Matthew 12:46

46–50 . Jesus is sought by His Mother and Brethren. The true Mother and Brethren of Jesus Mark 3:31-35 ; Luke 8:19-21 The account is given with very slight variation by the three Synoptists. But see Mark 3:21 ; Mark 3:30-31 , where a motive is suggested—“When his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself” ( Matthew 12:21 ). Comp. the then =therefore, of Matthew 12:31 . It would seem that the Pharisees, on the pretext that Jesus had a demon, had persuaded His friends to secure Him. This was another device to destroy Jesus, see Matthew 12:14; Matthew 12:38 .

Matthew 12:46-50 . While he yet talked with the people — While he was uttering these solemn truths, and giving these awful warnings, in the audience of the vast multitudes that were gathered around him: behold, his mother and his brethren — Or near kinsmen, (namely, the sons of Mary the wife of Cleopas, or Alpheus, his mother’s sister,) stood without, not being able to come near him because of the multitude that sat about him: But he said, Who is my mother? &c. — We must not suppose that our Lord meant to put any slight on them, especially on his mother. He only took this opportunity of expressing his affection to his obedient disciples in a peculiarly endearing manner; which could not but be a great comfort to them, and a rich equivalent for all the fatigue and expense which their zeal for him and his heavenly doctrine occasioned. Stretching forth his hand toward his disciples, he said, Behold my mother, &c. — “This short speech, related by the evangelists with great simplicity, is, without their seeming to have designed it, one of the finest encomiums imaginable. Could the most elaborate panegyric have done Jesus Christ and his religion half the honour which this divine sentiment hath done them? Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, &c., the same is my brother, and sister, and mother!

— A saying, this, which will never be forgotten while there are memories in the world to retain it, or tongues to repeat it.” As if he had said, “I regard obedience to God so highly, that I prefer the relation it constitutes, and the union it begets, to the strongest ties of blood. They who do the will of my Father, have a much greater share of my esteem than my kinsmen, as such. I love them with an affection tender and steady, like that which subsists between the nearest relations; nay, I reckon them, and them only, my brethren, my sisters, and my mother. A high commendation this, and not a reflection upon our Lord’s mother, who, without doubt, was among the chief of those who did the will of God. What veneration should live in the hearts of men for Jesus and his religion, which exhibits such perfection in goodness!” — Macknight.

Matthew 12:46-50 . The relatives of Jesus ( Mark 3:31-35 ; Luke 8:19-21 ). Matthew and Mark place this incident in connection with the discourse occasioned by Pharisaic calumny. Luke gives it in a quite different connection. The position assigned it by Matthew and Mark is at least fitting, and through it one can understand the motive. Not vanity: a desire to make a parade of their influence over their famous relative on the part of mother and brethren (Chrys., Theophy., etc.), but solicitude on His account and a desire to extricate Him from trouble. This incident should be viewed in connection with the statement in Mark 3:21 that friends thought Jesus beside Himself. They wished to rescue Him from Himself and from men whose ill-will He had, imprudently, they probably thought, provoked.

(46) His mother and his brethren. —Who were these “brethren of the Lord?” The question is one which we cannot answer with any approximation to certainty. The facts in the Gospel records are scanty. In what we gather from the Fathers we find not so much traditions as conjectures based upon assumptions. The facts, such as they are, are these: (1.) The Greek word translated “brother” is a word which has just the same latitude as the term in English. Like that, it might be applied (as in the case of Joseph and his brethren) to half-brothers, or brothers by adoption, or used in the wider sense of national or religious brotherhood. There is no adequate evidence that the term was applied to cousins as such. (2.) The names of four brethren are given in Mark 6:3 , as James ( i.e., Jacob) and Joses and Juda and Simon. Three of these names (James, Juda, Simon) are found in the third group of four in the lists of the twelve Apostles. This has suggested to some the thought that they had been chosen by our Lord to that office, and the fact that a disciple bearing the name of Joses was nearly chosen to fill the place of Judas Iscariot ( Acts 1:23 , in many MSS.) presents another curious coincidence. This inference is, however, set aside by the fact distinctly stated by St.

John ( John 7:3 ), and implied in this narrative and in our Lord’s reference to a prophet being without honour in his father’s house ( Matthew 13:57 ; Mark 6:4 ), that up to the time of the Feast of Tabernacles that preceded the Crucifixion, within six months of the close of our Lord’s ministry, His brethren did not believe in His claims to be the Christ. The names, it must be remembered, were so common that they might be found in any family. (3.) Sisters are mentioned in Mark 6:3 , but we know nothing of their number, or names, or after-history, or belief or unbelief. It is clear that these facts do not enable us to decide whether the brothers and sisters were children of Mary and Joseph, or children of Joseph by a former marriage—either an actual marriage on his own account, or what was known as a Levirate marriage ( Deuteronomy 25:5 ), for the sake of raising up seed to a deceased brother—or the children of Mary’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas ( John 19:25 ). The fact of the same name being borne by two sisters, as the last theory implies, though strange, is not incredible, as by names might come into play to distinguish between them. Each of these views has been maintained with much elaborate ingenuity, and by some writers these brethren, assumed to be sons of Clopas, have been identified (in spite of the above objection, which is absolutely fatal to the theory) with the sons of Alphæus in the list of Apostles.

46. While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren—(See on [1285]Mt 13:55, 56). stood without, desiring to speak with him—"and could not come at Him for the press" (Lu 8:19). For what purpose these came, we learn from Mr 3:20, 21. In His zeal and ardor He seemed indifferent both to food and repose, and "they went to lay hold of Him" as one "beside Himself." Mark (Mr 3:32) says graphically, "And the multitude sat about Him"—or "around Him."

Matthew 12:46 . Μήτηρ , mother ) It is clear that, on this occasion, the thoughts and feelings of Mary were not in unison with those of her Son.—[593] Αὐτῷ , unto Him ) as if for His sake.[594] [593] Οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ) These were not sons whom Joseph had brought to Mary at their marriage; for Christ, as He was accounted the Son of Joseph, so was accounted as absolutely his first-begotten Son.—V. g. [594] Their intention was to interrupt him; Mark 3:21 ; Mark 3:31 .—V. g.