12 times in John. Twelve of the instances in Lk. are found in passages which are peculiar to that Gospel, as ‘the Lord appointed other seventy’ (Luke 10:1). The other instances may be regarded as editorial additions (Luke 7:13; Luke 11:39; Luke 12:42; Luke 17:5-6; Luke 24:3). Three of the instances in Jn., which are found in the early part of the Gospel, are plainly editorial additions (John 4:1; John 6:23; John 11:2). The remaining instances are found in the last two chapters of the Gospel, and in passages which are peculiar to it. They deal with the risen life of Jesus, and were written at a time when the higher conceptions of His personality gave a deeper significance to the title, and when its confessional meaning was universally known. The adoring cry of Thomas, ‘My Lord and my God’ (ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου) John 20:28, is an illustration of how among Jewish Christians the title of respect addressed to a teacher became one of Divine honour. Yet, as Dalman says, ‘it must … be remembered that the Aramaic-speaking Jews did not, save exceptionally, designate God as “Lord,” so that in the Hebraic section of the Jewish Christians the expression “our Lord” was used in reference to Jesus only, and would be quite freh from ambiguity’ (p. 329).
4. In comparing parallel passages in which the title occurs, it is to be noticed that other titles are sometimes employed as equivalent terms in addressing Jesus.—
i.Matthew 8:25 (κύριε) ‘Lord, save us: we perish.’
Mark 4:38 (διδάσκαλς) ‘Teacher, earest thou not that we perish?’
Luke 8:24 (ἐπιστάτα) ‘Master (teacher), we perish.’
ii.Matthew 17:4 (κύριε) ‘Lord, it is good for us to be here.’
Mark 9:5 (Ραββεί) ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here.’
Luke 9:33 (ἐπιστάτα) ‘Master (teacher), it is good for us to be here.’
iii.Matthew 26:22 (κύριε) ‘Is it I, Lord?’
Matthew 26:25 (Ραββει) ‘Is it I, Rabbi?’
John 13:25 (κύριε) ‘Lord, who is it?’
The variety in the title used in addressing Jesus is not confined to the parallel passages. It is to be seen throughout each of the Gospels. Arranging the titles in the order of preference, Mt. uses κύριος, διδάσκαλος, and Ῥαββεί; Mk. διδάσκαλος Ῥαββεί, Ῥαββουνεί, and κὐριος Lk. κὐριος, διδάσκαλος, and ἐπιστάτης; Jn. κύριος, Ῥαββεί, Ῥαββουνεί, and διδάσκαλος. Sometimes the variety of the title is seen even in the same passage. It cannot be without intention or meaning that in (iii.) Mt. represents the eleven disciples as asking, ‘Is it I, Lord?’ while Judas, the traitor, says, ‘Is it I, Rabbi?’ (Matthew 26:22; Matthew 26:25). Possibly Judas indicated his position of detachment or opposition by using ‘Rabbi’ instead of the title employed by the rest of the disciples. It is only by Judas that Jesus is addressed as ‘Rabbi’ in Mt. (Matthew 26:25; Matthew 26:49). There must also be some difference of feeling in the use of different titles in Luke 5:5 ‘Master (teacher, ἐπιστάτα), we have toiled all night’; and Luke 5:8, where Peter, after the miraculous draught of fishes, falls at the fect of Jesus with the cry, ‘Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord’ (κύριε). But it is possible that the variation of title in the parallel passages may have taken place in the process of oral transmission, or in translation from the Aramaic.
5. The variation of title in addressing Jesus suggests that in the original language of the Gospels at least two titles were employed. Of these Ῥαββεί was one, cf. ‘ye call me Master (teacher) and Lord,’ John 13:13, and the frequent use of ‘Rabbi’ in the Gospels. Evidently ‘teacher’ (διδάσκαλος) is a translation of ‘Rabbi’ in some of its forms (רב, רבי, רבן). In 7 places Lk. uses ἐπιστάτης as a synonym for διδάσκαλος (Luke 5:5; Luke 8:24 bis. Luke 8:45; Luke 9:33; Luke 9:49; Luke 17:13), and, without doubt, some form of רב lies behind this also. As to the title κύριος (Lord), which is used so frequently in addressing Jesus, it is most probably a translation of מָרִי or מָרַנָא. It was a common name for a master, and was used as a title of courtesy. It was used by a servant to a master, by a debtor to a creditor, and by a layman to a learned man. It is possible, however, since many of the people of Palestine were bilingual, that κύριος was used by itself when one who knew Greek spoke to Jesus.
6. We thus suggest a twofold origin of the title as applied to Jesus. First, as the translation of the Aramaic titles in use among the disciples; and second, as the substitute for χριστός with confessional meaning among Gentiles. These distinctions of origin and meaning were soon lost in the gradual but rapid adoption of the title as one expressive of Divine honour. It is possible that this use of the title first became common among Eastern Christians.
7. In regard to the application of κύριος to God, it may be said that this was entirely due to the influence of Hellenistic Judaism. It is very unlikely that it was in use among Aramaic-speaking Jews at the time of our Lord. In reading the Scriptures in the synagogue in Hebrew, the name ארני (Lord) was read wherever the sacred name יהוה was found in the text. When it became necessary to translate the Scriptures into Aramaic in public reading, ארני still took the place of the sacred name. In quoting from the Scriptures ארני was not employed for the name of God, but הַשֵׁם (‘the Name’) in Hebrew, and שְׁמָא in Aramaic. In phrases of OT origin like ‘the angel of (the) Lord,’ the name of God was entirely omitted or merely hinted at.
Literature.—Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 324; Bruce, Apologetics, 398; Naville, The Christ, 144; Somerville, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, 295; Spurgeon, The Messiah, 649: Expository Times, vol. xii. [1] p. 425 ff., vol. xiii. p. 236 ff., vol. xv. p. 296 ff.: Deissmann, ibid. vol. xviii. p. 195 ff.; Lexicons of Cremer and Grimin-Thayer, s.v. κύριος.
John Reid.
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament - Brethren of the Lord (2)
BRETHREN OF THE LORD.—The only three theories about ‘the brethren of the Lord’ which are worthy of serious consideration are those which are called by Lightfoot (1) the Hieronymian (from its advocacy by Jerome [1]), (2) the Epiphanian (from its advocacy by Epiphanius), and (3) the Helvidian (from its advocacy by Jerome’s opponent, Helvidius).
According to the Hieronymian view, the ‘brethren’ of Jesus were His first cousins, being sons of the Virgin’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas. According to the Epiphanian view, they were sons of Joseph by a former wife. According to the Helvidian view, they were sons of Joseph and Mary born after Jesus. All these views claim to be Scriptural, and the Epiphanian claims in addition to be in accordance with the most ancient tradition.
i. Points that are certain.—In discussing a question of such intricacy as the present, it is well to begin by distinguishing what is reasonably certain from what is uncertain. A careful comparison of the relevant Scripture passages renders it certain—
(1) That the brethren of the Lord, whatever their true relationship to Him was, lived under the same roof with Jesus and His mother, and were regarded as members of the Virgin’s family. The common household is implied in John 7:3, and more distinctly still in John 2:12, where we read that ‘he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and there they abode not many days.’ That the brethren were members of the same family as Jesus, and stood in some definite filial relation to Joseph and Mary, is distinctly stated in Matthew 13:55 ||, ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph,* [2] and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all† [3] with us?’ (cf. also Matthew 12:47 ‘Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak to thee’). In harmony with this the Gospels represent the brethren of Jesus as habitually going about in company with the Virgin (Matthew 12:46 ||).
(2) That the brethren of Jesus were jealous of Him, and up to the time of the Resurrection disbelieved His claims. Thus the Gospels represent Jesus as lamenting the unbelief and want of sympathy of His near relatives: ‘A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house’ (Mark 6:4); and again, ‘My time is not yet come, but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth’ (John 7:6 f.). There are, moreover, the still more definite statements, ‘For even his brethren did not believe on him’ (John 7:5); and, ‘his friends (οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ) went out to lay hold on him, for they said, He is beside himself (Mark 3:21).
Some attempts have been made to attenuate the force of these passages. Cornelius a Lapide, for instance, commenting on John 7:5, says: ‘Licet enim viderent eum tot signa et miracula facere, illaque vera esse non dubitarent, tamen dubitabant an ipse esset Messias et Dei Filius: licet enim hoc verum esse optarent, et ex parte ob tot ejus miracula crederent—tamen alia ex parte videntes ejus paupertatem et neglectum, dubitabant. Ut ergo certi hac de re fiant, hortantur Christum ire secum in Jerusalem, etc.’ But St. John asserts disbelief (οὐδὲ ἑτίστειον), not doubt, and implies jealousy and hostility. Other critics have maintained that some only of the brethren disbelieved. But St. John’s language at the very least asserts that the majority (that is, three out of the four brethren) disbelieved, and almost certainly implies the disbelief of all.
From this there follows the necessary inference—
(3) That none of the brethren were numbered among the Twelve Apostles. This conclusion is confirmed by the manner in which they are distinguished from the Twelve in Acts 1:14,[4] all with one accord continued steadfastly in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.’ With this may be compared 1 Corinthians 9:5 (‘Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?’), which, though less decisive than Acts 1:14, because Cephas is first classed among the Twelve and then separately, points in the same direction. It is no sufficient reply to this to say that in Galatians 1:19 James is called an Apostle (‘But other of the apostles saw I none, save [5] James the Lord’s brother’). Granting that this is the case, though it has been denied (e.g. by Grotius, Winer, Bleek; cf. (Revised Version margin)), it may be fairly maintained that St. James is called an Apostle in that wider sense in which the term is applied to St. Paul himself, to St. Barnabas (Acts 14:4; Acts 14:14, 1 Corinthians 9:6), to Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), and perhaps also to Silvanus (1 Thessalonians 2:6; cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:1). That James the Lord’s brother was one of the Twelve is implied already in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (circa (about) a.d. 100),* [6] but the evidence of this dubious source cannot outweigh the strong negative presumption afforded by the canonical writings.† [5]
ii. The Hieronymian View.—With these three points established, we proceed to consider the Hieronymian view that the brethren of Jesus were really His first cousins. Jerome’s theory, as stated by himself in his acrimonious but able treatise adversus Helvidium, involves the following positions:—
(a) That James the Lord’s brother was an Apostle, being identical with James the Less, the son of Alphaeus.
(b) That the mother of James and of the other ‘brethren’ was ‘Mary of Clopas’ (John 19:25).
(c) That this Mary was the Virgin’s sister.
As developed by subsequent writers, the Hieronymian theory affirms in addition—
(d) That Simon the Zealot and Judas ‘not Iscariot’ were also brethren of the Lord.
(e) That Clopas is identical with Alphaeus, and that consequently ‘Mary of Clopas’ is not to be regarded as the daughter of Clopas, but as his wife.‡ [8]
As these two additional points are maintained by all modern followers of Jerome, we shall regard them as integral parts of the Hieronymian theory. Jerome’s theory has already been virtually disproved by the proof (i. 2, 3) that the Lord’s brethren were not Apostles, but its great ingenuity and wide acceptance§ [9] render full discussion of it necessary.
A. Arguments for the Hieronymian view.—
(1) James the Lord’s brother must have been of the Twelve, because he is called an Apostle, Galatians 1:19. (For a reply to this see i. 2, 3).
(2) James the Lord’s brother must have been of the Twelve, because he exercised great authority among, and even over Apostles. Thus at the Council of Jerusalem he presided and pronounced the decision, although St. Peter himself was present (Acts 15:13). St. Paul names him before St. Peter as one of the chief pillars of the Church (Galatians 2:9). The Galatian heretics appealed to his authority as superior to that of St. Paul (Galatians 2:12), and his importance is further shewn by such passages as Acts 12:17; Acts 21:18.
Reply.—St. James’ prominent position is admitted, but it can be accounted for without supposing him to have been of the Twelve. For—
(a) His close relationship to Jesus (whatever the relationship was) would have sufficed of itself to gain him great consideration among the first Christians. He probably owed in part at least to this his election to the see of Jerusalem. Relationship to Jesus was clearly the main motive in the appointment of his successor, Symeon the son of Clopas,|| [10] who was a cousin of Jesus (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 11). Hegesippus speaks of the relations of Jesus as ‘ruling the churches’ as such. Even as late as the reign of Domitian they were sufficiently important to incur the jealousy of the tyrant (l.c. iii. 20).
(b) James the Lord’s brother possessed personal qualities which fully account for his elevation. Even the Jews, according to Hegesippus, reverenced him for his piety, his unceasing prayers, his life-long Nazirite vow, and above all for his justice (l.c. ii. 23). Josephus mentions the indignation which his execution excited among the Jews (Ant. xx. ix. 1), and in a passage not now extant ascribes the sufferings endured by the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem to Divine vengeance for his murder (Origen, circa (about) Celsum, i. 47).
(3) James the Lord’s brother must have been of the Twelve, because there were only two prominent Jameses in the Church, as the expression ‘James the Less’ (Mark 15:40) indicates. He was therefore either James the Great, son of Zebedee, or James the Less, son of Alphaeus. But he was not the former, who was martyred as early as a.d. 44 (Acts 12:2). Therefore he was the latter, the son of Alphaeus.
Reply.—Jerome and his followers have been misled by the Latin translation Jacobus minor, ‘James the Less.’ The Greek is, Ἰάκωβος ὁ μικρός, ‘James the Little,’ the allusion being to his short stature.
(4) The names of James, Simon, and Jude occur together, and in the same division, in all the Apostolic lists. This suggests—(a) that they were brothers, and (b) that they are identical with our Lord’s brethren of the same name (see Matthew 10:2 ff., Mark 3:16 ff., Luke 6:14 ff., Acts 1:13).
Reply.—It has already been conclusively proved that our Lord’s brethren were not Apostles (see i. 2, 3); but, waiving this point, we answer: (1) The occurrence of the three names together in the list of Apostles is no proof of fraternal relationship. (2) There is definite proof that the three were not brothers. For had they been so, it would naturally have been mentioned in some at least of the Gospels, as it is in the cases of the brothers Peter and Andrew, James and John. Moreover, the father of James is Alphaeus, but the father of Jude is a certain James, of whom nothing definite is known. It is true that some propose to translate Ἰούδας Ἱακώβου (Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13) ‘Jude the brother of James,’ but so unusual, and probably unexampled, a meaning would require at least to be indicated by the context. We conclude, therefore, that James was certainly not the brother of Jude, and there is no evidence that he was the brother of Simon. If he was the brother of any Apostle, it was of Matthew (Levi), whose father was also called Alphaeus (Mark 2:14). But even this, in the absence of any evidence of the identity of the two Alphaeuses, must be pronounced doubtful.
Equally evident is it that these three Apostles were not brethren of Jesus. The coincidence of three such common names as James, Simon, and Jude in the list of brethren and in the list of Apostles proves nothing. So common are the names that they are duplicated in the Apostolic list itself. If it could be shown that James, Simon, and Jude, Apostles, were also brothers, the coincidence would be worth considering; but since they were not, the coincidence is without significance. The very way in which these three Apostles are designated shows that they were not brethren of Jesus. It was necessary to distinguish them from three other Apostles of the same name, and yet they are not once called, for distinction, ‘the Lord’s brethren.’ James is called ‘of Alphaeus,’ perhaps also ‘the Little’; Simon is called the Cananaean,’ and ‘the Zealot’; Jude receives no less than four distinguishing titles, ‘not Iscariot,’ ‘of James,’ ‘Thaddaeus,’ and ‘Lebbaeus’ (Matthew 10:3, Western Text). How strange, if he really was the Lord’s brother, that he is not once so described!
(5) The last argument consists of three distinct steps. (a) James, the son of Alphaeus, the Apostle, is identical with ‘James the Little’ of Mark 15:40 = Matthew 27:56. But this James the Little had a brother Joses, clearly a well-known character, and therefore (since no other Joses is mentioned in the Gospels) the same as Joses the brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3; and Matthew 13:53, where the authorities are divided between the forms Joses and Joseph). (b) The mother of this James is called by the Synoptists Mary, and she is further described in John 19:25 as ‘Mary of Clopas’ (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ). This might mean ‘Mary daughter of Clopas,’ but since Clopas and Alphaeus are the same word, both being transliterations of the Aramaic (חַלְפי) חַלְפַי, the correct translation is ‘Mary wife of Clopas.’ () This Mary, wife of Clopas, is said by St. John to have been the Virgin’s sister. Accordingly James and Joses (and consequently also Simon and Jude), the Lord’s ‘brethren,’ were really His cousins on His mother’s side.
Reply.—This argument is ingenious rather than strong. For (a) the identification of James the Little (Mark 15:40) with the son of Alphaeus, though generally accepted and not improbable, is only a guess. Indeed it may be argued that since St. Mark in his Gospel gives no hint that the son of Alphaeus was called ‘the Little,’ he must mean by ‘James the Little’ another person. But conceding the identity (which, however, whether true or not, is too precarious to bear the weight of an important argument), we still cannot concede the identity of Joses, the brother of this James, with Joses the brother of Jesus. The identity of James of Alphaeus with James the Little may be conceded, because, though it is weakly attested, nothing of weight can be urged against it. But if this Joses, the brother of James, was also the brother of Jesus, then three of our Lord’s brethren were Apostles, a conclusion which is negatived by an overwhelming weight of evidence (see i. 2, 3). In such a case the mere coincidence of a name (and Joses or Joseph is, as Lightfoot shews, a particularly common name) is of no weight at all. (b) Jerome’s assumption that ‘Mary the mother of James and Joses’ (Mt., Mk.) is identical with ‘Mary of Clopas’ is probably, though not certainly, correct. But there is no ground for supposing, as Jerome’s supporters do, that this Mary was the wife of Clopas. There being no indication in the context to the contrary, the natural translation of Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ is ‘Mary the daughter of Clopas.’* [11] It is maintained, indeed, that since she was the mother of James the Little (who was an Apostle), her husband must have been Alphaeus, i.e. Clopas. But it is doubtful if James the Little really was an Apostle, and it is still more doubtful if Alphaeus is the same person as Clopas. Κλωπᾶς, or, as it should probably be accented, Κλώπας, is a purely Greek name, being contracted from Κλεόπατρος (cf. Ἁντίπας, from Ἁντίπατρος). Ἁλφαῖος (Ἁλφαῖος, WH [12] ), on the other hand, is the Aramaic חַלְפי (Halpai), the initial guttural being, as is frequently the case, omitted. The names are therefore linguistically distinct. It is true that if there were strong independent reasons for identifying Alphaeus and Clopas, the linguistic difficulties might possibly be surmounted, but there are no such reasons, or at least none are alleged.
Against the identification of Κλὡτας and Alphaeus it may be urged: (1) That inasmuch as initial sh‘va is almost invariably represented by a full vowel in Greek (שִׁלמה = Σαλομών; צְבָאוֹח = σαβαώθ; etc.), there is a presumption against a word like Clopas, which begins with two consonants, representing a Semitic name. (2) Although ח is occasionally transliterated κ in the middle or at the end of a word, this never, or hardly ever, happens at the beginning. (3) (חַלְפִי) חַלְפַי is transliterated quite regularly Χαλφἱ; in 1 Maccabees 11:70. (4) The ω of Κλὡτας cannot be derived from חַלְפַי. The nearest Semitic equivalent of Κλώτας would be some such form as קלוֹפָא. (5) The Semitic versions uniformly regard Ἀλφαὶος as a Semitic word, but Κλὡτας as Greek, transliterating the κ by ק.
(c) There is more plausibility about Jerome’s contention that Mary of Clopas is described in John 19:25 as the Virgin’s sister. The words are ἱστήκεισαν δὲ παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἡ μητἠρ αὑτοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ, καὶ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή. It must be candidly admitted that the prima facie impression which this passage makes upon the mind is that only three women are mentioned, and that the Virgin’s sister is Mary of Clopas. There are, however, important considerations on the other side. (1) When persons or things are enumerated in pairs (cf. the list of Apostles, Matthew 10:2-4), the copula is not inserted between the pairs. If, therefore, St. John in this passage designs to speak of two pairs of women, καὶ is correctly omitted before Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ. (2) The Synoptic parallels show that Salome, the mother of James and John, was present at the Crucifixion, and since it is unlikely that St. John would omit to mention the presence of his own mother, ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ is probably not Mary of Clopas, but Salome. The suppression of her name is quite in the style of the Evangelist, who is very reticent in personal matters, and never even names himself. (3) If Mary of Clopas was sister to the Virgin, then two sisters had the same name, a circumstance most improbable, unless they were only step-sisters. The point is undoubtedly a difficult one, and different opinions will continue to be held about it, but fortunately its decision does not affect the main point of our inquiry, because, whether Mary of Clopas was the Virgin’s sister or not, there is no reason for supposing that she was the mother of the brethren of Jesus.
B. Objections to the Hieronymian view.—
The Hieronymian view is to be rejected, partly because the arguments in its favour, though ingenious, are inconclusive and often far-fetched; partly because no trace of it is to be found before the time of Jerome, who apparently invented it;* [13] partly because it ‘is obviously an attempt of an ardent champion of celibacy to maintain the perpetual virginity not only of Mary, but of Joseph;† [14] partly because it involves an unnatural use of the term ‘brethren’;‡ [Note: It is true, as Jerome warmly urges (adv. Helvidium, xiv., xv.), that the OT usage of ‘brother’ is somewhat wide. In " translation="">1 Chronicles 23:21-22 first cousins are called brethren (אַחיהָם = ἁδελφοὶ αὑτῶν, LXX): in " translation="">Leviticus 10:4, first cousins once removed (אֲחַיכַם : = τοὐς ἁδελφοὺς ὑμῶν, LXX). So also in " translation="">Genesis 14:14; " translation="">Genesis 14:16 Abraham’s nephew is called his brother (אָהיו ); and in " translation="">Genesis 29:15 Jacob is called Laban’s brother. It cannot therefore he pronounced that our Lord’s cousins might occasionally be alluded to as His brethren, especially if it be true, as is generally alleged, that there is no word in Aramaic for cousin. At the same time it should be remembered that all Jerome’s examples of an extended use of ‘brother’ are taken from the OT; that the usage of ἁδελφός is much less elastic than that of אָה ; that no instances of ἁδελφός = ἀνεψιός are cited from profane writers; and that even the OT does not sanction the use of אָה to describe any other relationship than that of brother. The term ἀνεψιός is not avoided in the NT (see " translation="">Colossians 4:10), and Hegesippus (a.d. 160), in discussing the subject of our Lord’s human relationships, keeps the two terms distinct, calling Symeon, the second bishop of Jerusalem, and our Lord’s , ἀνεψιός; but James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, always ἁδελφός. Clearly, therefore, Hegesippus did not regard Lord (2)
Lord's Day. Revelation 1:10. From the times of the apostles, the first day of the week has been kept sacred by Christians in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ, and it is invariably designated as the Lord's day by the fathers of the primitive church up to the time of the edict of Constantine, when the name Sunday became common. "On the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." Acts 20:7. His charge "concerning the collection for the saints" to the church in Corinth is, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. John commences the Revelation saying: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." Revelation 1:10. The Lord's day, as the Sabbath, reminds us of the finished work of creation and redemption. See Sabbath.
People's Dictionary of the Bible - Lord (2)
Lord's Day. Revelation 1:10. From the times of the apostles, the first day of the week has been kept sacred by Christians in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ, and it is invariably designated as the Lord's day by the fathers of the primitive church up to the time of the edict of Constantine, when the name Sunday became common. "On the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." Acts 20:7. His charge "concerning the collection for the saints" to the church in Corinth is, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. John commences the Revelation saying: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." Revelation 1:10. The Lord's day, as the Sabbath, reminds us of the finished work of creation and redemption. See Sabbath.
People's Dictionary of the Bible - Lord (2)
Lord's Day. Revelation 1:10. From the times of the apostles, the first day of the week has been kept sacred by Christians in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ, and it is invariably designated as the Lord's day by the fathers of the primitive church up to the time of the edict of Constantine, when the name Sunday became common. "On the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." Acts 20:7. His charge "concerning the collection for the saints" to the church in Corinth is, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. John commences the Revelation saying: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." Revelation 1:10. The Lord's day, as the Sabbath, reminds us of the finished work of creation and redemption. See Sabbath.

Sentence search