Jesus’s description of his disciples as his brothers and sisters serves as the conclusion to the conflict stories in Matthew 8-12 and a segue into the Parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13. Jesus’s true family are those who do the will of the father. This stands in contrast to the Pharisees who declare Jesus casts out demons by the power of Beelzebul. The Pharisees are given the sign of Jonah and in the last days they will be judged by the people of Nineveh and the Queen of the south.
Differences from Mark 3:20-21
Matthew does not include an important detail found in Mark 3:20-21. His family heard about the huge crowds and they came to “take charge of him” because they thought he was out of his mind. Following this the teachers of the law declare Jesus is casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub (3:22-30) and Jesus’s mother and brothers come to take him home (3:31-35).
Another key difference is Mark does not mention the disciples (those sitting around him). Matthew specifically states it is the disciples who are the ones doing his will. In both Matthew and Mark, the next section begins with the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:1-20; Matthew 13:1-23).
Jesus’s Brothers Do Not Believe
That Mary should have some doubts is surprising for most readers. Although in Luke’s version of the story, an angel appeared to her and explains her son will be the “Son of God” (Luke 1:35). In Luke 2:22-37 Simeon and Anna recognized her child as the messiah. It may be the case she had some doubts because Jesus does not appear to be interested in taking the throne of his father David or reigning over the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32-33).
Where is Joseph? He would be thirty years older than Jesus at the least. If Joseph was even twenty when Jesus was born, he would be on the high end of the average life expectancy for a hard laboring peasant in the first century world. In some traditions Joseph was considerably older than Mary, making his death by this time more likely.
That Jesus has brothers is no surprise to Protestants, it is only a problem for Roman Catholics who believe in perpetual virginity of Mary. These must be cousins of Jesus or Joseph’s children from a prior marriage. The unbelief of Jesus’s brothers is more prominent in John’s gospel (John 7:1-5).
Why do Jesus’s brothers not believe Jesus is the Messiah? John 7 implies they have seen some of his signs yet still do not believe. They may not believe for the same reason as the Pharisees, Jesus may be doing messianic signs, but he is not doing the commonly expected messianic acts. Jesus does not seem interested in an earthy kingdom. He is not acting like David, Solomon, or even Judas Maccabees. In the next chapter Jesus will describe what he means by the kingdom of heaven through a series of parables. He calls this “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” because his kingdom is in many ways radically different than Jewish messianic expectations in the first century.
Pointing to his disciples, Jesus declares his family are those who do the will of the Father (12:49-50). What is “doing the will of the Father”? Jesus as the son of God does what the Father commands, the disciples are the insiders who hear what the Father commands and respond proper.
By opposing Jesus, the Pharisees and others are not doing the will of the Father. They hear but they do not understand, see both do not perceive who Jesus is. They therefore fulfil the words of Isaiah 6:9-10. As a result, Jesus begins to teach the crowds in parables so that only his family will understand.
Reread the angel’s conversation with Mary. How much do we read into because we know what is the result? Could Mary who didn’t have the gospels to read, did not interpret it the way we do?
Hello, I’m a skeptic, and here’s my take on the problems raised by Mark 3:21 and John 7:5:
First, numerous Christian scholars and apologists concede that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him throughout the entire duration of his pre-crucifixion ministry. Licona is representative of Geisler, Habermas and others in saying “The preponderance of the evidence favors the conclusion that the brothers of Jesus were not counted among his followers through the time of Jesus’ execution. By all accounts, they appear to have maintained a distance from their brother’s ministry (Licona, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach”, IVP Academic, 2010, p. 455).
So which is more likely: Jesus’ brothers didn’t believe in him because they were so blinded by jealousy and/or a desire for a military messiah that they refused to apply common sense toward miracles they saw Jesus was doing, like feeding 5,000 and raising the dead?
Or Jesus’ brothers don’t believe in him during the pre-crucifixion period because they saw a few of his “miracles” and, like skeptics at a Benny Hinn crusade, decided those miracles were fake?
I take the latter since a) the brotherly-unbelief passages pass the criterion of embarrassment while the passages saying Jesus did miracles do not, so the brotherly-unbelief passages are more historically reliable than the passages saying Jesus did miracles, and
b) it violates common sense to say that Jesus’ family could be so shockingly dense toward their own brother who is allegedly doing these miracles (“Yes, we know that Jesus has raised back to life people who were obviously dead….but….we just want a military messiah…can’t you just leemee alone!?!”) LOL,
b) Matthew 10 tells us that the disciples themselves also went around performing miracles including raising the dead, so that when the brothers exude unbelief toward Jesus, they are also denying the ministries of other people where such miracles are supposed to be repeated and corroborated. So the unbelief of the brothers is so shocking that it screams for something other than jealousy of Jesus’ popularity, or some unreasonable biased expectation for Jesus to be a military messiah.
Second, most responsible Christian scholars of today acknowledge that Benny HInn has thousands of devoted followers, yet they also insist that Hinn has never employed supernatural power, or at least cannot demonstrate it so when directly challenged to produce evidence of such. So there’s nothing about the gospel passages saying large crowds followed Jesus, that mitigates the skeptical position I take, supra. We learn from the health-and-wealth gospel that large crowds can indeed be duped into thinking a miracle happened when it in fact did not.
Third, If we allow the protestants’ mostly symbolic interpretation of Jesus cannibalistic sounding statements in John 6:57, then the many disciples of his who stopped following him because of that saying (6:66) can only imply that Jesus had not done much more to ground his messiahship claims beyond “teaching” stuff. In other words, the “miracles” Jesus was allegedly doing, if any, were not genuinely supernatural, and many of his disciples did not believe those “miracles” successfully corroborated any of his teachings.
Fourth, most apologists trifle that there’s no evidence the brothers ever actually saw any of Jesus’ miracles, but then you disagree with such notion by saying “John 7 implies they have seen some of his signs yet still do not believe”, supra. So apparently, when skeptics like me who argue that in the collectivist honor/shame culture, Jesus’ family would surely have heard back from others about such miracles, even if his family didn’t start out monitoring Jesus from the beginning, we skeptics are justifying our naturalistic interpretation from the cultural realities of the day.
Fifth, if we assume Jesus was god since before he was born into humanity, then we must also assume that never during his childhood, or ever in the entire 30 years that his family knew him, did Jesus ever sin. His parents and brothers during his childhood would have found this disconcerting in the least (and I seriously doubt anybody will trifle that Jesus sinned in his human nature but not his divine nature, just so they can get rid of this bit of skeptical common sense).
So if Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 are true, it would appear that Jesus’ family did not see anything about Jesus in their 30 years of knowing him which gave them probable cause to believe he was anything other than a normal if perhaps extroverted person.
I have much more to argue, but for right now, the question is whether skeptics can be reasonable to interpret Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 the way I do, supra. I say we skeptics can indeed be reasonable that way. It isn’t like my skeptical interpretation is failing to take into account any rule of historiography, hermeneutics or common sense. Yes, I deny the rule “scripture interprets scripture”, as that merely presumes the truth of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, a doctrine which I along with most Christian scholars deny, a doctrine that even inerrantists cannot come to agreement on despite decades of trying within the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. barryjoneswhat@gmail.com
Thanks for your detailed response…
“First, numerous Christian scholars and apologists concede that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him throughout the entire duration of his pre-crucifixion ministry”
Agreed, this is uncontroversial.
“Jesus’ brothers don’t believe in him during the pre-crucifixion period because they saw a few of his “miracles” and, like skeptics at a Benny Hinn crusade, decided those miracles were fake?”
This is more or less the gist of the original post, which was about the people in Nazareth questioning the source of his authority to teach and perform miracles. I suspect (although could never prove) that they were convinced by the Pharisees that he was doing miracles by the power of Beelzebul.
“Matthew 10 tells us that the disciples themselves also went around performing miracles including raising the dead”
I do not see any raising the dead in Matthew 10. Matthew 10:1, he gave the authority to drive out impure spirits and heal every disease and sickness. But otherwise the point stands.
“We learn from the health-and-wealth gospel that large crowds can indeed be duped into thinking a miracle happened when it in fact did not.”
This is a great analogy (I am stealing it). I personally would play the role of a Pharisee with respect to Hinn and others and say the source of that power is not God.
“In other words, the “miracles” Jesus was allegedly doing, if any, were not genuinely supernatural, and many of his disciples did not believe those “miracles” successfully corroborated any of his teachings.”
Here is where we will disagree, since in the Second Temple Period a messiah who does not do miracles does not make sense. Jewish messianic expectations drawn from Isaiah 35:5-6 or Isaiah 61:1-2 (for example) connect healing with the coming eschatological age (blind see, deaf hear, lame, leap). Jews at the time of Jesus did not allegorize those texts, they really did expect signs from heaven. Pharisees asked Jesus for signs, and explained his power of demons as a sign he too was in league with Beelzebul.
“most apologists trifle that there’s no evidence the brothers ever actually saw any of Jesus’ miracles, but then you disagree with such notion by saying “John 7 implies they have seen some of his signs yet still do not believe”
Well, I did not know you when I wrote that, so you might agree with me. I cannot imagine the brothers not being aware of what Jesus was doing if the villagers in Nazareth knew he was doing miracles; I have no idea what would motivates an “apologist” to say such a thing.
barry: “Matthew 10 tells us that the disciples themselves also went around performing miracles including raising the dead”
Phil: I do not see any raising the dead in Matthew 10. Matthew 10:1, he gave the authority to drive out impure spirits and heal every disease and sickness. But otherwise the point stands.
barry: see Matthew 10:8…”Heal the sick, raise the dead, (Matt. 10:8 NAU)
barry: “We learn from the health-and-wealth gospel that large crowds can indeed be duped into thinking a miracle happened when it in fact did not.”
Phil: This is a great analogy (I am stealing it). I personally would play the role of a Pharisee with respect to Hinn and others and say the source of that power is not God.
——Why? I see no reason to think there is anything supernatural whatsoever in Hinn’s “miracles”. He always fails when challenged to document his “healings”, and several investigative reports established that a few who got “healed” were not only never healed, but sometimes got worse.
barry: “In other words, the “miracles” Jesus was allegedly doing, if any, were not genuinely supernatural, and many of his disciples did not believe those “miracles” successfully corroborated any of his teachings.”
Phil: Here is where we will disagree, since in the Second Temple Period a messiah who does not do miracles does not make sense. Jewish messianic expectations drawn from Isaiah 35:5-6 or Isaiah 61:1-2 (for example) connect healing with the coming eschatological age (blind see, deaf hear, lame, leap). Jews at the time of Jesus did not allegorize those texts, they really did expect signs from heaven. Pharisees asked Jesus for signs, and explained his power of demons as a sign he too was in league with Beelzebul.
barry: I’m not seeing your point. Even assuming the Jews of the 1st century expected the messiah to do miracles, that doesn’t render unreasonable a theory that one such messiah was only doing fake miracles. But your point would make my argument stronger. Supposing Jesus’ brothers were also caught up in the miracle-working-messiah craze of the first century, then they were even more likely to carefully analyze Jesus’ miracles, so that their persisting in unbelief toward him reasonably implies they discovered those miracles to be fakes.
barry: “most apologists trifle that there’s no evidence the brothers ever actually saw any of Jesus’ miracles, but then you disagree with such notion by saying “John 7 implies they have seen some of his signs yet still do not believe”
Phil: Well, I did not know you when I wrote that, so you might agree with me . I cannot imagine the brothers not being aware of what Jesus was doing if the villagers in Nazareth knew he was doing miracles; I have no idea what would motivates an “apologist” to say such a thing.
barry: They say it because the further they can distance Jesus from his brothers, the less likely the brothers ever saw the miracles, and therefore, the less likely they would ever have concluded Jesus’ miracles were fake, and therefore, surely some other explanation, which doesn’t require denying the miraculous nature of his miracles, can explain that unbelief….such as the brothers being too crazed with a military-messiah expectation to use their common sense when hearing numerous reliable reports of Jesus doing miracles. I reply that this was an honor-shame society where if Jesus were doing anything that could result in shaming the family name, the family would have great interest in checking out the scandal for themselves to decide whether the actions in question were honorable or dishonorable.
But for now, what do you believe is unreasonable in using a theory of Jesus’ fake miracles to explain the unbelief of Jesus brothers? But if there’s nothing unreasonable about it, well, being reasonable to say Jesus’ brothers concluded his miracles were fake, would in turn make it reasonable to conclude that ALL of Jesus’ miracles were fake (who would trifle that only some of his miracles were fake?). And if it be reasonable to say all of Jesus’ miracles were merely naturalistic tricks of the sort that we know televangelists use to deceive thousands of people, then it cannot be unreasonable to say God would be very unlikely to premise his second covenant upon the words and works of a deceiver (i.e., the skeptical interpretation of Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 makes it reasonable to deny that Jesus rose from the dead).
In this passage, Jesus tells us that his true family isn’t just made up of those related to him by blood, but also who do what God wants. This comes after a lot of conflict with the Pharisees who accuse Jesus of using evil powers to drive out demons. In contrast, Jesus says that his disciples, those who listen to him and follow God’s will, are his real family. Even Jesus’s own brothers don’t fully believe in him. Despite seeing the miracles, like Pharisees they have trouble accepting Jesus’s message. They were expecting a Messiah who would rule like a king, but Jesus’s kingdom is something very different spiritual, not earthly. Jesus’s point is that being close to him physically doesn’t make you part of his family. What matters is doing God’s will. This teaching leads into Jesus’s later parables in Matthew 13, where he explains the true nature of God’s kingdom. Only those who are willing to listen and understand will truly be part of it.
Wait, did I miss something? Jesus has brothers? He always seemed like an only child to me. Anywho, it is interesting that Mary didn’t think that Jesus wouldn’t fulfill the prophecy because he had no interest in the throne. This further depicts Jesus as an unlikely savior by the context of the period in which he lived. I think it is also interesting that the life of a laborer was quite short, because of this it makes sense that we do not hear anything about him outside of the birth accounts. This may have something to do with Joseph being a laborer or also because of his age gap from Mary. Which was quite normal for the time period. Additionally, as someone who was raised in the Catholic faith, it has been quite shocking hearing that Jesus has siblings, whereas Protestants are not as surprised. Knowing this now, it does make sense that Catholics would not believe that Jesus could have siblings simply because they believe that Mary was a virgin her whole existence. Gosh forbid someone has sex inside the bounds of marriage. Regardless of whether Jesus has blood related brothers, He does have his “brothers from another mother.” As we have been doing research on parables, it is easier to read how Jesus portrays His messianic signs throughout them, instead of earthly signs like David, Solomon and Judas Maccabeus. This may be why his disciples have a more difficult time seeing that he is the Son of God right away (or compared to the modern day reader). Ultimately, Jesus focuses on pursuing and following the will of the Father. We must understand the Father’s will in order for us to follow suit.
“Wait, did I miss something? Jesus has brothers?” Yep…it’s a fact. Are not only children sort weird and spoiled?
While Jesus is teaching in Matthew 12, his mother and brothers approach through the crowd, wanting to speak to him. Although Matthew doesn’t paint a picture of unbelief among his mom and brothers, Mark does, saying they thought he was “Out of his mind.” If Jesus did not convince his family that he was the Messiah, why had he tried to convince others? My question here is that I feel a strong connection to my family, as most people do. If there is a strong conviction in your life, especially the conviction of the Holy Spirit, I would feel led to share the Gospel with my family members that did not believe in Jesus (If there were any). Why does Jesus sort of neglect the belief of his family members in this verse? I think he wants to show how anyone can be his mother or brother in heaven if they do God’s will and believe. These passages also contradict some people’s beliefs about the virgin Mary and how she had no other children other than Jesus. The only thing I can relate this to in Strauss is the graph he uses to show when people saw the resurrected Jesus. James saw him last, with a group of 500 others. James by then was a believer.
I have always found it fairly normal the Jesus’s siblings would not believe in Him as the Messiah. It always seemed like a normal case of sibling jealousy. Maybe one could draw a parallel between Jesus and his brothers with the story of Joseph in Genesis 37-50. However, that is probably reading into it too much since we don’t really have that much information. In Matthew 12, Jesus does not really dismiss his family in a negative way like he did not want to talk to them. Instead, I think he found it more important to teach His followers. It is interesting how Jesus began speaking in parables so that only His believers would understand, I have never thought of that before. Strauss says that by speaking only to those who believe, Jesus is giving a sense of finality, and it mirrors Isaiah’s day where, “only judgment awaits those who have rejected God’s messenger” (Strauss, 231). Jesus was more focused on teaching to those who believed and needed him than those who rejected Him. The story of James is cool because it shows that at least one of Jesus’s brothers did end up believing in Him and taught the Jewish people about Jesus.
I have always wondered why Jesus’ siblings would not believe in him, Though it does make sense why they wouldn’t. Even with them seeing some of the signs, your sibling being the Son of God would be a hard thing to believe and accept. I can only imagine the sibling jealously that must have been present, at least that is how I have always looked at it. While Jesus was performing the miracles and fulfilling the messianic prophecies and signs, he did not seem interested in performing the messianic acts like people expected, like taking over David’s throne and dealing with any enemies. The way Jesus did his ministry was the opposite of what people expected. Most people of the day were expecting a warrior and the immediate downfall of their enemies , but they got a human, performing miracles and teaching about God’s kingdom. (Strauss, 2020). In this particular case, I never realized that Jesus taught in parables so that only his family would understand what he was talking about. I never thought that it would cause even his mother to have doubts, though it does make sense. It does make me wonder though, If people that never even knew Jesus could come to to believe in him as the Messiah, why wouldn’t his own family believe, too? At least James did, eventually. It is certainly interesting to think about, and I had never really given it a second thought before reading this post.
I definitely didn’t realize Jesus had brothers, but it is really interesting to know that. I really find it interesting that Mary had her doubts. I always imagined her cheering Jesus on through everything, but it does make sense that she had some doubts. Jesus seems to have lived a relatively “low profile” life in the sense that he doesn’t need a crown and throne in order to lead people. However, she must know about the different miracles Jesus has done. Does that not ease her doubts? And what about the story of an angel coming to her and outright telling her about Jesus? I guess I don’t understand why she doubted Jesus. Jesus describing his family as people “doing the will of the Father” is amazing to me. I like the idea of referring to one another in that familial sense. The phrase “brothers and sisters in Christ” always brought me joy and comfort in knowing there are people who just want to love one another. It’s truly a beautiful thing.
I didn’t know Jesus had a brother until later on as I grew in my faith and read more of the bible. I think it’s kind of crazy that Jesus’s brothers did not believe he was the messiah because their mother Mary had the experience with the angel and she was a firm believer in Jesus, even though she may have had her doubts originally. Joseph must have believed in Jesus since he did not leave Mary, his wife. It’s interesting to think that while Mary and Joseph believed in who Jesus was, his brothers did not. Word spread that Jesus was performing miracles and even then his brothers did not have faith in Jesus until after his death. But after his brothers started to believe in Jesus, they became big parts of the new church. It took Jesus’ actions on the cross for them to believe Jesus was who he said he was. It makes me wonder though why Jesus didn’t make more of an effort to reach out to his brothers and show them that he was the Christ. Maybe it was meant to be that they doubted him so that they could reach out to the doubters to bring them to Christ.
After reading this post by you, I found your view of why Jesus’s brother didn’t believe to be interesting. The first thing that I found interesting in your post is when you mention that Jesus does not act like David or Solomon, and that could be a reason why his brothers do not believe him. In my opinion, this makes sense to me because if you look at the historical context of what the Jews believed the messiah was going to be hard to understand, the return of the kingdom is not a physical one, but instead one in heaven with God. The second thing that I found interesting is that you talk about how Jesus told his followers that his true family is those who do the will of God which I found to be very insightful when looking at the idea that we are the body of Christ as Christians. The reason I say this is because Jesus makes it feel like following him is not just a religion, but instead it is something more important which is a family. This makes me feel like we come together as one big family of believers no matter if someone is blood related or not.
I have a hard time figuring out who the people in Mark 3:20-21 are—those who came to “take charge of him” and those who said Jesus was out of his mind. Is it Jesus’ family or the crowd? The KJV says “his friends,” the NKJV says “his own people,” but the ESV says “his family.” It is in verse 31 that Jesus’ mother and brothers are mentioned.
In any case, it seems unlikely that Jesus’ mother, Mary, would doubt Jesus. As you mentioned, an angel appeared to her and told her that her son was the Son of God. She also witnessed Jesus’ miracle at the wedding in Cana. It’s not necessarily that she didn’t believe in Jesus; rather, as a mother, she was probably concerned for his safety and possibly trying to protect the family’s reputation. One commentary reads, “Jesus’ family are intent on silencing him, presumably to squelch any further unwanted attention from the populace or the authorities. They may be spurred by the noble but misguided desire to protect him from danger or, less nobly, to salvage the family reputation” (Garland, p. 130).
Jesus’ brothers, on the other hand, did not believe in Him, even after witnessing some of His signs, as recorded in John 7:1-5. They were like many others who saw Jesus’ miracles and still did not believe He was the Messiah. Without the Father’s divine revelation, one cannot truly comprehend who Jesus is. Jesus Himself said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them” (John 6:43). When Peter confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, Jesus replied, “This was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven” (Matthew 16:17).
Garland, D. (2011). Mark. NIVAC. Zondervan Academic.