I was reading one of John Martignoni’s e-letters and he pointed out Gal 1:19 which I thought was pretty cool so I decided to post it here. Here is Gal 1:19,17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.
So does this mean the apostle James was literally the blood brother of Jesus?
Lets check some other Scripture and see, Mark 3:16These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); 18Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas,** James son of Alphaeus**, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Did you catch that? There were two apostles named James, but neither of them had a father named Joseph. Thus it is clear that the term “brother” is not necessarily a literal blood brother, but such a relation can, and in this case did, extend to cousins as it is clear from Gal 1:19.
I encourage you to sign up for his bi-weekly apologetics newsletter in your email, it’s free:
Funny thing is I didnt see this verse in the Catholic.com database.