John 2:12

Ver. 12. “ After this, he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brethren and his disciples, and they abode there not many days. ”

From Cana Jesus undoubtedly returned to Nazareth. For it was the latter place which He had in view when returning from Judea, rather than Cana to which He was only accidentally called. Weiss finds this hypothesis arbitrary. He prefers to hold that the family of Mary had already before this left Nazareth to settle in Cana. It seems to me that this is the supposition which merits precisely the name of an arbitrary one (see on John 2:1). From Nazareth Jesus and His family removed at that time to Capernaum, as is related also by Matthew, Matthew 4:13: “ Having left Nazareth, He came and dwelt at Capernaum. ” It is only necessary to recognize the fact that Matthew unites in one the first two returns to Galilee (John 1:44; John 4:1-3), which John so accurately distinguishes. From his point of view, Weiss is obliged to see in our twelfth verse only the account of a mere visit, which was made by Jesus' family from Cana to friends at Capernaum. But what purpose does it serve to mention a detail so insignificant and one which would not have had any importance? Jesus' mother and brethren accompanied Him. No doubt, under the impression produced by the miracle of Cana, and by the accounts of the disciples, His family were unwilling to abandon Him at this moment.

They all desired to see how the drama which had just opened would unfold. This detail of John's narrative is confirmed by Mark 6:3, from which it appears that the sisters of Jesus, probably already married, had alone remained at Nazareth, and by Mark 3:21-31, which is most naturally explained if the brothers of Jesus were settled with Mary at Capernaum. As for Jesus, He had not, for the time, the intention of making a prolonged stay in that city. It was only later, when He was obliged to abandon Judea, that He fixed His ordinary residence at Capernaum, and that that place became His own city (Matthew 9:1). We may discover in the words of Luke 4:23 an indication of this brief visit, previous to His settlement in that city. Thus a considerable difficulty in the narrative of Luke would be resolved and the accuracy of his sources would be verified in respect to one of the points most assailed in his narrative. Capernaum was a city of considerable commerce. It was located on the route of the caravans which passed from Damascus and from the interior of Asia to the Mediterranean. There was a custom-house there (Luke 5:27 f.). It was, in some sort, the Jewish capital of Galilee, as Tiberias was its Gentile or Roman capital. Jesus would have less narrow prejudices to meet there than at Nazareth, and many more opportunities to propagate the Gospel. The word κατέβη, went down, is due to the fact that Cana and Nazareth were situated on the plateau, and Capernaum on the shore of the lake. The silence preserved respecting Joseph leads to the supposition that he had died before this period. Before calling His disciples to follow Him definitely, Jesus, no doubt, granted them the satisfaction of finding themselves once more, like Himself, in the family circle. It was from that circle that he called them again. (See p. 361.)

What is the true meaning of the expression: the brethren of Jesus? This question, as is well known, is one of the most complicated ones of the Gospel history. Must we understand by it brothers, in the proper sense of the word, the issue of Joseph and Mary and younger than Jesus? Or sons of Joseph, the issue of a marriage previous to his union with Mary? Or, finally, are we to hold that they are not sons either of Joseph or of Mary, and that the word brother must be taken in the broad sense of cousins? From the exegetical point of view, two reasons appear to us to support the first of these three opinions: 1. The two passages, Matthew 1:25: “He knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son” (or, according to the Alexandrian reading “ her son ”), and Luke 2:7: “she brought forth her first-born son.” 2. The proper sense of the word brothers is the only natural one in the phrase: his mother and his brethren. The following appendix will give a general exposition of the question.

The Brethren of Jesus.

The oldest traditions, if we mistake not, unanimously assign brothers to Jesus, and not merely cousins. They differ only in this point, that these brothers are, according to some, sons of Joseph and Mary, younger brothers of Jesus; according to others, children of Joseph, the issue of a first marriage. The idea of making the brothers of Jesus in the New Testament cousins, seems to go no further back than Jerome and Augustine, although Keim (I., p. 423) claims to find it already in Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria. (Comp. on this question, the excellent dissertation of Philip Schaff: Das Verhaltniss des Jacobus, Bruders des Herrn, zu Jacobus Alphaei, 1843.) Let us begin by studying the principal testimonies: Hegesippus, whom Eusebius (John 2:23) places “in the first rank in the apostolical succession,” writes about 160: “James, the Lord's brother, called the Just from the times of Christ even to our days, then takes in hand the administration of the Church with the apostles (μετὰ τῶν άποστ.).” It clearly follows from these words: with the apostles, that Hegesippus does not rank James, the Lord's brother, among the apostles, and consequently distinguishes him from the two apostles of this name, the son of Zebedee, and the little (less), son of Alphaeus. Now, if Alphaeus is the Greek form of the Aramaean name Clopas (חלפי = Κλωπᾶς), a name which, according to Hegesippus, was that of the brother of Joseph, it follows from this, that, this last James being the cousin of the Lord, the first could be only His brother, in the proper sense.

The distinction which Hegesippus established between the three Jameses is confirmed by an expression quoted from him in the same chapter of Eusebius: “For there were several persons called James (πολλοὶ ᾿Ιάκωβοι).” The word πολλοί (several), implies that he supposed there were more than two Jameses.

Eusebius relates (John 3:11), that after the martyrdom of James the Just, the first bishop of Jerusalem, “Simeon, the son of Clopas, who was the Lord's cousin (ἀνεψιός), was chosen as his successor.” For, Eusebius adds: “Hegesippus relates that Clopas was the brother of Joseph.” By this expression: the son of Clopas, Simeon's relationship to Jesus is evidently distinguished from that of James; otherwise, Eusebius would have said: who was also the son of Clopas, or at least: who was the brother of James. Hegesippus did not, therefore, consider James as the son of Clopas, nor, consequently, as the Lord's cousin; he regarded him, therefore, as His brother in the proper sense of the word.

Eusebius (John 3:32), quotes, also, the following words of Hegesippus: “Some of these heretics denounced Simeon, the son of Clopas...In the time of Trajan, the latter, son of the Lord's uncle (ὁ ἐκ τοῦ θείου τοῦ κυρίου...), was condemned to the cross.” Why designate Simeon by the expression: son of the Lord's uncle, while James was always called, simply, the Lord's brother, if they were brothers, one of the other, and related to the Lord in the same degree? The principal passage of Hegesippus is cited by Eusebius (John 4:22): “After James had suffered martyrdom, like the Lord, Simeon, born of His uncle (θείου αὐτοῦ), son of Clopas, was appointed bishop, having been chosen by all as a second cousin of the Lord (ὄντα ἀνεψιὸν τοῦ κυρίου δεύτερον).” If we refer the pronoun αὐτοῦ (His uncle), to James, the question is settled: Simeon was the son of James' uncle, consequently, James' cousin, and not his brother; and James was, therefore, not the cousin, but the brother of Jesus. If we refer the αὐτοῦ to the Lord Himself, it follows, as we already know, that Simeon was the son of Jesus' uncle, that is to say, His cousin.

The last words of Hegesippus carry us still further. Simeon is called the second cousin of Jesus; who was the first? It could not be James the Just, as Keim thinks. Everything that precedes prevents our supposing this. As constantly as Simeon is called cousin of Jesus, so constantly is James the Just designated as His brother. How would this be possible, if they were brothers to each other? It appears to me that the first cousin of Jesus (the eldest son of Clopas), could have been only the apostle James (the little) the son of Alphaeus. He, as an apostle, could not be head of a particular flock, or consequently, bishop of Jerusalem. This was, then, the second cousin of Jesus, to whom they turned after the death of James the Just. Thus, everything is harmonious in the account of Hegesippus, and the identification of the name Alphaeus and Clopas, which is at the present day called in question, is confirmed by this ancient testimony. This result is also confirmed by the words of Hegesippus respecting Jude, the brother of James (Jude 1:1): “There existed, also, at that time, grandsons of Jude, called His brother (brother of the Lord) according to the flesh ” (Euseb. John 3:20). This expression: brother of the Lord according to the flesh, applied to Jude, clearly distinguishes his position from that of Simeon.

The opinion of Clement of Alexandria may appear doubtful. This Father seems (Euseb. John 2:1) to know only two Jameses: 1. The son of Zebedee, the brother of the Apostle John 2. The Lord's brother, James the Just, who was at the same time the son of Alphaeus, and the cousin of Jesus. “For there were two Jameses,” he says, “one, the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple..., the other, who was beheaded (Acts 12:2).” Nevertheless, Clement may very well have passed in silence James, the son of Alphaeus, of whom mention is only once made in the Acts, and who played no part in the history of the Church with which this Father here occupies himself. Clement, moreover, seems to derive his information respecting James from Hegesippus himself (Schaff, p. 69). Now we have just ascertained the opinion of the latter. Tradition recognizes, therefore, the existence of brothers of Jesus, and particularly of these two: James and Jude. But are they children of Joseph, the issue of an earlier marriage, or sons of Joseph and Mary?

The former opinion is that of the author of an apocrypal writing, belonging to the first part of the second century, the Protevangelium Jacobi. In chap. 9 Joseph says to the priest who confides Mary to him: “I have sons, and am old.” At chap. 17: “I have come to Bethlehem to have my sons registered,” etc. Origen accepted this view. In his Homily on Luke 7, translated by Jerome, he says: “For these sons, called sons of Joseph, were not born of Mary.” (See the other passages in Schaff, p. 81f.) It follows, however, from his own explanations that this opinion rested, not on an historical tradition, but on a double dogmatic prejudice: that of the moral superiority of celibacy to marriage, and that of the exceptional holiness of the mother of Jesus (comp. especially the passage ad Matthew 13:55). Several apocryphal Gospels those of Peter, Thomas, etc., as well as several Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, etc., spread abroad this opinion. But Jerome charges it with being deliramentum apocryphorum.

The other view is found in the following authorities: Tertullian evidently admits brothers of Jesus in the strict and complete sense of the word. For he says, de Monog. c. 8: “The virgin was not married until after having given birth to the Christ.” According to Jerome (adv. Helvid.), some very ancient writers spoke of sons of Joseph and Mary, and they had already been combated by Justin; a fact, which proves to what a high antiquity this opinion goes back.

Whatever preference should be given to the one or the other of these two relationships, the difference between the brothers and cousins of Jesus remains established from the historical point of view.

This now is the difficulty which it raises: The names of Jesus' brothers, mentioned in Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3, are James, Joses (according to the various readings, Joseph or John), Simon and Judas. Now, according to John 19:25, comp. with Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40, Mary, the wife of Clopas, aunt of Jesus, had two sons, one named James (in Mark, James the little), the other Joses, who were, consequently, two cousins of Jesus. Moreover, Hegesippus makes Simeon, the second bishop of Jerusalem, a son of Clopas; he was, therefore, also a cousin of Jesus. Finally, Luke 6:14-16 speaks of an apostle Judas (son or brother) of James who is mentioned as son of Alphaeus (or Clopas). He would, thus, be a fourth cousin of Jesus, and the two lists would coincide throughout! Four brothers and four cousins with the same names! Is this admissible? But

1. As to the Apostle Judas, the natural ellipsis in Luke's passage is not brother, but son of James consequently of some James unknown to us. This designation is designed merely to distinguish this apostle from the other Judas, Iscariot, whose name follows. Jesus had then, indeed, a brother named Judas, but not a cousin of this name.

2. The statements of Hegesippus certainly force us to admit a cousin of Jesus by the name of Simon.

3. If, for the second brother of Jesus, we adopt the reading Joseph, the identity of name with that of the third cousin falls to the ground of itself.

4. As to the name James, it is undoubtedly found in the two lists. The actual result, therefore, is this: In these two lists, that of the brothers, and that of the cousins of Jesus, there are two names in common: those of James and Simon. Is this sufficient to prove the identity of these two categories of persons? Even in our day, does it not happen, especially in country places, that we find families related to one another, in which, among several children, one or two bear certain very familiar names in common?

Notice, on the other hand, two positive exegetical reasons in favor of the distinction between the brothers and the cousins of Jesus: 1. Without doubt, assuming the premature death of Clopas, we could understand how his widow and her sons might have been received by Joseph and Mary, and the latter brought up with Jesus, and in this way their designation as brothers of Jesus could be explained. But is it conceivable that, in presence of the fact that the mother of these young persons was still living (Matthew 27:56 and parall.), the expression would have been used in speaking of Mary and her nephews, “ His mother and His brethren,” as it is used in our Gospels (Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19)? 2. The surname, the little, given to James, the cousin of Jesus (Mark 15:40), must have served to distinguish him from some other member of his family, bearing the same name. Is it not probable that this other James was precisely James, his cousin, the brother of Jesus?

We conclude, therefore, that Jesus had four brothers strictly so called: James, surnamed the Just, Joseph, Simon and Judas, and three cousins: James, the little, Simon and Joses.

No one of His brothers was an apostle; a fact which accords with John 7:5: “ Not even did his brethren believe on him. ” Being converted later, after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5), they became, one of them (James), the first bishop of Jerusalem (Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9; Acts 15; Acts 21:18 ff.); the others, zealous missionaries (1 Corinthians 9:5). James and Judas are undoubtedly the authors of our two canonical Epistles. As for the cousins of Jesus, one only was an apostle, James (the little); the second, Simon, was the second bishop of Jerusalem. Of Joses, the third, we know nothing.

It is perhaps not impossible to place in this first visit at Capernaum some of the facts appertaining, according to the Synoptical narratives, to the first period of the Galilean ministry. The calling of the disciples, following upon the miraculous draught of fishes, takes its place naturally here. At the time of His setting out for Jerusalem, Jesus called them to follow Him for ever. He was going to inaugurate His work, and He must have desired to be surrounded from that time by those whom He had the design of associating in it. This twelfth verse is not, therefore, the close of the preceding narrative, as Weiss thinks. It is, at the same time, the indication of the moment when Jesus passed from private life to His public ministry. Like His disciples, He separates Himself from His family in order to begin the Messianic work. Moreover, this narrative is so summary, that if the whole of Jesus' life were not presupposed as known to the readers, it would resemble an enigma.

We have to consider in the following event: 1. The act of the Lord: John 2:13-16; John 2. The effect produced: John 2:17-22.