John 19:27

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tim_in_MI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tim_in_MI

Guest
John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

John 19:27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (RSV)

I once heard a commentator on a Catholic radio program (I can’t remember which one) that John 19:27 has a deeper meaning. Basically, the statement was made that the Greek text in the 2nd sentence can also be interpreted as: “And from that hour the disciple took her to their home.” - basically giving more meaning the to teaching that Mary was given to all, not just to John.

Has anyone else heard of this? Can anyone elaborate? I have not been able to find anything on this interpretation.
 
Tim in MI:
John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

John 19:27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (RSV)

I once heard a commentator on a Catholic radio program (I can’t remember which one) that John 19:27 has a deeper meaning. Basically, the statement was made that the Greek text in the 2nd sentence can also be interpreted as: “And from that hour the disciple took her to their home.” - basically giving more meaning the to teaching that Mary was given to all, not just to John.

Has anyone else heard of this? Can anyone elaborate? I have not been able to find anything on this interpretation.
Click to expand...
Tim,

I dispute the use of “their” in the verse, however, it is possible to give the verse the wider meaning that Jesus was not just handing his mother over to John because there was no other family member to take care of her (he was an only child ya know), but that symbolically, John represented the Church and Mary was being given to John as Mother of the Church, and therefore of all Christians.

It is the phrasing of the whole motif that leads us into seeing this in a very symbolic sense:

“When Jesus saw the Mother, and the disciple, he said to the Mother:” Woman, this is your son" . Then he said to the disciple, “There is your mother.” And from that moment the disciple took her to his own home." (John 19: 26-27)

My commentary makes the following points: That in this motif, Jesus entrusts His mother to John and John to Mary. In this translation, it says “the Mother” which is an indication that the author of this Gospel is making a point about the symbolism of this action. Mary is no longer the Mother of Jesus, but she has been handed over to John to be the Mother of all of the disciples of Christ throughout the ages.

According to my commentary, this highly symbolic action , represents a mystery of Christian life - that the believer is a member of a spiritual family. Just as a child needs both father and mother to grow to maturity, the newly formed Christian also needs both Mary (Mother) and the heavenly Father to grow to spiritual maturity.

Maggie
 
Maggie,

Thanks for the reply. I pretty much understood the fact that Jesus left Mary to all of us just as you discussed. In addition, I had heard that the original text actually could be interpreted to mean “their” home through the Greek words used. Maybe I read too much into this when I heard it. The reference, as I recall from the radio show, was from study done my Fr. John Hardon. Thanks again for your response.
 
I heard a talk that the passage can also mean “from that hour the disciple took her into his own heart.”

John 19:27 definitely bucks tradition because John already had a mother named Salome who was still alive at the time. Mt 20:20, Mt 27:56 & Mk 15:40

There is definitely much more going on here in addition to Jesus taking care of his mother.
 
As far as where you heard this idea put forth, I know Tim Staples used this argument in his older recordings when he was “Director of Apologetics” with Saint Joseph Communications.
As to your actual question this translation of “into their home.” can be concluded. The verse in Greek kind of says both. The later half of the verse says, “…kai ap ekeines tes horas elaben ha mathetes auten eis ta idia.” Literally translated, " and from they the hour took the mother themselves into their own." I’m know Greek expert but I have a Lexicon and know the Greek alphabet. That’s what it says. So, I’m for the pluralistic translation. I think it’s funny the word “home” (“oikia” in Greek) isn’t used, but like I said I’m no expert “into their own” could be an idiom. Hope all that helps.
 
40.png
JLove:
The later half of the verse says, “…kai ap ekeines tes horas elaben ha mathetes auten eis ta idia.” Literally translated, " and from they the hour took the mother themselves into their own."
Click to expand...
This is not literal, to my small understanding. The phrase “elaben ha mathetes” that you give in the Greek would include saying “the disciple” if you do it literally. Mathetes is disciple. Here are 3 happenings of the identical Greek for eis ta idia: John 1:11, John 16:32, and Acts 21:6. For example, it is the red part of 1:11 here: He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

I don’t know much Greek, however.
 
Pug,
Your right about the disciple part I typed “the mother” on accident I should have read back over what I wrote before I posted. But I think the point still stands.
About your eis ta idia search, the second two, I feel only support my idea. John 16:32 “…every man to his home…” and Acts 21:6 “…and they returned home.” Notice both of the these uses are in the plural. Now, John 1:11 “He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.” It would seem the singular, but as you rightly pointed out the same phrase is used. What’s interesting though is that the “his” in the the second half of the verse is also a plural word in the Greek. It’s “hoi,” which also comes from “ha,” “ta” is from “ha.” “Ha” has three singular uses and three plural uses. Singular: “ha”, “he”, and “to” Plural: “hoi”, “hai”, and “ta.”
With John 1:11 the only reason I can think that John would refer to Christ in the plural is because a few verses back he talks about God and the Word being one. Kind of like when God refers to Himself in the plural during the creation in Genesis. (I don’t know if you ever studied the parallels between John 1 and Genesis 1, but it is good stuff, and this could be another point.) Post your thoughts.
But, as I said I’m no expert and could be totally off base.
 
Hi Tim,

The phrase translated by “into his home” is “eis ta idia”. The same phrase is used in John 1:11 to mean “to his own (chosen people)”. (“Idios” is th word used in Greek to designate what is private or personal as opposed to public.) In other words, Mary became part of his family. That’s it.

Verbum
 
Verbum,

I know that “idios” is used for referring to private as opposed to “koinos” for public. That’s not where I’m getting hung up. It’s in the plurality of the pronouns and definite articles.
 
40.png
JLove:
It’s in the plurality of the pronouns and definite articles.
Click to expand...
I’ve been thinking about this, but I don’t know if I have anything useful to say. Here is a quote from you (I know you don’t mean the mother part):
and from they the hour took the mother themselves into their own
Click to expand...
I don’t find that first “they” there or the “themselves”. I would go, “and from that the hour took the disciple her to ta idia.” The ta idia part is the only plural, and I don’t really know what it means other than it is about private ownership or something. If I had to guess, I would figure his own because he is the actor in the sentence, and what is his own is left off, like his own family or household.

I guess maybe I am wondering if his own can be the plural part, like his own family is a bunch of people, so his own is plural in nature because there are a bunch of them that are his, or just that the word that is unspoken is a plural word? I think that is the plural in the 1:11 case. Clearly this thing could be an idiom and I would be clueless. Maybe his own would be singular if it was talking about his own city (polis as a singular noun), like in Mat9:1.
 
Pug,

You asked about the first “they/themselves” The Greek is “ekeines.” Which is the plural form of “ekeinos.” The definition from my lexicon for “ekeinos” is, “**evkei/noj **a demonstrative adjective referring to an entity relatively absent from the discourse setting; often substantivally, as a pronoun that (person), that (thing); plural those”
Notice the part about “…an entity relatively absent…” I think that’s pretty significant.

I would agree though that it is probably an idiom refering to a pluristic group as a single entity. Perhaps that is why it always get translated with the word “home” tagged on the end, even though it’s not there in the Greek. For instance, it should get translated, “and from that hour he took her into his own home.” with the understanding that “home” means family.
 
The more important consideration in that verse is the fact that Jesus uses the “gune” title, “woman,” for Mary.

This is the same seemingly abusive “gune” title He used for Mary in the Marriage Feast at Cana, John 2:1-11. Commentators stumble all over each other trying to excuse Jesus’ use of the term. They’re looking at it the wrong way.

Look at what happens in the marriage feast story. The six jars filled with water-turned-to-wine are evil (six) mortal man (jars) filled with salvation (water) activated by the saving blood of Christ (wine).

Now,

(1) Mary asking Jesus to help is Mary acting as an intercessor.

(2) Christ coldly tells Mary that the time is not right for what she is interceding for. That is God telling Mary that perfect God with His perfect justice doesn’t need her help.

(3) Note well that despite this rebuff, Mary is confident that He will give in! She tells the waiter to cooperate with Jesus!

(4) Jesus gives in, though it is against God’s timing, and helps!

(5) And the help is salvation activated by the saving blood of Christ!

So, the “Woman” title is Mary’s official title as special intercessor for mankind.

When Jesus gives John to her from the cross, He calls her “gune” again – her official intercessor title, “Woman.”

The incident is her formal commission as intercessor.
 
Interesting idea. Although, I think your forth point may be a bit flawed, or at least requires some questioning.

quote=BibleReader Jesus gives in, though it is against God’s timing, and helps!
[/quote]

So, why does Jesus give in to his mother’s request? Is it because she’s His mother or because she’s the woman or perhaps some other reason? Also, how are concluding that the jars are representative of man?
 
Hi, JLove.

The inherently challenging concept is this: God really doesn’t need our help, in the intercession department. His justice is perfect. And He is almighty God.

Normally, when we – you and I – pray for another, interceding with God for that other, we are merely cogs in a salvation machine which God does not need. We are permitted to participate in the salvation process, because God loves us, and with humility we accepted our not-necessary role.

Now, how could Mary be a "special intercessor,’ with a role in the salvation process somehow superior to ours?

Well, look at the Marriage Feast at Cana.

Christ says, plainly, “My hour has not yet come.”

And that was after telling her, “How does your concern affect me?”

I.e., it DOESN’T affect Him. And it ISN’T time. The Second Person of the Divine Trinity says so. Do you deny it?

But then, though it is CONTRARY TO Divine order – again, read John’s gospel; it SAYS so – the Second Person COMPLIES WITH HER REQUEST, ANYWAY.

Suggestion (humbly submitted for consideration): As a favor to Mary, more will be saved, at her request, than Divine justice would otherwise permit.

Otherwise, she’s no more of a “special intercessor” than praying BibleReader from “New Joisey”!
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Hi, JLove.

The inherently challenging concept is this: God really doesn’t need our help, in the intercession department. His justice is perfect. And He is almighty God.

Normally, when we – you and I – pray for another, interceding with God for that other, we are merely cogs in a salvation machine which God does not need. We are permitted to participate in the salvation process, because God loves us, and with humility we accepted our not-necessary role.

Now, how could Mary be a "special intercessor,’ with a role in the salvation process somehow superior to ours?

Well, look at the Marriage Feast at Cana.

Christ says, plainly, “My hour has not yet come.”

And that was after telling her, “How does your concern affect me?”

I.e., it DOESN’T affect Him. And it ISN’T time. The Second Person of the Divine Trinity says so. Do you deny it?

But then, though it is CONTRARY TO Divine order – again, read John’s gospel; it SAYS so – the Second Person COMPLIES WITH HER REQUEST, ANYWAY.

Suggestion (humbly submitted for consideration): As a favor to Mary, more will be saved, at her request, than Divine justice would otherwise permit.

Otherwise, she’s no more of a “special intercessor” than praying BibleReader from “New Joisey”!
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Christ says, plainly, “My hour has not yet come.”

And that was after telling her, “How does your concern affect me?”

I.e., it DOESN’T affect Him. And it ISN’T time. The Second Person of the Divine Trinity says so. Do you deny it?
Click to expand...
Do I deny it? Yes!

I don’t think you translation, “How does your concern affect me?” is very good. At least your understanding there of. I think it carries more a notion of, “How can I refuse you?” I think this is lived out. Christ performs the miracle. Although, you think it contrary to “divine order.” I don’t think it was. If it was though, why did Christ conceed? Is it because she’s His mother? Because she’s the woman? Or because she’s something else?

Also, how did you conclude that the jars are representative of man?
 
Hi, JLove.

Do I deny it? Yes!

I don’t think you translation, “How does your concern affect me?” is very good. At least your understanding there of. I think it carries more a notion of, “How can I refuse you?” I think this is lived out. Christ performs the miracle. Although, you think it contrary to “divine order.” I don’t think it was. If it was though, why did Christ conceed? Is it because she’s His mother? Because she’s the woman? Or because she’s something else?

Though I think that some of the Mariology out there is dangerous, I think that the traditional Mariologist’s explanation for this one – that God, as a gift to the mother of His Son, was allowing her to function as a special intercessor in the salvation process – is the reason why God allowed a mere creature, Mary, to “muck around” in the salvation process, though it was none of Mary’s business and though her timing was bad.

Also, how did you conclude that the jars are representative of man?

**Simple: It works.

For example, here is God the Potter forming man the “clay jar” out of clay…

**7 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. Genesis 2:7. **

And now here is Gideon foreshadowing the destruction of the Incarnation to bring about salvation – by smashing jars containing fire, the jar symbolizing the “mortal man” aspect of Christ the Incarnation, and the fire in them symbolizing “a special presence of God” in Christ the Incarnation, to defeat evil…

19 So Gideon and the hundred men who were with him came to the edge of the camp at the beginning of the middle watch, just after the posting of the guards. They blew the horns and broke the jars they were holding. 20 All three companies blew horns and broke their jars. They held the torches in their left hands, and in their right the horns they were blowing, and cried out, “A sword for the LORD and Gideon!” 21 They all remained standing in place around the camp, while the whole camp fell to running and shouting and fleeing. Judges 7:19-21.**
 
I agree for the most part, but the whole “mucking around” thing doesn’t quite fit for me. I do think God granted her a special place, but more importantly she realized her role in salvation history. Maybe I’m wrong, but you make it seem as if Mary didn’t really know what she doing, but because she was Christ’s mother He doesn’t really have a choice.
 
40.png
JLove:
You asked about the first “they/themselves” The Greek is “ekeines.” Which is the plural form of “ekeinos.”
Click to expand...
Oh, totally cool, you got the greek letters to print! I don’t know how to do that on this board.

I took it that ekeines (with the ending being spelled eta sigma) is the genitive feminine singular declined or in the same form as “the hour” right after it (spelled omega rho alpha sigma and is feminie genitive singular). I’m sure it is an eta sigma there, having a greek bible to look in. So far as I know, eta sigma is a basic ending for the feminine genitive singular.

ekeinoi is plural for the basic masucline word in the nominative. I don’t know, but are you thinking of if the ending were to be spelled epsilon sigma?

Or is there something going on here that I don’t get? If so, please tell me.
 
Pug,

As far as getting the Greek to print: I know it’s cool. I was bit surprised. I tried before and it wouldn’t work, but then it did this time. I don’t know?

Now I see, I think. I didn’t realize that even though “evkei,nhj” comes from “evkei/noj” the definitions aren’t really the same. I now see that it should be translated as "that, " refering to “hour.” So, “evkei,nhj th/j w[raj” should be “that hour.” I guess I need to go back over the verse more carefully. Sorry for the confusion. Seems I’ve been wrong here all along.

P.S. Do you study Greek in school or just on your own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top