However, the Scriptures do not describe these brooches.—See ORNAMENTS.

BROOM TREE

[Heb., roʹthem].

The broom tree is in reality a desert shrub of the pea family. The corresponding Arabic name (ratam) aids in identifying the plant and shows the Authorized Version translation of “juniper tree” to be incorrect.

This bush is one of the most abundant plants of the Judean wilderness, the Sinai Peninsula, as well as the rest of Arabia, and is found in ravines, rocky places, on hillsides, and even in open sand stretches of desert areas, where its roots sink deep to draw up moisture. It grows from three to twelve feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) in height, with numerous thin, rodlike branches and narrow straight leaves. When blossoming, the small clusters of delicate flowers, ranging in color from white to pink, make a lovely sight as they carpet the otherwise barren hillsides. The Hebrew name for the plant (roʹthem) comes from a root word meaning “to bind,” and, according to Pliny (of the first century C.E.), its pliant branches were used for binding and even for basket weaving.

When Elijah fled into the wilderness to escape Jezebel’s wrath, the record at 1 Kings 19:4, 5 says, he “sat down under a certain broom tree” and then slept there. While the smaller broom trees would provide very scant shade from the burning sun of the wilderness, one of good size could give welcome relief. This desert bush also served as fuel. The wood of the broom tree makes excellent charcoal, which burns with an intense heat, and it is highly valued till this day in Arabic lands.

Because the roots of the broom tree are bitter and nauseous, some have suggested that the reference by Job (30:4) to these as being used for food by persons starving in barren desolation perhaps refers to an edible parasitic plant (called Cynomorium coccineum) that grows like a fungus on these roots. While this may be the case, it is also possible that another variety of this plant existed in Job’s day (some three thousand years ago) rather than just the present white broom tree (Retama raetam) that now grows. Then, too, it should be remembered that a poisonous variety of plant can successfully be treated in such a way as to make it safe for food, as is the cassava plant eaten by the Indians of the Caribbean and of South America.

BROTHER

A male having the same parent or parents as another. Full brothers mentioned in the Bible, sons of the same father and the same mother, include Cain and Abel, sons of Adam and Eve (Gen. 4:1, 2; 1 John 3:12); Jacob and Esau, twin sons of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 25:24-26); James and John, sons of Zebedee and his wife. (Matt. 4:21; 27:56; compare Judges 8:19.) Moses and Aaron were brothers of Miriam (Num. 26:59); Lazarus was brother to Martha and Mary. (John 11:1, 19) “Brothers” also designates half brothers, those with the same father but a different mother, as in the case of Jacob’s twelve sons by four different women (Gen. 35:22-26; 37:4; 42:3, 4, 13); also, offspring of the same mother but of different fathers, as in the case of Jesus and his brothers, and possibly in that of David’s relationship to his sisters.—Matt. 13:55; 1 Chron. 2:13-16; 2 Sam. 17:25; see “Brothers of Jesus” below.

The term “brother,” however, was not limited to the immediate fleshly relationship. Abraham and Laban referred to their nephews Lot and Jacob respectively as brothers. (Gen. 11:27; 13:8; 14:14, 16; 29:10, 12, 15; compare Leviticus 10:4.) Fellow members of the same tribe in Israel enjoyed a brotherly relationship (2 Sam. 19:12, 13; Num. 8:26), and in a still larger sense the entire nation of Israel were brothers, offspring as they were from one common father Jacob, and united in worship of the same God Jehovah. (Ex. 2:11; Deut. 15:12; Matt. 5:47; Acts 3:17, 22; 7:23; Rom. 9:3) Even the Edomites, who descended from Abraham, thereby being distantly related to Israel, were called brothers. (Num. 20:14) The reunited kingdoms of Judah and Israel were referred to as in a “brotherhood.”—Zech. 11:14.

“Brother” is also applied to those united in a general cause and having similar aims and purposes. For example, King Hiram of Tyre called King Solomon his brother, not simply because he was an equal in rank and position, but also perhaps because of mutual interests in supplying timbers and other things for the temple. (1 Ki. 9:13; 5:1-12) “Look! How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!” David wrote, inferring that it is not blood relations alone that make for peace and unity between fleshly brothers. (Ps. 133:1) In fact, mutual affection and interest, not common parentage, prompted David to call Jonathan his brother. (2 Sam. 1:26) Companions having similar natures and dispositions, even when such are bad, are properly called “brothers.”—Prov. 18:9.

In the patriarchal society and under the Mosaic law, certain privileges and obligations were assumed by fleshly brothers. With the death of the father, the oldest brother, the firstborn, received a double share of the family inheritance and the responsibility of acting as head for the family. A fleshly brother was first in line for the right of repurchase, levirate marriage, and avenging blood. (Lev. 25:48, 49; Deut. 25:5) Incestuous relations between brother and sister were strictly forbidden by the Mosaic law.—Lev. 18:9; Deut. 27:22.

In the Christian congregation members enjoy a common spiritual relationship analogous to that of brothers. Jesus called his disciples brothers. (Matt. 25:40; 28:10; John 20:17) He strongly emphasized this relationship, saying: “Whoever does the will of my Father. . . , the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Matt. 12:48-50) Hence blood relatives must be loved less than Christ and left behind on his account if necessary. (Matt. 10:37; 19:29; Luke 14:26) Indeed, brother may deliver brother over to death. (Mark 13:12) The term “brother” extends out beyond the immediate associates of Jesus to include the whole congregation of believers (Matt. 23:8; Heb. 2:17), the “whole association of brothers” “who have the work of witnessing to Jesus.” (1 Pet. 2:17; 5:9; Rev. 19:10) Such an association of spiritual brothers shows “brotherly love” in its fullest measure.—Rom. 12:10; Heb. 13:1.

Peter at Pentecost addressed those from faraway lands, including proselytes, all as “brothers.” (Acts 2:8-10, 29, 37) Sometimes male Christian believers were distinguished as “brothers” and females as “sisters” (1 Cor. 7:14, 15), but generally “brothers” was the accepted greeting to mixed groups and was not restricted to males. (Acts 1:15; Rom. 1:13; 1 Thess. 1:4) The term is used in this sense in all but three of the inspired Christian letters (Titus, 2 John, Jude), and in the writings of other early Christians. The apostles warned against “false brothers” who infiltrated the congregations.—2 Cor. 11:26; Gal. 2:4.

BROTHERS OF JESUS

The four Gospels, the Acts of Apostles, and two of Paul’s letters mention “the Lord’s brothers,” “the brother of the Lord,” “his brothers,” “his sisters,” naming four of the “brothers”: James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. (Matt. 12:46; 13:55; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; John 2:12; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19) The majority of Bible scholars accept the cumulative evidence that Jesus had at least four brothers and two sisters, and that all were offspring of Joseph and Mary by natural means after the miraculous birth of Jesus.

The arbitrary notions that these brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, or by levirate marriage with Joseph’s sister-in-law, must be classified as fictitious, since there is no factual confirmation or even a suggestion to this effect in the Scriptures. The claim that “brother” (a·del·phosʹ) 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