Thoughts on Acts 1:14

[Stan]

Quote:

Acts 1:14

These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,

with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His

brothers.

NKJ

Do you view this as biological type brothers (1/2 brothers) or spiritual brothers? aand why??

[jasd]

>>Do you view this...<<

I view them as Jesus' step brothers, that is, sons (and daughters) of Joseph -- irrespective of the use of "brethren" in verse 16.

>>and why??<<

I'll get back to the "why" of it... after a bit.

[Clio]

1/2 brothers.

Clio

[Stan]

Growing up, for some reason, I always thought Jesus was an only child.

[Clio]

There are a few texts where we are explicitly told Jesus had brothers, and one where we are told He also had sisters.

Here they are:

Matthew 13:55

53 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that He departed from there. 54 When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, "Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, *Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?" 57 So they were offended at Him.

Mark 6:1-6

Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, "Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" So they were offended at Him.

Matthew 27:56

Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

We can be certain He was not an only child. The town in which He was raised certainly would know... He had brothers named James, Joses, Judas, Simon, and sisters, known through-out Nazareth. It was their very familiarity with His family that led to their unbelief.

How sad.

Clio

[jasd]

Then again,

it may be that Jesus' core or immediate family may have consisted of fewer siblings than those mentioned in Mark 6:3; perhaps, He had none, --and perhaps He had also, neither step-brother(s) nor step-sister(s)...

the brethren of Acts 1:14 being close relatives.

[Clio]

I would agree with you jasd except that it is mentioned in Matthew's gospel as well as that of Mark.

Something repeated is usually important, even if we fail to grasp the importance initially.

What is being recounted in both Mark and Matthew are the NAMES of the children of Mary and the carpenter, Joseph. The townsfolk of Nazareth *knew* the whole family... it is their very familiarity which breeds the contempt in which they hold the Messiah.

Clio

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Stan Jensen said:

Acts 1:14

These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,

with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His

brothers.

---

It was the comment, [:"red"] "These all continued with one accord..." [/] Couldn't help contrasting present day characteristics of the members of the body of Christ, at least if CA is worldwide reality.

Keep the faith!

[jasd]

I've often wondered what it was, exactly, or nearly so, that they were of "one accord", as...

it is but a few chapters further that there is dissension 'bout this and 'bout that...

It seems to me that the "one accord" is encapsuled in

Acts 1:4 ...commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father,...

and that they did so civilly, without vexing, goading, or otherwise being unChristlike in manner or deed.

Perhaps, you'd share with us your exposition upon "one accord"?

[Morning Glory]

Hi jasd, This is not an exposition on "one accord", but to say that I really liked your take on it. I had not put it in those words before, but I think that you have pretty much summed it up. Good work, wording.....

[jasd]

>>...that it is mentioned in Matthew's gospel as well as that of Mark.<<

I also place importance upon reinforcement. It is one reason I place importance upon the use of the double negative in Christ's declarative, "...[not] never die" in St John's epistle. That said,

I am 'twixt inclination and perplexity with the following:

Gabriel appeared to Mary --with a conversation ensuing…

Lu 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.

with Luke 1:27 establishing that Mary was espoused to marry Joseph; and, with one assuming the marriage would not be long delayed.

Lu 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Note the verb tense. It is probable that Mary understood what all women know of conception and birth and that she, soon to be married to Joseph, would shortly thereafter be taking to her bed in happy expectancy…

She would marry and the fruit of that marriage, we might expect, would be the fulfillment of “thou shalt conceive”. So,

why the reaction of Mary per

Lu 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

What’s the problem? Mary and Joseph are to marry with, presumably, the expectation of Mary thereafter becoming the fruitful wife, --per convention and per Gabriel’s “[thou shalt] conceive”.

So, why did Mary take exception to what would otherwise be a not unusual announcement during her conversation with Gabriel? what is she implying by her demurral, her objection? I propose

that somewhere in the exchange Mary is mindful of

‘a vow of lifelong virginal chastity’. That would not have hindered and could, conceivably, have been, a favorable arrangement for a young woman under obligation of vow and an older man needing a woman’s help raising his children. Not so strange,

considering that Jesus, St Paul, and St John the Baptist practiced celibacy, as did the Essenes of Jerusalem and of wadis.

"Jesus and the Qumran Essenes [Yahad] were 'married' to God and dedicated to his rule. …”

"According to Matthew 19:12 Jesus praises the men who become eunuchs for the kingdom. He was not praising celibacy; but he may have been lauding the Essenes who were celibate because of their devotion to God alone." -- James H. Charlesworth, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1992), p. 20

Mt 19:12 … He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

Considering the milieu of early first century, it would not have been inconceivable… that a man or woman should forgo ‘common bonds’ for Gd and His kingdom; meaning, that

Joseph and Mary had an understanding regards the otherwise natural intimacy of a man and a woman.

[melvin mccarty]

Is there any Biblical reason for assuming that Joseph and Mary did not have children younger than Jesus?

mel

[Robert]

As man Jesus was truly their brother, but as God He was not. Unlike His brothers, Jesus was born spiritually alive. This means that Christ was born as we are "born again."

Hebrews 2:16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels [who are sinless], but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham [who are sinful]. 17 Therefore, [:"red"]He had to be made like His brethren in all things[/], that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

We must remember that Christ was God by native right....He never ceased to be the eternal God. At the incarnation He became what He was not: Sin....He did this by assuming our fallen life under the curse:

• Job 15:14 “What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?"

  Ps 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

We come into this world through our mothers....That's a no brainer, but that is why Job and David link sinfulness to being "born of a woman."

The humanity that came from Mary's womb was our sinful, fallen humanity indwelt by self-love (sin). It was never Christ's by native right...rather it is something that He assumed.

Christ became the 2nd Adam....He took Adam's nature in its fallen condition. He was "born under the law"! This doesn't mean He was born under Jewish civil laws,etc...it means He was born condemned under God's law because He took our sinful life under the curse. This is clear from the following:

• But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, [why...to redeem those under Jewish civil laws?...NO!] 5 to redeem those under law [under the curse], that we might receive the full rights of sons

• Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself [of His Divinity], taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. [Phil 2:5-8]

When Christ became a man in the incarnation He had to give up not His divinity, but His divine prerogatives, in other words, the independent use of His divinity. Even His God-consciousness had to be given up. Jesus discovered He was God only by revelation. He was not God-conscious as a baby. He had to grow up in knowledge. He had to grow up in everything because He had given up the independent use of His divinity and was made in all things like unto us (Heb. 2:17).

Therefore, He was totally God-dependent all through His earthly ministry. John 5:30 says, “I can do nothing of myself.” John 6:57 says, “I live by the Father.” See also John 8:28 and John 14:10. All these texts state very clearly that Christ was totally God-dependent.

[jasd]

>>…but I think that you have pretty much summed it up. Good work, wording.....<<

Wrap it up, I’ll take it! It must have been a gibbous moon influencing me, or some other sort thing…

Posting as I did was not meant to imply that I am guiltless and would have been of “one accord” with the brethren -- sadly…

Thanks, Morning Glory

jas.

[jasd]

>>Is there any Biblical reason for assuming that Joseph and Mary did not have children younger than Jesus?<<

Actually, it is doubtful that the matter can be irreducibly resolved with any text(s) or combination of same… it seems that one can only be persuaded by one’s faith and/or personal bias(es).

Clio is correct to hold to her exegesis… and I to mine.

There is, however, an aspect, which influences my own thoughts, that is,

that the union of Gd/HS and Mary must be considered as nothing less than unique and consecrated. That being so,

the suggestion that that union was then turned on its ear to become the common seems… well, a bit profane. So, lacking the definitive text (imho) to the otherwise, I elect to hold to either that the term brothers/brethren (and, of course, sisters) of Jesus connotes near relatives -- or as is suggested, Joseph had sons and daughters which became step siblings to Jesus... the marriage never having been consummated.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

they did so civilly, without vexing, goading, or otherwise being unChristlike in manner or deed.

Perhaps, you'd share with us your exposition upon "one accord"?

---

I sense you to be correct, perhaps having been humbled by their own failures and realizing it to be so, the disciples began to have empathy toward each other as they each recognized the struggles the others were going through. Thus a bond of love was bringing them to a focused point of potential achievement for the Master, ready to rejoice in each other's victories instead of striving to pull each other apart because of the weaknesses they each were aware of in each other.

Keep the faith!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

ROBERT said:

He did this by assuming our fallen life under the curse:

The humanity that came from Mary's womb was our sinful, fallen humanity indwelt by self-love (sin). It was never Christ's by native right...rather it is something that He assumed.

He took Adam's nature in its fallen condition.

---

Jesus took upon Himself sinful flesh. He did not take upon Himself a sinful nature, else His death would have only sufficed to pay for His own sinful nature.

He took responsibility for(assumed) our sinful nature. He, Himself, was not of a sinful nature.

[:"red"] "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? " [/]

John 8:46 NASB

[:"red"] "This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same temptations we do, yet he did not sin. " [/] Heb 4:15 NLT

[:"red"] "I will not talk with you much more, for the prince (evil genius, ruler) of the world is coming. And he has no claim on Me. [He has nothing in common with Me; there is nothing in Me that belongs to him, and he has no power over Me.][/] John 14:30 AMP

[:"red"]"Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." [/] John 14:30 KJV

[Robert]

Heb 2:17 "he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people."

2 Cor 5:21 "For our sake he [God] made him [Jesus as man] to be sin who [Jesus as God] knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

If Jesus as God, who personally knew no sin, was not made "sin" and thus died our 2nd death, then you cannot become the righteousness of God "in Him".

Jesus is God...He will aways be God, but at the incarnation God united His sinless deity to our fallen, sinful humanity that needed redeeming. If not then please explain Gal 4:4

• Gal 4:4 "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, [:"red"]born under the law[/], 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons."

As to your quote:

"Which one of you convicts Me of sin?"

Jesus in taking our fallen humanity under the curse, never allowed our humanity to sin....Yet the humanity that He assumed was sinful and therefore under the curse. It had to die!

If you never sinned another day in your life you would still be a sinner. Why? Because the law doesn't condemn outward acts alone...it requires sinless flesh (Holy flesh).

Jesus never HAD sinful flesh....He assumed it, but it was never His by native right. If you say that flesh contaminated Him, then how can the Holy Spirit live in you seeing that you have a sinful nature? The reason is the Holy Spirit is not you....

In the same manner Christ as God was not sinful....He assumed our sinful humanity from Mary's womb....Hence Christ as man.

[melvin mccarty]

Matt 1:24 says that he(Joseph) knew her not until her son was born. There is nothing that I know of in the Bible to indicate that after that time they did not have a normal marital relationship and have other children. And indeed why not?

mel

[jasd]

melvin mccarty

>>Matt 1:24 says that he(Joseph) knew her not until her son was born. There is nothing that I know of in the Bible to indicate that after that time they did not have a normal marital relationship and have other children. And indeed why not?<<

I don’t know that one may rightfully deduce a ‘knowing’ after the birth of Jesus. Setting aside how the Greek usage might play… one is reminded by the following texts that “until”, “unto”, “till” are [also] used idiomatically in the Semitic languages. (there are indicators that Matthew was first written in the Semitic language)

KJV 2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

YLT 2Sa 6:23 As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child till the day of her death.

I don’t think there is in the above a suggestion of a child born to Michal --afterwards.

KJV Jn 9:18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

YLT Jn 9:18 and he said--`He is a prophet.' The Jews, therefore, did not believe concerning him that he was blind and did receive sight, till that they called the parents of him who received sight,

The entire passage following does not seem to bear out that those ‘who did not believe’ until they called his parents, --did, thereafter, believe.

>>And indeed why not?<<

Indeed! perhaps, I am not the one to suggest that a “knowing” by Joseph of that which was a singularly unique and consecrated expression of Gd, that is, _the “knowing”, by Gd, of the vessel chosen to bear the Redeemer of mankind_ . Lacking the definitive text, I cannot be persuaded that the relationship between Joseph and Mary devolved to mere presumption upon that which preceded. It is, as I’ve said,

one is led by one’s own heart in this matter, which Luther, Zwingli, and other Protesting fathers evidently were, --agreeing upon the continuing sacredness of Mary’s virginity.

It’s druthers, no more

[jasd]

>>I sense you to be correct, perhaps having been humbled by their own failures and realizing it to be so, the disciples began to have empathy toward each other as they each recognized the struggles the others were going through. Thus a bond of love was bringing them to a focused point of potential achievement for the Master, ready to rejoice in each other's victories instead of striving to pull each other apart because of the weaknesses they each were aware of in each other.<<

For the most part, I readily agree; however, several incidents following the “accord” lead one to believe there might have been a couple one or two false steps. If memory serves,

St James, knowing of his reticence, coerced St Paul into submitting to ‘legal practice’…

And,

St Paul, having already acknowledged that St Peter’s mission was to the Jews, publicly chastised him for being obliged to his own flock…

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

however, several incidents following the “accord” lead one to believe there might have been a couple one or two false steps. If memory serves,

St James, knowing of his reticence, coerced St Paul into submitting to ‘legal practice’…

And,

St Paul, having already acknowledged that St Peter’s mission was to the Jews, publicly chastised him for being obliged to his own flock…

---

Which, I believe, readily admits to the continuing battle in this journey in the land of the prince of darkness. Some battles won, some lost. But the war never in doubt, whether or not we find ourselves numbered among the saved.

[:"red"] "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." [/] Philippians 3:12-14 KJV

[:"red"] "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. " [/]

1 Cor 15:51,52

Some look at those last verses as only indicating a change of corruptible flesh at Jesus' coming. And there is a Scripture that refers to His second coming [:"red"] "without reference to sin". [/] But I belive the Scripture clearly indicates, all men's minds are corruptible, therefore the change must also refer to our moral, mental, and intellectual incapacity, not to mention our spiritual lack.

[:"red"] "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

" [/] Luke 18:19 KJV

[:"red"] "so also Christ died only once as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again but not to deal with our sins again. This time he will bring salvation to all those who are eagerly waiting for him." [/] Heb 9:28 NLT

[:"red"] "So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." [/] Heb 9:28 NASB

Keep the faith!

[jasd]

>>Indeed! perhaps, I am not the one to suggest that a “knowing” by Joseph of that which was a singularly unique and consecrated expression of Gd, that is, _the “knowing”, by Gd, of the vessel chosen to bear the Redeemer of mankind_ .<< --jasd

A quick emendation of the fragment...:

Indeed! I am not one to suggest a “knowing” by Joseph of that very vessel, which had been elected as recipient in the singularly unique expression of Gd, that is, --the “knowing”, by Gd, of the vessel chosen to bear the Redeemer of mankind.

[jasd]

>>[:"red"]“ …forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,…”[/] Philippians 3:12-14 KJV<<

Good admonition -- worth bearing in mind…

Per the other texts, I am mostly in agreement -- whilst yet, nurturing some tendencies toward Universalism.

[Clio]

Jasd -

Your supposition that Mary was chaste following Jesus birth is not consistent with Abba Father, and His definition of Marriage.

Marriage is a consecrated sacrament taken with our First Parents from the Garden of Eden. Abba Father was in the marriage business before He was in the Salvation or the Religion business.

A woman is given to a man, not a man to a woman, to be a help meet. To be a voluntary bearer and assister in the bearing of his burdens. She is given to him to love, see Ephesians 5, in such a way as to mirror True Jesus relationship with a church... such that he would give his very life for his wife.

A wife is a completer. Adam named her Wo-man for she was taken out of man... and thus all that she is was once a part of Man, and with her only is he complete in all ways.

Jesus tells us that the love, intimacy, and harmony of marriage is such that a man shall leave his mother, and a woman leave her home, and they shall CLEAVE to one another until they shall be as one.

For Mary to have remained chaste all her life, mothering Joseph's children from another marriage, keeping his home, and doing all those things a wife would do, would lower her status to little more than a servant in the home of Joseph...

Had Abba Father desired Mary to remain chaste following the birth of Jesus, she would never have married Joseph. Following Jesus birth, with no husband, Mary would have been disgraced, perhaps stoned, but certainly would have found marrying anyone difficult... and would have been chaste for the rest of her life.

Instead, a special visitation and dream was arranged for Joseph, telling him what was really going on, and telling him not to be afraid to take Mary to wife. To wife, not to servanthood.

Once Mary was delivered of True Jesus, and observed her post-childbirth mikvah, there is no reason for she and Joseph not to engage in intimate marriage relations. Her body was not made holy by carrying Jesus and she continued to be a fallen human, with tendencies to sin, lose her temper, and the needs of a woman.

A woman who loves her husband, needs, craves, desires his touch. Abba Father would not deny that to the mother of His Son. I am sure her happiness was of prime importance to both Abba Father and His Son.

I can speak to what her life would have been like to have been reduced to basic servanthood in Joseph's home, without the rewards of a happy marriage. I lived that way for 14 years. Pnly HALF the time Mary would have been required to do so... Trust me... Abba Father would not have put Mary... OR Joseph... through that.

I can also speak to the indescribable joy and the wonderful example of Jesus relationship to the church found in a happy, whole, marriage.

Mary...chaste.... *snorts* doesn't fit in with Abba Father's character at ALL!

Clio

PS... What gave you that idea? I really do want to know...it's totally contrary to Abba's sacrament of marriage and His intent....

PPS... Yeah... got one on this topic too....