BVM and the Gospel of John

[dean24us]

Hello! I try to read a chapter or two of the Bible every night before bed, and I recently finished reading through the Gospel of John. I noticed something odd that I hoped the good people on CAF could help me understand: the Blessed Virgin Mary is not referred to by name anywhere in John. Any references to her are made along the lines of “the Mother of Jesus”, “His Mother”, etc but never simply “Mary”.

I have considered various explanations, but none seem to pan out. The author mentions other females by name, so there doesn’t appear to be any type of ‘sexism’ at work. Also, the author mentions Joseph by name, which seems to preclude the idea that the author is trying to protect the identity of Jesus’ family. In short, it appears that all the other biblical ‘players’ are referred to by their proper names, but Mary seems to have been singled out for some reason.

So, does anyone have ideas as to why Mary’s name was omitted by John?

God bless,
Dean

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Perhaps it’s because he recognized how common of a name Mary was at the time, and chose to refer to her in a manner by which it would always be clear of whom he was speaking.

 

[TimothyH]

Jesus is God.

By pointing out that Mary is the “Mother of Jesus”, John is pointing out her singular privilege as Mother of God, the one through whom God became man.

He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; (John 1:2-4)

She is not the “Mother of Jesus” in only human terms. Jesus’ humanity cannot be seperated from his divinity. Mary is the mother of He who was “In the beginning with God” and became flesh. The light of the human race came into creation through Mary.

-Tim-

 

[Julia_Mae]

Perhaps it’s because he recognized how common of a name Mary was at the time, and chose to refer to her in a manner by which it would always be clear of whom he was speaking.

This makes sense. It’s also possibly generational. Peter’s mother-in-law wasn’t referred to by name, nor the “mother of Zebedee’s sons” when she asked Jesus for favors for them.

 

[Zenas]

This is speculation but it may have some merit. John took Mary into his home and kept her as his mother after the crucifixion of Christ. If he really regarded her as his mother, and there is no reason to think he did not, then “Mary” would be an overly familiar name for him to use. “Mother of Jesus” etc. would be a little more respectful.

 

[GraceSofia]

Also consider what St. Elizabeth says in Luke 1.

[41] And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [42] And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. [43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? [44] For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. [45] And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.

 

[GraceSofia]

Jesus is God.

By pointing out that Mary is the “Mother of Jesus”, John is pointing out her singular privilege as Mother of God, the one through whom God became man.

He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; (John 1:2-4)

She is not the “Mother of Jesus” in only human terms. Jesus’ humanity cannot be seperated from his divinity. Mary is the mother of He who was “In the beginning with God” and became flesh. The light of the human race came into creation through Mary.

THIS.

 

[GraceSofia]

And continuing that line of thought, Saint John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was using the term Mother of God to safeguard the doctrine of the Incarnation. It is all about Jesus Christ. Blessed Cardinal Newman wrote:

Here I observe, first, that, to those who admit the authority of the Fathers of Ephesus, the question is in no slight degree answered by their sanction of the [Theotokos] or “Mother of God,” as a title of St. Mary, and as given in order to protect the doctrine of the Incarnation, and to preserve the faith of Catholics from a specious Humanitarianism. And if we take a survey at least of Europe, we shall find that it is not those religious communions which are characterized by devotion towards the Blessed Virgin that have ceased to adore her Eternal Son, but those very bodies, (when allowed by the law,) which have renounced devotion to her. The regard for His glory, which was professed in that keen jealousy of her exaltation, has not been supported by the event. They who were accused of worshipping a creature in His stead, still worship Him; their accusers, who hoped to worship Him so purely, they, wherever obstacles to the development of their principles have been removed, have ceased to worship Him altogether.

newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter11.html#section2

And the confession that Mary is Deipara, or the Mother of God, is that safeguard wherewith we seal up and secure the doctrine of the Apostle from all evasion, and that test whereby we detect all the pretences of those bad spirits of “Antichrist which have gone out into the world”. It declares that He is God; it implies that He is man; it suggests to us that He is God still, though He has become man, and that He is true man {348} though He is God. By witnessing to the process of the union, it secures the reality of the two subjects of the union, of the divinity and of the manhood. If Mary is the Mother of God, Christ must be literally Emmanuel, God with us. And hence it was, that, when time went on, and the bad spirits and false prophets grew stronger and bolder, and found a way into the Catholic body itself, then the Church, guided by God, could find no more effectual and sure way of expelling them than that of using this word Deipara against them; and, on the other hand, when they came up again from the realms of darkness, and plotted the utter overthrow of Christian faith in the sixteenth century, then they could find no more certain expedient for their hateful purpose than that of reviling and blaspheming the prerogatives of Mary, for they knew full well that, if they could once get the world to dishonour the Mother, the dishonour of the Son would follow close. The Church and Satan agreed together in this, that Son and Mother went together; and the experience of three centuries has confirmed their testimony, for Catholics who have honoured the Mother, still worship the Son, while Protestants, who now have ceased to confess the Son, began then by scoffing at the Mother.

newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse17.html

 

[patrick457]

Hello! I try to read a chapter or two of the Bible every night before bed, and I recently finished reading through the Gospel of John. I noticed something odd that I hoped the good people on CAF could help me understand: the Blessed Virgin Mary is not referred to by name anywhere in John. Any references to her are made along the lines of “the Mother of Jesus”, “His Mother”, etc but never simply “Mary”.

I have considered various explanations, but none seem to pan out. The author mentions other females by name, so there doesn’t appear to be any type of ‘sexism’ at work. Also, the author mentions Joseph by name, which seems to preclude the idea that the author is trying to protect the identity of Jesus’ family. In short, it appears that all the other biblical ‘players’ are referred to by their proper names, but Mary seems to have been singled out for some reason.

So, does anyone have ideas as to why Mary’s name was omitted by John?

God bless,
Dean

I’m not a Fr. Raymond Brown fan, but I think his suggestion that the reason why Mary’s name is omitted from John’s gospel is due to “the Mother of X” being an honorable title for a woman who has been fortunate enough to bear a son (i.e. Mary is important because her Son was) might be at least worthy of consideration. Also another idea which posits that the reason is due to Mary’s function in the narrative: both “the beloved disciple” and “the mother of Jesus” are unnamed in the gospel because John intended for the reader to see them as symbols (of discipleship, perhaps?) and identify himself with them.

 

[dean24us]

Thanks to everyone for the replies! I re-read some of the passages in John to “test” that the author was expressing reverence for Mary by using her title (rather than name). While the idea ‘fit’ in some places, it didn’t make sense in other places. For example:

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:42[/BIBLEDRB]

And another:

[BIBLEDRB]John 19:25[/BIBLEDRB]

In both of the above passages (as well as others), it doesn’t seem that the author is expressing any type of reverence for Mary, yet he continues to omit Mary’s name. On top of that, he clearly listed the names of others in the same sentences, which seems to make the use of Mary’s ‘title’ as a display of reverence an awkward fit.

However, one reply did seem to make some sense (in my mind, at least):

Also another idea which posits that the reason is due to Mary’s function in the narrative: both “the beloved disciple” and “the mother of Jesus” are unnamed in the gospel because John intended for the reader to see them as symbols (of discipleship, perhaps?) and identify himself with them.

When I read the Gospel of John with the idea that Mary is a symbol, the omission of her name does seem to make more sense. Specifically, it makes sense (again, to me at least) in portraying Mary as an instrument for fulfilling OT prophecy. Or, to put it a different way, John’s omission of Mary’s name makes more sense if you assume that he is not as concerned with Mary herself, but rather her role in fulfilling prophecies regarding the Messiah. However, the side effect seems to be that John dehumanizes Mary in a way. I don’t know whether this was intentional on John’s part, but John’s portrayal of Mary does seem to make it difficult to relate to her in any way.

Thanks again for all the replies. I realize the literary criticism and biblical interpretation are both difficult and highly subjective, but I am really interested in hearing any other thoughts you may have.

God bless,
Dean

 

[TimothyH]

Thanks to everyone for the replies! I re-read some of the passages in John to “test” that the author was expressing reverence for Mary by using her title (rather than name). While the idea ‘fit’ in some places, it didn’t make sense in other places. For example:

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:42[/BIBLEDRB]

And another:

[BIBLEDRB]John 19:25[/BIBLEDRB]

In both of the above passages (as well as others), it doesn’t seem that the author is expressing any type of reverence for Mary, yet he continues to omit Mary’s name. On top of that, he clearly listed the names of others in the same sentences, which seems to make the use of Mary’s ‘title’ as a display of reverence an awkward fit.

However, one reply did seem to make some sense (in my mind, at least):

When I read the Gospel of John with the idea that Mary is a symbol, the omission of her name does seem to make more sense. Specifically, it makes sense (again, to me at least) in portraying Mary as an instrument for fulfilling OT prophecy. Or, to put it a different way, John’s omission of Mary’s name makes more sense if you assume that he is not as concerned with Mary herself, but rather her role in fulfilling prophecies regarding the Messiah. However, the side effect seems to be that John dehumanizes Mary in a way. I don’t know whether this was intentional on John’s part, but John’s portrayal of Mary does seem to make it difficult to relate to her in any way.

Thanks again for all the replies. I realize the literary criticism and biblical interpretation are both difficult and highly subjective, but I am really interested in hearing any other thoughts you may have.

God bless,
Dean

No, not dehumanized, but rather the pinnacle of humanity, the perfect representative for humanity, the premier apostle, the first disciple, and example to which all Christians aspire.

Remember that John wrote many years after the other three Gospels. Matthew, Mark and especially Luke wrote about the humanity of Mary. Read the finding of the boy Jesus in the temple on Luke. Read it in light of in light of Mary as the perfect representative of mankind speaking to the second person of the Trinity. She speaks the frustrations and longings of Israel when she says, “How could you do this to us!? We have been looking for you!!!”

Isreal had been looking for the Messiah for 1500 years, longing for him, praying for him and hoping for him. The pinnacle of creation looks the second person of the Trinity in the eyes and asks him why he waited so long to come. Israel had been attacked. The temple had been destroyes. They were exiled, taken advantage of, and made to be slaves. Mary demands an answer from Her Son, the Messiah, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Her words are very human. She speaks the words which each of us think, and hardly dare to pray, “Jesus, where are you? Why won’t you come to help me? We are looking for you with great anxiety!!!” Her words are very human.

These writings were out there when John wrote. John had a specific message to tell us - that Jesus is God and Mary was there at the wedding and at the crucifixion, at the beginning and at the end. Mary was there from beginning to end. Mary was the perfect vocation partner for Jesus, encouraging him to faithfulness in his mission to redeem mankind.

-Tim-

 

[dean24us]

No, not dehumanized, but rather the pinnacle of humanity, the perfect representative for humanity, the premier apostle, the first disciple, and example to which all Christians aspire.

Remember that John wrote many years after the other three Gospels. Matthew, Mark and especially Luke wrote about the humanity of Mary. Read the finding of the boy Jesus in the temple on Luke. Read it in light of in light of Mary as the perfect representative of mankind speaking to the second person of the Trinity. She speaks the frustrations and longings of Israel when she says, “How could you do this to us!? We have been looking for you!!!”

Isreal had been looking for the Messiah for 1500 years, longing for him, praying for him and hoping for him. The pinnacle of creation looks the second person of the Trinity in the eyes and asks him why he waited so long to come. Israel had been attacked. The temple had been destroyes. They were exiled, taken advantage of, and made to be slaves. Mary demands an answer from Her Son, the Messiah, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Her words are very human. She speaks the words which each of us think, and hardly dare to pray, “Jesus, where are you? Why won’t you come to help me? We are looking for you with great anxiety!!!” Her words are very human.

These writings were out there when John wrote. John had a specific message to tell us - that Jesus is God and Mary was there at the wedding and at the crucifixion, at the beginning and at the end. Mary was there from beginning to end. Mary was the perfect vocation partner for Jesus, encouraging him to faithfulness in his mission to redeem mankind.

-Tim-

I understand what you’re saying, and I didn’t mean to imply that the synoptic gospels (when taken in their entirety) don’t do a good job ‘humanizing’ Mary. Rather, I was focusing my analysis strictly on the the Gospel of John, and why the author chose to not use Mary’s name throughout his writings.

For what it’s worth, I’m not trying to “bash Mary” or anything of the sort – I’m only trying to understand why John wrote in a particular way.

God bless,
Dean

 

[TimothyH]

I understand what you’re saying, and I didn’t mean to imply that the synoptic gospels (when taken in their entirety) don’t do a good job ‘humanizing’ Mary. Rather, I was focusing my analysis strictly on the the Gospel of John, and why the author chose to not use Mary’s name throughout his writings.

For what it’s worth, I’m not trying to “bash Mary” or anything of the sort – I’m only trying to understand why John wrote in a particular way.

God bless,
Dean

No Dean, I didn’t take it that way. I know that you are seeking truth. It’s all good.

-Tim-

 

[GraceSofia]

Read it in light of in light of Mary as the perfect representative of mankind speaking to the second person of the Trinity. She speaks the frustrations and longings of Israel when she says, “How could you do this to us!? We have been looking for you!!!”

Isreal had been looking for the Messiah for 1500 years, longing for him, praying for him and hoping for him. The pinnacle of creation looks the second person of the Trinity in the eyes and asks him why he waited so long to come. Israel had been attacked. The temple had been destroyes. They were exiled, taken advantage of, and made to be slaves. Mary demands an answer from Her Son, the Messiah, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Her words are very human. She speaks the words which each of us think, and hardly dare to pray, “Jesus, where are you? Why won’t you come to help me? We are looking for you with great anxiety!!!”
-Tim-

Thanks for this insight. I must admit, this is the Mystery (Rosary) which least inspires me… this will give me something to meditate on.

 

[TimothyH]

Thanks for this insight. I must admit, this is the Mystery (Rosary) which least inspires me… this will give me something to meditate on.

How did the Second Person of the Trinity answer his mother? That’s the real question.

-Tim-

 

[GraceSofia]

How did the Second Person of the Trinity answer his mother? That’s the real question.

-Tim-

But they did not understand what he was saying to them. And neither do I get much from it. Any more insight to share?

 

[TimothyH]

But they did not understand what he was saying to them. And neither do I get much from it. Any more insight to share?

We are a little off topic here, swerving from John’s Gospel into Luke, but I’ll give it a go if there are no objections.

They did not understand for many reasons, including the fact that he had not yet instituted the Eucharist.

When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:48:49)

“Must be in my Father’s house” can also be translated as “Must be about my Father’s business.”

An ordinary Jewish mother stands in the House of God, the Temple, and looks at a typical Jewish son. She is no doubt furious with him. She is probably relieved to see him but also quite upset with him for leaving, and so expresses that in human terms saying “Why have you done this to us?” We have to remember however, who Mary is and whom Jesus is.

Mary is a Jewish mother, but she is also created perfectly to be the Mother of God. Mary is human, but she is the perfection of humanity, the pinnacle of creation, God’s crowning achievement, chosen by God to the the one through whom the Second Person of the Trinity would take on flesh, become man and enter creation. With this in mind, we see Mary not only as a mother confronting her son, but also as perfect representative of Isreal and of all mankind, standing in the Temple, face to face with the second person of the Trinity.

"Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety."

Mary looks at the her son, and in so doing, the perfect representative of mankind looks at the Second Person of the Trinity, and asks God why he left for so long, why he didn’t come sooner, and how he could possibly make them wait so long for his presence. Jesus’ answer is sublime. He must be in his Father’s house. He must be about his Father’s business. He was working all along, and when he came, he would be found in the his Father’s house, the Temple.

Jews were very familiar with scripture. Jews learned to read using Leviticus 17 through 22. They were familiar with the “Book of Woes” in Isaiah 1 through 39 and the “Book of Consolations” in Isaiah 40 through 66. They knew, based on the Old Testament Torah and Prophets, that the Messiah would be many things. He would be a Davidic King. He would be the New Moses. He would bring back the manna from heaven. He would save them from their enemies. He would wipe away every tear. And Mary stood in the temple and knew that she was looking at the one who would do all this - her very son.

Jesus’ Father’s business was to redeem mankind on the cross. They did not understand this yet. Jesus’ Father’s business was to forgive sins. They did not understand yet how that was to be. Jesus’ Father’s business was that he was to suffer, die, be buried, descend into Hell, be ressurected on the third day and ascend to his Father so that we could enter Heaven. They did not understand that yet. Jesus’ business was to ordain Apostles so that they and their successors could run his kindom on earth and administer the sacraments. They did not understand that yet.

And Jesus was sent to establish the Eucharist. No one could possibly undersand that yet. And the Eucharist if found in “My Father’s house.”

Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?

God dwelled with man in the Temple. Jesus is God. The Eucharist is Jesus. The Eucharist is found only in the Catholic Church, and when we are baptized, go to confession and recieve the Eucharist, we are incorporated into Christ and become temples of the Holy Spirit. We become the “Father’s house” in which God dwells.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

Read all of John 14, especially verse 15 through the end, about the advocate.

In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you. (John 14:19-20)

We become the Father’s house, the temple of the Holy Spirit, in which God dwells.

And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land; then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken, and I have done it, says the LORD." (Ezekiel 37:14)

He has done it!

I hope this isn’t too rambling, and makes some kind of sense to someone.

-Tim-

 

[PJM]

=dean24us;9925824]Hello! I try to read a chapter or two of the Bible every night before bed, and I recently finished reading through the Gospel of John. I noticed something odd that I hoped the good people on CAF could help me understand: the Blessed Virgin Mary is not referred to by name anywhere in John. Any references to her are made along the lines of “the Mother of Jesus”, “His Mother”, etc but never simply “Mary”.

I have considered various explanations, but none seem to pan out. The author mentions other females by name, so there doesn’t appear to be any type of ‘sexism’ at work. Also, the author mentions Joseph by name, which seems to preclude the idea that the author is trying to protect the identity of Jesus’ family. In short, it appears that all the other biblical ‘players’ are referred to by their proper names, but Mary seems to have been singled out for some reason.

So, does anyone have ideas as to why Mary’s name was omitted by John?

God bless,
Dean

Your Right and you’re BRIGHT.

So look up: John 19: 25-27…

Then if you still can’t figure it out let me know

God Bless you, and KEEP READING THE BIBLE:thumbsup:

 

[babs57]

Mary is “The Woman” from Gen 3:15, and Rev 12. Mary was created for the specific purpose of bringing our Redeemer into the world. She is at the beginning of the Bible, and at the end of the Bible, Immaculately concieved to be “The Woman” from and for all time.

I think John, who is also the author of Revelation, uses the term “mother” to identify Mary with “The Woman.”

 

[GraceSofia]

Jesus’ Father’s business was to redeem mankind on the cross. They did not understand this yet. Jesus’ Father’s business was to forgive sins. They did not understand yet how that was to be. Jesus’ Father’s business was that he was to suffer, die, be buried, descend into Hell, be ressurected on the third day and ascend to his Father so that we could enter Heaven. They did not understand that yet. Jesus’ business was to ordain Apostles so that they and their successors could run his kindom on earth and administer the sacraments. They did not understand that yet.

And Jesus was sent to establish the Eucharist. No one could possibly undersand that yet. And the Eucharist if found in “My Father’s house.”

Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?

God dwelled with man in the Temple. Jesus is God. The Eucharist is Jesus. The Eucharist is found only in the Catholic Church, and when we are baptized, go to confession and recieve the Eucharist, we are incorporated into Christ and become temples of the Holy Spirit. We become the “Father’s house” in which God dwells.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

Read all of John 14, especially verse 15 through the end, about the advocate.

In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you. (John 14:19-20)

We become the Father’s house, the temple of the Holy Spirit, in which God dwells.

And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land; then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken, and I have done it, says the LORD." (Ezekiel 37:14)

He has done it!

-Tim-

This is all awesome stuff. Thank you very much. I’ll have to think on all this because I’ve never thought of those verses being about the Eucharist.
(Apologies to the OP for sidetracking).