Марко 6:3 Коментар

I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonorable, impious, unworthy or evil... I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

A great variety of observable passages we have, in this chapter, concerning our Lord Jesus, the substance of all which we had before in Matthew, but divers circumstances we have, which we did not there meet with. Here is, I. Christ contemned by his countrymen, because he was one of them, and they knew, or thought they knew, his original (Mar 6:1-6). II. The just power he gave his apostles over unclean spirits, and an account given of their negotiation (Mar 6:7-13). III. A strange notion which Herod and others had of Christ, upon which occasion we have the story of the martyrdom of John Baptist (v. 14-29). IV. Christ's retirement into a desert place with his disciples; the crowds that followed him thither to receive instruction from him; and his feeding five thousand of them with five loaves and two fishes (Mar 6:30-44). V. Christ's walking upon the sea to his disciples, and the abundance of cures he wrought on the other side of the water (Mar 6:45-56).

And he went out from thence,.... From Capernaum; and came into his own country; or "city", as the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read, the city of Nazareth; so called because it was the place where Christ was conceived, and where he was educated; for which he had a regard, and was willing it should partake of the benefit of his doctrine and miracles: and his disciples follow him; as they did wherever he went; and which is a true characteristic of a disciple of Jesus.

Is not this the carpenter?.... Some copies read, "the carpenter's son", as in Mat 13:55 and so the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; but all the ancient copies, Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions, read "the carpenter": such may Christ be reasonably thought to be, since his father was; and which business he might follow, partly through the meanness and poverty of his parents; and partly that he might set an example of industry and diligence; and chiefly to bear that part of the first Adam's curse, which was to eat his bread with the sweat of his brow: nor ought this to have been objected to him by the Jews, with whom it was usual for their greatest doctors and Rabbins to be of some trade or secular employment; so R. Jochanan was a shoemaker (z) R. Isaac was a blacksmith (a), R. Juda was a tailor (b), Abba Saul and R. Jochanan, were undertakers for funerals (c); R. Simeon was a seller of cotton (d), R. Nehemiah was a ditcher (e), R. Jose bar Chelphetha was a skinner (f); and others of them were of other trades, and some exceeding mean: the famous R. Hillell was a hewer of wood, and Carna, a judge in Israel, was a drawer of water (g); and so Maimonides says, "the great wise men of Israel were some of them hewers of wood and drawers of water (h).'' They say, "a man is obliged to learn his son an honest and easy trade (i):'' there are some businesses they except against (k), but this of a carpenter is not one; yea, they say, "if a man does not teach his son a trade, it is all one as if he taught him thievery (l).'' Nor did they think it at all inconsistent with learning; for they have a saying (m), that "beautiful is the learning of the law, along with a trade.'' The Jews ought not to have flouted Christ with this trade of a carpenter, since, according to them, it was necessary that a carpenter, in some cases, should be a regular priest; as in repairing of the temple, especially the holy of holies. So says Maimonides (n); "there was a trap door, or an open place in the floor of the chamber, open to the holy of holies, that workmen might enter thereby into the holy of holies, when there was a necessity of repairing any thing; and since we make mention of workmen, it may be observed here, when there is need of building in the midst of the temple, great care should be taken, , "that the workman, or carpenter, be a right priest".'' Yea, they expressly say, that the Messiah is one of the four carpenters in Zac 1:20. "And the Lord showed me four carpenters"; they ask (o), ""who are the four carpenters?" Says R. Chana bar Bizna, says R. Simeon the saint, Messiah the son of David, Messiah the son of Joseph, and Elijah, and a priest of righteousness.'' This is with some variation elsewhere expressed thus (p), ""and the Lord showed me four carpenters"; and these are they, Elijah, and the king Messiah, and Melchizedek and the anointed for war.'' And one of their commentators (q) on the same text says, "our Rabbins of blessed memory, explain this verse of the days of the Messiah;'' and then cites the above passage out of the Talmud; and another (r) refers unto it; See Gill on Mat 13:55. The inhabitants of Nazareth go on, in order to reproach Jesus, calling him the son of Mary; a poor woman of their town, and perhaps now a widow, since no mention is made of Joseph: the brother of James and Joses, and of Juda and Simon? who were all of them the sons of Alphaeus or Cleophas, who was himself brother, or his wife sister, to Joseph or Mary; so that Christ was the near kinsman of these his sons: and it was usual with the Jews to call such an one a brother, and even indeed a more distant relation. The Vulgate Latin, and Ethiopic versions, instead of Joses, read Joseph: and are not sisters here with us? And they were offended at him: either at the manner he came by his wisdom, with which he delivered such doctrine he did; and by his power, through which he wrought his mighty works, or miracles; they suspecting he came by them in an unlawful way, through familiarity with the devil, which they sometimes charged him with having: or at the meanness of his trade and employment; they could by no means think of him as the Messiah, who made so contemptible a figure, and was brought up in such a low way of life; and the rather, since one of their kings in common, was not be a mechanic, or at least of any mean occupation: of their canons runs thus (s); "they do not appoint to be a king, or an high priest, one that has been a butcher, or a barber, or a bath keeper, or a tanner; not because they were unfit, but because their business was mean, and the people would always despise them.'' Other trades are elsewhere (t) mentioned, from among whom a king, or an high priest, were never taken; as founders, combers, borers of handmills, druggists, weavers, notaries, fullers, a letter of blood, or a surgeon, &c. particularly such as related to women's business. Now, as it was not usual to choose any one to be a king that wrought at a trade, they could not bear that the king Messiah should be of one; and because Jesus was, they were offended at him, and rejected him as the Messiah. Or they were offended at the meanness of his extraction and descent, his father, and mother, and brethren, and sisters, being all persons in low circumstances of life; whereas they expected the Messiah would be born and brought up as a temporal prince, in great grandeur and splendour; See Gill on Mat 13:55, Mat 13:56, Mat 13:57. (z) Pirke Abot, c. 4. sect. 11. T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 104. 2. Cetubot, fol. 34. 1. & 58. 2. Bava Kama, fol. 71. 1. (a) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 24. 1. Sanhedrin, fol. 96. 1. Bava Bathra, fol. 170. 1. (b) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 164. 2. (c) T. Bab. Nidda, fol. 24. 2. (d) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 28. 2. Megilla, fol. 17. 1. & 18. 2. (e) Caphtor, fol. 75. 2. (f) Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 30. 1. (g) Maimon. in Pirke Abot, c. 4. sect. 5. (h) Ib. Hilch. Talmud Tora, c. 1. sect. 9. (i) Misn. Kiddush. c. 4. sect. 14. T. Bab. Kiddush. fol. 82. 1. & Beracot, fol. 63. 1. (k) T. Kiddush. ib. (l) Ib. fol. 30. 2. (m) Pirke Abot, c. 2. sect. 9. (n) In Misn. Middot, c. 4. sect. 5. (o) T. Bab. Succa. (p) Shirhashirim Rabba, fol. 11. 4. (q) R. David Kimchi in Zech. i. 20. (r) R. Sol. Jarchi in ib. (s) Maimon. Hilch. Melachim, c. 1, sect. 6. (t) T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 82. 1.

I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

And when Jesus came to the Jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life).

And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel.

Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, the brother of the sons of Joseph, and very religious, while knowing the near relationship of the Lord, yet did not say that he himself was His brother. But what said he? "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ,"— of Him as Lord; but "the brother of James." [Jude 1] For this is true; he was His brother, (the son) of Joseph.

Come, now, if you have read in the utterance of the prophet in the Psalms, "God hath reigned from the tree," I wait to hear what you understand thereby; for fear you may perhaps think some carpenter-king is signified, and not Christ, who has reigned from that time onward when he overcame the death which ensued from His passion of "the tree.

But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James", that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you" [Luke 1:35], might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.

Because there are those who dare to say that Mary cohabited with Joseph after she bore the Redeemer, we reply, 'How would it have been possible for her who was the home of the indwelling of the Spirit, whom the divine power overshadowed, that she be joined by a mortal being, and gave birth filled with birthpangs, in the image of the primeval curse?' If Mary was blessed of women, she would have been exempt from the curse from the beginning, and from the bearing of children in birthpangs and curses. It would be impossible therefore to call one who gave birth with these birthpangs blessed.

The ordinary workmen will come to the son of Joseph singing:“Blessed be your coming, O master of workers everywhere. The imprint of your labor is seen in the ark, And in the fashioning of the tabernacle Of the congregation that was for a time only! Our whole craft praises you, who are our eternal glory. Make for us a yoke that is light, even easy, for us to bear. Establish that measure in us in which there can be no falseness.”

And yet some very depraved men take from this the basis of their view that there were many brothers of our Lord as a point of tradition. If there had been sons of Mary who were not rather produced from a previous marriage of Joseph's, Mary never would have been transferred to the apostle John as his mother at the time of the Passion, nor would the Lord have said to them both, "Woman, behold your son," and to John, "Behold your mother," [John 19:26-27] unless perhaps he was leaving his disciple's filial love in order to comfort her who was left behind.

Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.

How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him."

How then, says Helvidius, do you make out that they were called the Lord's brethren who were not his brethren? I will show how that is. In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren — by nature, race, kindred, love. Instances of brethren by nature are Esau and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Andrew and Peter, James and John. As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another, as in Deuteronomy, [Deuteronomy 15:12] "If your brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto you, and serve you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you." And in the same book, [Deuteronomy 17:15] "You shall in anywise set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, which is not your brother." And again, [Deuteronomy 22:1] "You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely bring them again unto your brother. And if your brother be not near unto you, or if you know him not, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seek after it, and you shall restore it to him again." And the Apostle Paul says, [Romans 9:3-4] "I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites." Moreover they are called brethren by kindred who are of one family, that is πατρία, which corresponds to the Latin paternitas, because from a single root a numerous progeny proceeds. In Genesis [Genesis 13:8, 11] we read, "And Abram said to Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray you, between me and you, and between my herdmen and your herdmen; for we are brethren." And again, "So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother." Certainly Lot was not Abraham's brother, but the son of Abraham's brother Aram. For Terah begot Abraham and Nahor and Aram: and Aram begot Lot. Again we read, [Genesis 12:4] "And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son." But if you still doubt whether a nephew can be called a son, let me give you an instance. [Genesis 14:14] "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen." And after describing the night attack and the slaughter, he adds, "And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot." Let this suffice by way of proof of my assertion. But for fear you may make some cavilling objection, and wriggle out of your difficulty like a snake, I must bind you fast with the bonds of proof to stop your hissing and complaining, for I know you would like to say you have been overcome not so much by Scripture truth as by intricate arguments. Jacob, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, when in fear of his brother's treachery he had gone to Mesopotamia, drew near and rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother. [Genesis 29:11] "And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son." Here is an example of the rule already referred to, by which a nephew is called a brother. And again, [Genesis 29:15] "Laban said to Jacob. Because you are my brother, should you therefore serve me for nought? Tell me what shall your wages be." And so, when, at the end of twenty years, without the knowledge of his father-in-law and accompanied by his wives and sons he was returning to his country, on Laban overtaking him in the mountain of Gilead and failing to find the idols which Rachel hid among the baggage, Jacob answered and said to Laban, [Genesis 31:36-37] "What is my trespass? What is my sin, that you have so hotly pursued after me? Whereas you have felt all about my stuff, what have you found of all your household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and your brethren, that they may judge between us two." Tell me who are those brothers of Jacob and Laban who were present there? Esau, Jacob's brother, was certainly not there, and Laban, the son of Bethuel, had no brothers although he had a sister Rebecca. Innumerable instances of the same kind are to be found in the sacred books. But, to be brief, I will return to the last of the four classes of brethren, those, namely, who are brethren by affection, and these again fall into two divisions, those of the spiritual and those of the general relationship. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity." And in another psalm the Saviour says, "I will declare your name unto my brethren." And elsewhere, [John 20:17] "Go unto my brethren and say to them." I say also general, because we are all children of one Father, there is a like bond of brotherhood between us all. [Isaiah 66:5] "Tell these who hate you," says the prophet, "you are our brethren." And the Apostle writing to the Corinthians: [1 Corinthians 5:11] "If any man that is named brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one no, not to eat." I now ask to which class you consider the Lord's brethren in the Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say. But Scripture does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of Joseph. Shall we say they are brethren by race? But it is absurd to suppose that a few Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time might upon this principle have borne the title. Were they brethren by virtue of close intimacy and the union of heart and mind? If that were so, who were more truly His brethren than the apostles who received His private instruction and were called by Him His mother and His brethren? Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, "Behold, your brethren seek you," for all men alike were entitled to the name. The only alternative is to adopt the previous explanation and understand them to be called brethren in virtue of the bond of kindred, not of love and sympathy, nor by prerogative of race, nor yet by nature. Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, [Genesis 20:11] "She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's," that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister... It is clear that our Lord's brethren bore the name in the same way that Joseph was called his father: [Luke 1:18] "I and your father sought you sorrowing." It was His mother who said this, not the Jews. The Evangelist himself relates that His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written, [John 1:45] "Philip finds Nathanael, and says unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." You will certainly find this in your manuscript. Now tell me, how is Jesus the son of Joseph when it is clear that He was begotten of the Holy Ghost? Was Joseph His true father? Dull as you are, you will not venture to say that. Was he His reputed father? If so, let the same rule be applied to them when they are called brethren, that you apply to Joseph when he is called father.

Those heretics were called Antidicomarites who denied the virginity of Mary to the point that they claim that after the birth of Christ she had intercourse with her husband.

(de Con. Evan. ii. 42) Matthew indeed says that He was called the son of a carpenter; nor are we to wonder, since both might have been said, for they believed Him to be a carpenter, because He was the son of a carpenter.

And verily the blessed Jeremiah says, as to our Lord Jesus Christ, "For both thy brethren and the house of thy father, they too despised Thee, and they cried out; of thy followers were they gathered together: believe them not, for they will speak fair words unto Thee." [Jeremiah 12:6] For His brethren who before the faith thought little of Him, and in the words just spoken, all but attempt to cry out against Him, were gathered together through faith, and have spoken fair words unto Him, both aiding others, and striving with words in behalf of the faith. Very watchfully did the Prophet, having named His brethren, profitably add, The house of Thy father, lest they too should be supposed to have been of the blessed Virgin, rather than of His father Joseph alone.

It helps us to understand the terms 'first-born' and 'only-begotten' when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin 'until she brought forth her first-born son' [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin

For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that she had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turns them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head. To begin with, when the Virgin was entrusted to Joseph - lots having compelled her to take this step - she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come - [a witness] that Christ's incarnation was nothing spurious but was truly attested, as without a man's seed but truly brought about by the Holy Spirit.

(ubi sup.) For although human things are not to be compared with divine, still the type is complete, because the Father of Christ works by fire and spirit. It goes on, The brother of James, and Joses, of Jude, and, of Simon. And are not his sisters here with us? They bear witness that His brothers and sisters were with Him, who nevertheless are not to be taken for the sons of Joseph or of Mary, as heretics say, but rather, as is usual in Scripture, we must understand them to be His relations, as Abraham and Lot are called brothers, though Lot was brother's son to Abraham. And they were offended at him. The stumbling and the error of the Jews is our salvation, and the condemnation of heretics. For so much did they despise the Lord Jesus Christ, as to call Him a carpenter, and son of a carpenter. It goes on, And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country. Even Moses bears witness that the Lord is called a Prophet in the Scripture, for predicting His future Incarnation to the sons of Israel, he says, A Prophet shall the Lord raise up unto you of your brethren. (Acts 7:37) But not only He Himself, Who is Lord of prophets, but also Elias, Jeremiah, and the remaining lesser prophets, were worse received in their own country than in strange cities, for it is almost natural for men to envy their fellow-townsmen; for they do not consider the present works of the man, but they remember the weakness of His infancy.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. The scandal and error of the Jews are our salvation and the condemnation of the heretics. For they so clearly saw the man Jesus Christ, that they called him the carpenter, and according to another Evangelist, the carpenter's son; they also testified that his brothers and sisters were with them. Yet these are not to be considered as the actual children of Joseph or Mary, according to the heretics, but rather, according to the custom of sacred Scripture, they must be understood as their relatives, in the same way that Abraham and Lot are called brothers, although Lot was the son of Abraham's brother. And you have many such examples.

(in Marc. 2, 23) He means by His country, Nazareth, in which He was brought up. But how great the blindness of the Nazarenes! they despise Him, Who by His words and deeds they might know to be the Christ, solely on account of His kindred. It goes on, And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? By wisdom is meant His doctrine, by powers, the cures and miracles which He did. It goes on, Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?

However, not without the provision of a certain sacrament did the Lord, appearing in the flesh, wish to be considered and called a craftsman and the son of a craftsman: but rather, even through this, He taught that He was the son of Him before the ages, who, as the maker of all things, in the beginning created heaven and earth (John I). For although human things are not comparable to divine things, yet the type is perfect, because the Father of Christ works by fire and spirit. Hence also His precursor said about Him as the son of a craftsman: He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matthew III). He who in this great house of the world fabricates vessels of different kinds, or rather, by softening the vessels of wrath with the fire of His spirit, transforms them into vessels of mercy: but the Jews are ignorant of this sacrament: they look down upon the works of divine power out of contemplation of carnal lineage.

John was related to Jesus, in the following manner. Joseph, the Betrothed of the most pure Theotokos, had seven children by his previous wife—four sons, and three daughters whose names were Martha, Esther, and Salome. John was the son of Salome; therefore, Jesus was John’s uncle. Because Salome was the daughter of Joseph—the "father of the Lord"—she was considered to be the Lord’s sister; and her son, John, the Lord’s nephew. Salome means "peaceful"; John means "the grace of her." May every soul understand that Christ’s peace, which is offered to all men, calms the passions of the soul, and gives birth to divine grace within us. But a soul in turmoil, always battling with others and with itself, cannot be counted worthy of divine grace. Consider another marvelous thing about John. Only he is said to have three mothers: first, Salome, his natural mother; second, thunder, for he is a "son of thunder" (Mk 3:17), on account of his powerful proclamation of the Gospel ; and third, Mary, the Theotokos, concerning whom the Lord said to John, "Behold thy mother" (Jn 19:27).

He comes also to expose the envious character of His countrymen; for whereas they ought to have marveled at the Lord, Who so adorned their homeland with both teaching and miracles, they instead despised the Lord on account of His humble origin. What an evil thing envy is! It always strives to obscure what is good and does not allow the envious to see it. So even now many, out of ill will and extreme baseness, dishonor certain people because of their lowly birth, even though they are worthy of every honor.

(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands. [NOTE: This is often erroneously attributed to Papias of Hierapolis, AD 130]

Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring. Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man. Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her. Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost. We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards... Some, as Jerome says on Matthew 12:49-50, "suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister." For "Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common affection." Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin, "since he is not said to have had another wife," and "a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely."

Jesus is called the son of a workman, of that one, however, whose work was the morning and the sun, that is, the first and second Church, as a figure of which the woman and the damsel are healed. Oftentimes also the origin of a man brings him contempt, as it is written, (1 Sam. 25:10. Ps. 138:6) Who is the son of Jesse? for the Lord hath respect unto the lowly; as to the proud, He beholdeth them afar off.

Our Lord's countrymen are astonished at his wisdom and mighty works, and are offended at him, Mar 6:1-4. He works few miracles there, because of their unbelief, Mar 6:5, Mar 6:6. He sends forth his disciples by two and two to preach, etc., Mar 6:7-11. They depart, preach, and work miracles, Mar 6:12, Mar 6:13. Different opinions of Christ, Mar 6:14-16. Account of the beheading of John Baptist, Mar 6:17-29. The disciples return, and give an account of their mission, Mar 6:30. He departs with them to a place of privacy, but the people follow him, Mar 6:31-33. He has compassion on them, and miraculously feeds five thousand with five loaves and two fishes, Mar 6:34-44. He sends the disciples by sea to Bethsaida, and himself goes into a mountain to pray, Mar 6:45, Mar 6:46. The disciples meet with a storm, and he comes to them walking upon the water, and appeases the winds and the sea, Mar 6:47-52. They come into the land of Gennesaret, and he works many miracles, Mar 6:53-56.

Is not this the carpenter - Among the ancient Jews, every father was bound to do four things for his son. 1. To circumcise him. 2. To redeem him. 3. To teach him the law. 4. To teach him a trade. And this was founded on the following just maxim: "He who teaches not his son to do some work, is as if he taught him robbery!" It is therefore likely that Joseph brought up our Lord to his own trade. Joses - Several good MSS. read Ιωσητος, Joset, and one, with several versions, reads Joseph.

THE SYROPHœNICIAN WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER--A DEAF AND DUMB MAN HEALED. ( = Mat 15:21-31). (Mar 7:24-37) And from thence he arose, and went into the borders--or "unto the borders." of Tyre and Sidon--the two great Phœnician seaports, but here denoting the territory generally, to the frontiers of which Jesus now came. But did Jesus actually enter this heathen territory? The whole narrative, we think, proceeds upon the supposition that He did. His immediate object seems to have been to avoid the wrath of the Pharisees at the withering exposure He had just made of their traditional religion. and entered into an house, and would have no man know it--because He had not come there to minister to heathens. But though not "sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat 15:24), He hindered not the lost sheep of the vast Gentile world from coming to Him, nor put them away when they did come--as this incident was designed to show. but he could not be hid--Christ's fame had early spread from Galilee to this very region (Mar 3:8; Luk 6:17).