Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[Moonwood]

I apologize for over-estimating your intellectual agility ... I see there is a need to express things more simply -

Matthew NEVER uses the word adelphos to identify a familial relationship other than biological brother.

You’re not simplifying anything — you’re rewriting your claim again because the previous versions were refuted.

Your new statement, “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos to identify a familial relationship,” is simply false. Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships repeatedly — just not in the narrow, modern‑English way you’re insisting on.

And Scripture itself contradicts your claim that adelphos must mean biological brother. The LXX — the Bible Matthew himself quotes — routinely uses adelphos to translate the broad Hebrew term ’ach, which covers many kinds of kinship. As a result, adelphos often refers to relatives who are not biological siblings:

• Abraham and Lot (uncle–nephew) Genesis 13:8 (LXX): “We are adelphoi.” Genesis 14:14 (LXX): Lot is called Abraham’s adelphos.
• Jacob and Laban (uncle–nephew) Genesis 29:15 (LXX): Laban calls Jacob adelphos.
• Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins 1 Chronicles 23:22 (LXX): their cousins are called their adelphoi.

This is not an anomaly — it is the standard biblical pattern. In scriptural Greek, adelphos has a much wider semantic range than modern English “brother.”

And Matthew follows that same pattern. He uses adelphos for personally identified individuals in the immediate context who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus points to the disciples standing right in front of Him and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus addresses His followers directly and says: “you are all brothers.”
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus tells the women to go and tell “My brothers” — the apostles personally identified in the narrative.

These are not vague crowds. They are specific individuals in the immediate context of the word adelphos, and none of them are biological siblings.

And Matthew also uses adelphoi in Matthew 13:55, and we both agree it’s a familial term there — but its familial definition is not “biological siblings.” In scriptural Greek, adelphos means brother, kinsman, or relative. The word alone is not enough to distinguish which kind of relatives they were.

That distinction comes from other scriptural passages, which identify the mother of two of Jesus’s adelphoi — James and Joseph — as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). John explicitly calls her Mary’s adelphē, meaning sister‑in‑law, since two biological sisters would not both be named Mary.

This identification is affirmed by all early Christian writers, and they further add that Clopas/Cleophas was Joseph’s brother, which means his sons — James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas — were Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a relationship fully covered by the biblical semantic range of adelphos.

So even in Matthew 13:55, the word adelphoi does not support your conclusion. The broader biblical usage and the Gospel genealogies identify these men as relatives, not Mary’s children.

So your new rule collapses just like the earlier ones. You’re not applying a consistent linguistic standard — you’re creating ad‑hoc exceptions every time Scripture contradicts your conclusion.

If you want to continue, you’ll need to address the actual evidence — not just invent a new rule every time the previous one fails.

 

[markalan]

Your new statement, “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos to identify a familial relationship,” is simply false. Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships repeatedly — just not in the narrow, modern‑English way you’re insisting on.

The whole point of your adelphos argument is that it means cousin in Mat 13:55 ... so the discussion is about familial relationships (sheesh, I can't believe I have to tell you that!)

And you have still not posted a single verse that refutes the claim: Matthew NEVER uses the word adelphos to identify a familial relationship other than biological brother.

 

[Moonwood]

The whole point of your adelphos argument is that it means cousin in Mat 13:55 ... so the discussion is about familial relationships (sheesh, I can't believe I have to tell you that!)

And you have still not posted a single verse that refutes the claim: Matthew NEVER uses the word adelphos to identify a familial relationship other than biological brother.

You’re misrepresenting my argument. I never said adelphos “means cousin.” I said — correctly — that its familial definition in biblical Greek is “brother, kinsman, or relative.” Cousins fall under that broad semantic range, but the word itself does not specify which type of relative is meant. That distinction comes from context, genealogy, and other passages, not from the word alone.

And your claim — “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos to identify a familial relationship other than biological brother” — is still false.

1. Scripture itself contradicts your rule​

The LXX (the Bible Matthew quotes) routinely uses adelphos for relatives who are not biological siblings:

• Abraham and Lot (uncle–nephew) Gen 13:8 LXX — “We are adelphoi.” Gen 14:14 LXX — Lot is Abraham’s adelphos.
• Jacob and Laban (uncle–nephew) Gen 29:15 LXX — Laban calls Jacob adelphos.
• Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins 1 Chr 23:22 LXX — their cousins are called their adelphoi.

This is the standard biblical pattern.
In scriptural Greek, adelphos means brother, kinsman, or relative — not exclusively “biological sibling.”

2. Matthew follows the same biblical usage​

Matthew uses adelphos for personally identified individuals in the immediate context who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus points to the disciples right in front of Him and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus addresses His followers directly: “you are all brothers.”
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus tells the women to go and tell “My brothers” — the apostles personally identified in the narrative.

These are specific individuals, not vague crowds, and none are biological siblings.

So Matthew absolutely does use adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brothers. Your rule is contradicted by Matthew’s own text.

3. Matthew 13:55 does not support your conclusion​

We both agree adelphoi is a familial term in Matthew 13:55 — but its familial definition is not “biological siblings.” It simply means kinsmen/relatives.

The type of relatives is clarified by other Scripture, not by the word itself.

Scripture identifies the mother of two of Jesus’s adelphoi — James and Joseph — as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus:

• Matthew 27:56
• Mark 15:40
• John 19:25

John explicitly calls her Mary’s adelphe — meaning sister‑in‑law, since two biological sisters would not both be named Mary.

The earliest Christian writers unanimously affirm the same identification and add that Clopas/Cleophas was Joseph’s brother, which makes his sons — James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas — Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a relationship fully covered by the biblical semantic range of adelphos.

4. Your rule collapses again​

You keep changing the rule because each version is refuted by Scripture:

• First: “named individuals”
• Then: “named individuals in the immediate context”
• Now: “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brother”

Every version fails.

You’re not applying a consistent linguistic standard — you’re creating ad‑hoc exceptions every time Scripture contradicts your conclusion.

If you want to continue, you’ll need to address the actual evidence — not just invent a new rule every time the previous one fails.

 

[markalan]

You’re misrepresenting my argument. I never said adelphos “means cousin.” I said — correctly — that its familial definition in biblical Greek is “brother, kinsman, or relative.” Cousins fall under that broad semantic range, but the word itself does not specify which type of relative is meant. That distinction comes from context, genealogy, and other passages, not from the word alone.

So you do not know who the men are named in Mat 13:55-56?

And your claim — “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos to identify a familial relationship other than biological brother” — is still false.

1. Scripture itself contradicts your rule​

The LXX (the Bible Matthew quotes) routinely uses adelphos for relatives who are not biological siblings:

• Abraham and Lot (uncle–nephew) Gen 13:8 LXX — “We are adelphoi.” Gen 14:14 LXX — Lot is Abraham’s adelphos.
• Jacob and Laban (uncle–nephew) Gen 29:15 LXX — Laban calls Jacob adelphos.
• Eleazar’s daughters and their cousins 1 Chr 23:22 LXX — their cousins are called their adelphoi.

This is the standard biblical pattern.
In scriptural Greek, adelphos means brother, kinsman, or relative — not exclusively “biological sibling.”

The context is Matthew's Gospel.

2. Matthew follows the same biblical usage
Matthew uses adelphos for personally identified individuals in the immediate context who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus points to the disciples right in front of Him and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus addresses His followers directly: “you are all brothers.”
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus tells the women to go and tell “My brothers” — the apostles personally identified in the narrative.

These are specific individuals, not vague crowds, and none are biological siblings.

familial relationships

So Matthew absolutely does use adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brothers. Your rule is contradicted by Matthew’s own text.

3. Matthew 13:55 does not support your conclusion​

We both agree adelphoi is a familial term in Matthew 13:55 — but its familial definition is not “biological siblings.” It simply means kinsmen/relatives.

... and it means biological brother ... more than a dozen times in Matthew's Gospel

The type of relatives is clarified by other Scripture, not by the word itself.

Scripture identifies the mother of two of Jesus’s adelphoi — James and Joseph — as Mary of Clopas/Cleophas, not Mary the mother of Jesus:

• Matthew 27:56
• Mark 15:40
• John 19:25

John explicitly calls her Mary’s adelphe — meaning sister‑in‑law, since two biological sisters would not both be named Mary.

The earliest Christian writers unanimously affirm the same identification and add that Clopas/Cleophas was Joseph’s brother, which makes his sons — James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas — Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a relationship fully covered by the biblical semantic range of adelphos.

All those things have been refuted so try to focus on one thing at a time.

4. Your rule collapses again
You keep changing the rule because each version is refuted by Scripture:

• First: “named individuals”
• Then: “named individuals in the immediate context”
• Now: “Matthew NEVER uses adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brother”

Initially I thought it was safe to assume you understood I was talking about familial relationships ...since that is the whole focus of the discussion on the meaning of adelphos. Discussing Jesus' followers is a strawman. We all know there is a "spiritual brother" application.

So again, identify one verse where Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brother.

The word adelphos/adelphoi occurs 38 times in Matthew's Gospel ... 17 times it means spiritual brother ... and 21 times it means biological brother ... there are no other uses of the word in the whole Gospel.

Matthew 13:55-56 proves unequivocally that Mary had sons & daughters after Jesus was born.

Is not this the carpenter's son?
is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us?

.

 

[Moonwood]

So you do not know who the men are named in Mat 13:55-56?

Initially I thought it was safe to assume you understood I was talking about familial relationships ...since that is the whole focus of the discussion on the meaning of adelphos. Discussing Jesus' followers is a strawman. We all know there is a "spiritual brother" application.

So again, identify one verse where Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brother.

The word adelphos/adelphoi occurs 38 times in Matthew's Gospel ... 17 times it means spiritual brother ... and 21 times it means biological brother ... there are no other uses of the word in the whole Gospel.

Matthew 13:55-56 proves unequivocally that Mary had sons & daughters after Jesus was born.

Is not this the carpenter's son?
is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us?

You keep repeating the same claim, but you’re still avoiding the central point:

You’re assuming “familial relationship” = “biological sibling.”​

That’s the very thing under dispute.

You can’t demand I prove Matthew uses adelphos for “familial relationships other than biological brother” when you’ve already decided that every non‑biological sibling use in Matthew is “spiritual only.” That’s circular — you’re excluding the counterexamples by definition.

The familial definition of the word adelphos is not specifically “biological sibling.”​

Its biblical definition is:

“a brother, kinsman, or relative.”

That’s the familial definition.
Cousins fall under it.
Nephews fall under it.
Step‑brothers fall under it.
Brothers‑in‑law fall under it.

And Scripture itself proves this:

• Abraham calls his nephew Lot adelphos (Genesis 13:8; 14:14 LXX).
• Laban calls his brother-in-law Jacob adelphos (Genesis 29:15 LXX).
• Eleazar’s daughters call their cousins adelphoi (1 Chronicles 23:22 LXX).

These are familial relationships — but not biological siblings.

Matthew uses the same biblical Greek.

And yes — I do know exactly who the men in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are.
I know that because of the specific passages that identify their mother and family, not because the single word adelphos magically tells us the precise type of relationship.

If I used your method — isolating one verse and assuming the most literal modern‑English meaning — then I would also have to conclude that Joseph is Jesus’s biological father, because Matthew 13:55 calls Jesus “the carpenter's son” and names Joseph right alongside Mary and Jesus in the same verse.

But that would be wrong, because other passages clarify Joseph’s relationship to Jesus:

• Joseph is Jesus’s putative, not biological father.
• The phrase “carpenter’s son” is a social designation, not a biological claim.

You accept that correction because other verses clarify the relationship.

But you refuse to apply the same principle to Jesus’s adelphoi.

I know who Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas are because of the same method you use for Joseph: you interpret Matthew 13:55 in light of other Scripture, not in isolation.

And those other passages identify their mother:

• Matthew 27:56
• Mark 15:40
• John 19:25

From these we learn:

• Mary of Clopas/Cleophas is the mother of at least two sons: James and Joseph.
• She is called the adelphe (sister/kinswoman) of Mary the Mother of Jesus.

The Koine Greek word adelphe has the definitions: “a sister; kinswoman or female relative; a fellow countrywoman; a female member of the Christian community.” Despite being named alongside other female Christians and countrywomen, she is specifically called Jesus’s Mother’s adelphe, so its familial definition must apply there. Since two biological sisters would not both be named Mary, adelphe here means sister‑in‑law, and that makes Clopas/Cleophas Joseph’s brother.

The earliest Christian writers unanimously affirm the same identification and add that Clopas/Cleophas had four sons:

• Joseph
• James
• Simon
• Judas

Which makes them Jesus’s cousins by marriage, a relationship fully covered by the biblical semantic range of adelphos: “brother, kinsman, or relative.”

You said: “You’re correct but your conclusion is wrong.”
But you didn’t explain how it’s wrong.

You agreed that:

• Hegesippus explicitly says Clopas was Joseph’s brother (Hist. Eccl. II.11.2).
• That makes Clopas Jesus’s uncle, and
• Clopas’s sons — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — Jesus’s cousins by marriage.

That is the only genealogical conclusion that follows from the evidence.
If you believe it’s “wrong,” then you need to show why, using Scripture or history — not simply assert it.

And your question:

So again, identify one verse where Matthew uses adelphos for familial relationships other than biological brother.

has already been answered:

• Matthew 13:55 — familial, but not biological siblings.
• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus identifies the disciples as His adelphoi.
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus calls His followers adelphoi.
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus calls the apostles adelphoi.

These are all familial uses of adelphos that are not biological siblings.

And no — discussing Jesus’ followers is not a strawman.

It is Matthew’s own usage of adelphos for specific, personally identified individuals in the immediate context who are not biological siblings:

• Matthew 12:49–50 — Jesus points to the disciples standing right in front of Him and says: “these are My brothers.”
• Matthew 23:8 — Jesus tells His followers: “you are all brothers.”
• Matthew 28:10 — Jesus calls the apostles “My brothers.”

These verses do not mean the disciples are Jesus’s biological brothers; they simply prove that Matthew uses adelphos for non‑biological relationships, which refutes your claim that Matthew uses the word only for biological siblings.

These are not “spiritual metaphors.”

They are familial designations applied to real individuals present in the narrative, exactly like Matthew 13:55.

Your own numbers prove this: you say Matthew uses adelphos 38 times — 17 “spiritual,” 21 “biological.”
But that classification is your invention, not Matthew’s.
You’re sorting the uses based on your conclusion, not based on the word’s meaning.

Your rule collapses again.

You’re not applying a consistent linguistic standard — you’re inventing a new rule every time Scripture contradicts your conclusion.