here means “cousin” (a·ne·psi·osʹ) is a theoretical contention, the invention of which is credited to Jerome, and dates back no earlier than 383 C.E. Not only does Jerome fail to cite any traditional support for his newborn hypothesis; in later writings he wavers in his opinions and even expresses misgivings about his “cousin theory.” As Lightfoot comments. “St Jerome pleaded no traditional authority for his theory, and that therefore the evidence in its favour is to be sought in Scripture alone. I have examined the scriptural evidence, and the . . . combination of difficulties . . . more than counterbalances these secondary arguments in its favour, and in fact must lead to its rejection.”—St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, 1874, p. 258.

In the Greek Scriptures where the account involved a nephew or cousin a·del·phosʹ is not used. Rather, the relationship is explained, as “the son of Paul’s sister” or “Mark the cousin [a·ne·psi·osʹ] of Barnabas.” (Acts 23:16; Col. 4:10) The Greek words syg·ge·nonʹ (“relatives,” such as cousins) and a·del·phonʹ (“brothers”) both occur in the same text, showing that the terms are not used loosely or indiscriminately in the Greek Scriptures.—Luke 21:16.

When, during Jesus’ ministry “his brothers were, in fact, not exercising faith in him,” it would certainly rule them out from being his brothers in a spiritual sense. (John 7:3-5) Jesus contrasted these fleshly brothers with his disciples, who believed in him and who were his spiritual brothers. (Matt. 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21) This lack of faith on the part of his fleshly brothers prohibits identifying them with apostles of the same names: James, Simon, Judas, they are explicitly distinguished from Jesus’ disciples.—John 2:12.

The relationship these fleshly brothers of Jesus had with his mother Mary also indicates they were her children rather than more distant relatives. They are usually mentioned in association with her. Statements to the effect that Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” (Luke 2:7), and that Joseph “had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son,” also support the view that Joseph and Mary had other children. (Matt. 1:25) Even Nazarene neighbors recognized and identified Jesus as “the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon,” adding, “And his sisters are here with us, are they not?”—Mark 6:3.

In the light of these scriptures the question is asked: Why, then, should Jesus just before his death entrust the care of his mother Mary to the apostle John instead of his fleshly brothers? (John 19:26, 27) Manifestly because Jesus’ cousin, the apostle John, was a man who had proved his faith, he was the disciple whom Jesus loved so dearly, and this spiritual relationship transcended that of the flesh; at the time, remember, there is no indication that his fleshly brothers were, as yet, disciples of Jesus.

After Jesus’ death on the torture stake his fleshly brothers changed their doubting attitude, for they were present with their mother and the apostles when assembled for prayer after Jesus’ ascension. (Acts 1:14) This suggests that they were present also at the outpouring of the holy spirit on the day of Pentecost. James, who was singled out prominently among the older men of the governing body in Jerusalem and who, even though not an apostle, wrote the letter bearing his name, is believed to be Jesus’ brother. (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; Jas. 1:1) Jesus’ brother Jude, not the apostle, is believed to have penned the book by his name. (Jude 1, 17) Paul indicates that at least some of Jesus’ brothers were married.—1 Cor. 9:5.

BROTHER-IN-LAW MARRIAGE

(also known as levirate marriage, from Latin levir, meaning a husband’s brother).

The law regarding this at Deuteronomy 25:5, 6 reads: “In case brothers dwell together and one of them has died without his having a son, the wife of the dead one should not become a strange man’s outside. Her brother-in-law should go to her, and he must take her as his wife and perform brother-in-law marriage with her. And it must occur that the first-born whom she will bear should succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be wiped out of Israel.” This doubtless applied whether the surviving brother was married or not.

Jehovah is the one “to whom every family in heaven and on earth owes its name.” (Eph. 3:15) He believes in the preservation of the family name and line. This principle was followed in patriarchal times and was later incorporated into the Law covenant with Israel. The woman was not to become a strange man’s outside, that is, she should not marry anyone outside the family. When her brother-in-law took her, the firstborn would bear, not the name of the brother-in-law, but that of the deceased man. This does not mean that the child always bore the same given name but that he carried on the family line and the hereditary possession remained in the father’s household.

“In case brothers dwell together” apparently did not mean that they lived in the same house but in the same vicinity. Of course, living at a great distance would make it difficult for the brother to take care of his own and his brother’s inheritance until an heir could do it. However, the Talmud says that it meant not in the same community but at the same time.

An example of this practice in patriarchal times is the case of Judah. He took a wife, Tamar, for Er his firstborn, and when Er proved wicked in Jehovah’s eyes, Jehovah put him to death. “In view of that Judah said to Onan [Er’s brother]: ‘Have relations with your brother’s wife and perform brother-in-law marriage with her and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not become his; and it occurred that when he did have relations with his brother’s wife he wasted his semen on the ground so as not to give offspring to his brother.” (Gen. 38:8, 9) Because Onan refused to fulfill his obligation in connection with the arrangement of brother-in-law marriage, Jehovah put him to death. Judah then told Tamar to wait until his third son Shelah matured, but Shelah was not required by his father to perform his duty toward Tamar.

In due time, after the death of Judah’s wife, Tamar maneuvered so as to get an heir from her father-in-law. This she did by disguising herself, putting on a shawl and a veil and seating herself by the road along which she knew Judah would be passing. Judah took her for a harlot and had relations with her. She obtained tokens from him as evidence of their relations, and when the truth came out, Judah did not blame her but declared that she was more righteous than he was. The record states that he did not have further intercourse with her when he learned who she was. Thus Judah himself unwittingly produced an heir to Er through his daughter-in-law.—Gen. chap. 38.

Under the Law, in case a brother-in-law did not want to perform his duty, the widow was to take the matter to the older men of the city and inform them of this fact. He was to appear before them and state that he did not want to marry her. At that the widow was to draw off his sandal from his foot and spit in his face. After this the man’s “name must be called in Israel ‘The house of the one who had his sandal drawn off,’” an expression of reproach toward his household.—Deut. 25:7-10.

The practice of taking off the sandal may have arisen from the fact that when anyone took possession of landed property he did so by treading upon the soil and asserting his right of possession by standing upon it in his sandals. In taking off his sandal and handing it to another, he was renouncing his position and property before the constituted older witnesses at the city gate.

Further light is thrown on the matter in the book of Ruth. A Judean man named Elimelech died, as