This is a promise of continued help on thi part of God until a certain end is secured. VVhen that end is secured tJod is no further bound by His promise, however much the patriarch might be justiliud in looking for further help from his general knowledge of the character and goodness of God. To take now a case similar to that in hand : supposing we read ' Michal had no child till she left David and became the wife of I'haltiel,' we should naturally assume that after that she did have a child. So in Mt 1" the limit is not one beyond which the action becomes naturally and palpably impossible ; on the contrary, it is just that point of time when under ordinary circum- stances the action would become both possible and natural,' when, therefore, the reader, without warning to the contrary, might naturally be expected to assume that it did actually occur. Whether this assumption on the part of the reader, natural under ordinary circumstances, may become unnatural under the very extraordinary circum- stances of the case, will be discussed further on. I confine myself here to the argument from lanraage.t
The natural inference drawn from the use of the word TtparhrTOKov in Lk 2' is that other brothers or sisters were bom subsequently ; otherwise why should not the word fiovayeyrji have been used as in To 3'^ fioyoyeyTjt eC^u ri^ irarpi fwv, Lk 7^^ 8*^ etc. ? In Ro 8''* the word is used metaphorically, but retains its natural connotation, TpuriroKoy iv TTuWuit dJeA^ufs, and so in every instance of its occurrence in the NT. It occurs many times in its literal use lu tr.e LXX, e.g. Gn 27'"- ^- 43^'', Dt 21", 1 K le", 1 Ch 5' '.ib", but, so far as I have observed, never of au only son. There are also ciicumstauces connected ^vlth one remarkable episode in our Lord's childhood wtiich are more easily eAplicabie It we suppose Him not to have been Hib mother's only son. Is it likely that Mary and Joseph would have been so little solicit- ous about au only son, and that son the promised MesMiaU, as to begin their homeward journey after the feast ot the Passover at Jerusalem, and to travel tor a whole day, without taking the pains to ascertain whether He was in their cora- (>any or not ? If they had several younger children to attend to, we can understand that their first thoughts would have been given to the latter ; otherwise is it conceivable that Mary, however complete her confidence in her eldest son, should hist have lost Him from her side, and then have alluwcd so long a time to elapse without an effort Uj hnd Him !
I), riieie are, however, some difficulties which must l)e grappled with before we can accept the Hel vidian theory as satisfactory. (1) If the mother of Jesus bad had other sons, would He have coiniiiended her to the care of a disciple rather than to that of a brother? (2) Is not the behaviour ot the brethren towards Jesus that of elders towards a younger ? (3) The theory is opjiosed to the Church tradition. (4) It is ab- horrent to Christian sentiment.
(1) bishop Liglitfoot regards the first obiectioii a.s faial to the theory. ' Is it conceivable,' he .says, ' that our Lord would thus have snapped
• Compari' I'lnt. Vu. Cmv. vlll. 1 ; Dliw. L. ill. 2 (on the vi^inn wliicli ftpi>ffirt^(l If) ArlhMii warning llini jm^ rvyyitirO^t xyt yw^iiki till the tilrlh of h,!r noil l'l«t<i : Ori,;»'n, ^i7fitn.i( CrUut, i, 37, reft'rs to this an aii arg ad hmn.); HyKin. F. 29, (juoteii in WuUteiirn note, tn loco ; AtlioitflK- J^pol. S3 : w( yetp • yutfiyiit ^utijtfimXXan tit y^' *^ rvt/tuMr* jtuqr** wipiui^ll, tvx iwir^lifiv*. Kmi Vf44i Ulr^tf i-T;"i/lA»«, li rxid»T«i7« ; CoTVtl. A}f^^t. Vl. 28. h'. .x^n ^t]t lyJcvu^ftfurMi, •M'AI,' ra,r«» (t<x,i yutatlXit ti mtifiu), avx ivi «-«<^<w, ykfi ylvirij T*ur« vmtvrit. «AA' ^^cfif x*^'** Clcmeut
111" Ainxnndrlii (Strom. Hi. p. 648) calls tliiH n law of nature.
t Laurent reniarka on tliv nwe -"ftliH inipcrffct tyitmrm Imply, inn aliHtlnonce from a habit ('refraiiiecl rrtun coniuKal Inter- ciM.rau ') aa oppowjd to the far more uaual iy?« dooot/ng a alvgU act.
324 BEETHREN OF THE LORD
BRETHREN OF THE LORD
ksander the most sacred ties of natural aflection ? ' (p. 272). The usual answer to this is that the msbelief of the Lord's brothers would naturallj separate them from His mother. But as this disbelief was even then on the point of being changed into undoubting faith ; and as the separa- tion (if it ever existed, of which there is no evi- dence) was, at any rate, to be changed in a day or two into the closest union with all true followers of the Lord ; and as the preparation for this change must have been long perceptible to the eye of Jesus, it seems necessary to find another way of meeting the objection, if it is to be met at all. I think, nowever, that Bp. Lightfoot goes a little too far when he speaks just below of this hypo- thesis requiring us to believe that the mother, though ' living in the same city ' with her sons, ' and joining with them in a common worship (Ac 1"), is consigned to the care of a stranger, of whose house she becomes henceforth the inmate.' We have seen that there is reason for believing Salome to have been the sister of Mary, and John therefore her nephew ; but however this may be, in any case, as ner Son's dearest friend, he must have been well known to her. And if we try to picture to ourselves the circumstances of the case, it is not diFlicalt to imagine contingencies which would make it a very natural arrangement. It is generally supposed (from 1 Co 9") tnat the brothers of the Lord were married men : the usual age for marriage among the Jews was about eighteen : supposing them to have been born before the visit to tne temple of the child Jesus, they would probably have married before His crucifixion. If, then, all her children were dis- persed in their several homes, and if, as we naturally infer, her nephew John was unmarried, »nd living in a house of his o^vn, is there anything unaccountable in the Lord's mother finding a home with the beloved disciple ? Could this be regarded in any way as a slight by her other sons ? Must they not have felt that the busy life of a family was not suited for the quiet pondering which now more than ever would characterise their mother ? and, further, that this communion between the mother and the disciple was likely to be, not only a source of comfort to both, but also most profit- able to the Church at large ?