Jesus's Family

[JB_Brother_4446]

It doesn’t make sense to me that if Jesus had brothers and sisters to take care of His mother that she would have even been in Jerusalem when He was crucified. What sons and daughters would have allowed that to happen. Women were subject to their grown sons. No good son, let alone a Jewish son, would have allowed his mother to be put into such danger. Jesus would have seen to it that she was safe with His brothers or sisters.

Second, if Mary had other children, why did Jesus appoint the Apostle John to take care of her and take her into his home?

Because John was Jesus’ kinsman, the son of Salome, Mary’s sister. Why do you think James and John could ask Jesus for places on his right and left?

 

[HelenRose]

Because John was Jesus’ kinsman, the son of Salome, Mary’s sister. Why do you think James and John could ask Jesus for places on his right and left?

But why not his own brothers or sisters. Why did they not protect her? Was there a family estrangement? It would make sense to me if Jesus had said to John, “Take her to her other children”. He did not say that, He entrusted Mary to John as being John’s Mother and John as her son. Didn’t Her other children have a say in this? It does not make sense to me that Jesus, knowing what was in store for hIm - the crowds, the dangers involved -would have allowed His Mother to be there if 1: She had a safeplace to go or 2: She herself has an extremely important role to play in His sacrifice.

As for James and John I don’t see the connection. It is my understanding that the word kinsman in ancient Hebrew is the same word as brother. Abraham referred to Lot as His brother. Lot was his nephew.

 

[Della]

Because John was Jesus’ kinsman, the son of Salome, Mary’s sister. Why do you think James and John could ask Jesus for places on his right and left?

When it says that Salome was Mary’s sister it doesn’t necessarily mean her sibling, but rather of her same house, in this case, the House of David.

They certainly did ask for that privilege, but Jesus corrected any notion that the Kingdom he came to establish would be based on earthly relationships. They presumed upon their relationship, but Jesus’ Kingdom wasn’t what they were expecting. It was to be spiritual, not inherited or backed up by armies, as in the past. As the Second Adam, Jesus established the new humanity in himself open to all men in all places.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

But why not his own brothers or sisters. Why did they not protect her? Was there a family estrangement? It would make sense to me if Jesus had said to John, “Take her to her other children”. He did not say that, He entrusted Mary to John as being John’s Mother and John as her son. Didn’t Her other children have a say in this? It does not make sense to me that Jesus, knowing what was in store for hIm - the crowds, the dangers involved -would have allowed His Mother to be there if 1: She had a safeplace to go or 2: She herself has an extremely important role to play in His sacrifice.

As for James and John I don’t see the connection. It is my understanding that the word kinsman in ancient Hebrew is the same word as brother. Abraham referred to Lot as His brother. Lot was his nephew.

Jesus’ relatives said he was crazy, and went to the point of dragging his mother to speak to him. John and his family believed in Jesus, and was the only believing male relative around, (the other two, James ben Zebedee and James ben Alphaeus/Clopas were in hiding after Jesus’ apprehension in Gethsemane.)