Matthew 12:46-50

  • Thread starter Thread starter grandeorgue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

grandeorgue

Guest
Reflecting upon tomorrow’s (Tuesday, July 20, 2010) Gospel Reading, I had a hard time understanding Matthew’s account of this particular event.

When Jesus said “…whoever does the will of my Father are my brother, sister, and mother”, was he emphazing that Mary did not due the will of His Father since he pointed at the crowds and not him?

Also, when Matthew said that his mother and his brothers were outside, who are his brothers?

Here is the Gospel:

While Jesus was speaking to the crowds,
his mother and his brothers appeared outside,
wishing to speak with him.
Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside,
asking to speak with you.”
But he said in reply to the one who told him,
“Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?”
And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said,
“Here are my mother and my brothers.
For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father
is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
 
grandeorgue said:
Reflecting upon tomorrow’s (Tuesday, July 20, 2010) Gospel Reading, I had a hard time understanding Matthew’s account of this particular event.

When Jesus said “…whoever does the will of my Father are my brother, sister, and mother”, was he emphazing that Mary did not due the will of His Father since he pointed at the crowds and not him?

Also, when Matthew said that his mother and his brothers were outside, who are his brothers?

Here is the Gospel:

While Jesus was speaking to the crowds,
his mother and his brothers appeared outside,
wishing to speak with him.
Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside,
asking to speak with you.”
But he said in reply to the one who told him,
“Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?”
And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said,
“Here are my mother and my brothers.
For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father
is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
Click to expand...
I recall a Scott Hahn interview (my Fathers Plan?) where he says that Mary upon hearing Jesus say this may likely have said “Preach it Son!” then he said that Mary has perfectly carried out the will of the Father.
 
grandeorgue said:
Also, when Matthew said that his mother and his brothers were outside, who are his brothers?
Click to expand...
I think the confusion created here is due to our lack of understanding of the actual jewish culture of the time. I understand that in hebrew or aramaic (which ever one of the two that was being spoken here - I think it was aramaic) they used the expression of brothers and sisters to also reference ‘cousins’ or ‘relatives’. I don’t know that they have a word for ‘cousin’. But, the jewish scholars understand that a relative or cousin is covered with brother and sister. I am not a linguist but if you follow this line of thinking you will come up with some linguistic analysis that will show you the words ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ also stood for cousin/relative in the culture of the time.

Furthermore, consider that Jesus said to John here is your mother. John took care of Mary and moved to Turkey with her and took care of her as his mother. This would not have been acceptable in the jewish culture of the time. It would have corresponded to the brother/s of Jesus to take care of Mary after his death. Otherwise, it would be dishonorable. Jesus did not have any brothers nor sisters and so he could say this to John. Aside from that he also said this to John as John representing humanity.

John 19
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
 
…

Where are his brothers and sisters at the foot of the cross? Why would they if they existed not be with Mary and Jesus? Notice the absence of their existence in the gospels. The only mention is during that incident but, nothing alludes to their existence. The only thing is a misunderstanding of what the words represented which were referring to - relatives or cousins.
 
Mary became the Mother of God precisely by embracing the Father’s will.

Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her. (Lk 1:38)
 
It should be expected that, after centuries of ecclesiastical polemics attempting to weed out leadership claims as opposed to Peter and the Twelve or to outsiders like Paul, that the gospels texts treating Jesus’ mother, brothers and sisters either severely (such as Mark and John) or delicately (such as Luke) have been used as functions in these debates. As the early theologians debated the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the confusion concerning the siblings of Jesus had to be harmonized with the dogma, so brothers and sisters became cousins, step-siblings, etc… There really is no agreement on *what *since appeal to the original languages falls flat but asserts (from tribal knowledge or a simple Google search) that it is anything other than blood brothers or sisters.

Most of us have sometime scratched our heads over the tantalizing confusions latent in the strange redundancy of similar names in the New Testament accounts. How can Mary have had a sister named Mary? Is there a difference between Joseph Barsabbas Justus, Judas Barsabbas Justus, Jesus Justus, Titius Justus, and James the Just? Whence all the Jameses and Judases? Who are Simon the Zealot and Judas the Zealot (who appears in some NT manuscripts and other early Christian documents)? Is Clopas the same as Cleophas? What’s going on with Jesus ben-Ananias, Jesus Barabbas, Elymas bar-Jesus, and Jesus Justus? What does Boanerges really mean? Is Nathaniel a nickname for someone else we know of? And so on, and so on.

Thus, when you harmonize the gospels with the dogma, brothers and sisters become cousins, step-siblings, etc. And characters became sundered. Mary suddenly had a sister named Mary because the mother of James, Joses, Simon, and Judas could no longer also be the mother of Jesus.
 
grandeorgue said:
When Jesus said “…whoever does the will of my Father are my brother, sister, and mother”, was he emphazing that Mary did not due the will of His Father since he pointed at the crowds and not him?
Click to expand...
I’m guessing you meant to say “and not her”. Obviously Jesus cannot be saying that Mary did not do the will of the Father because of her complete obedience to God, as expressed at the Annunciation.

I think to understand this gospel passage we need to visualize the scene. As we all know, our parents and close relatives can expect special attention and favors from us. For example, if I were talking to a bunch of people and was told that my mother was outside and wanted to speak with me, everyone would naturally expect that I would excuse myself and attend to my mother’s needs.

The gospel tells us that Jesus was teaching a crowd and was informed that Mary and his “brothers” (probably relatives such as cousins, see below) were outside wanting to speak with him. Obviously, the crowd expected Jesus to excuse himself and leave. But Jesus does not leave, but instead states that anyone who does the will of his Father is his mother, brother, sister. In other words, being the Messiah, the Son of Man, his relatives do not have an exclusive or special access to him. He is there for all his followers just as much as he is there for those closely related to him. We are, after all, one in the Body of Christ. I do not deny that Mary has a special role in terms of her realtionship with Jesus, but I am simply saying that Jesus wanted everyone in the crowd to feel as part of his own family (and therefore deserving of his attention).
Also, when Matthew said that his mother and his brothers were outside, who are his brothers?
Click to expand...
Please see this Catholic Answers article: catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
 
Is it a fact that Mary and these male relatives were close enough to travel together?
However, it appears these same relatives were not at the cross.
 
Epistemes said:
It should be expected that, after centuries of ecclesiastical polemics attempting to weed out leadership claims as opposed to Peter and the Twelve or to outsiders like Paul, that the gospels texts treating Jesus’ mother, brothers and sisters either severely (such as Mark and John) or delicately (such as Luke) have been used as functions in these debates. As the early theologians debated the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the confusion concerning the siblings of Jesus had to be harmonized with the dogma, so brothers and sisters became cousins, step-siblings, etc… There really is no agreement on *what *since appeal to the original languages falls flat but asserts (from tribal knowledge or a simple Google search) that it is anything other than blood brothers or sisters.

Most of us have sometime scratched our heads over the tantalizing confusions latent in the strange redundancy of similar names in the New Testament accounts. How can Mary have had a sister named Mary? Is there a difference between Joseph Barsabbas Justus, Judas Barsabbas Justus, Jesus Justus, Titius Justus, and James the Just? Whence all the Jameses and Judases? Who are Simon the Zealot and Judas the Zealot (who appears in some NT manuscripts and other early Christian documents)? Is Clopas the same as Cleophas? What’s going on with Jesus ben-Ananias, Jesus Barabbas, Elymas bar-Jesus, and Jesus Justus? What does Boanerges really mean? Is Nathaniel a nickname for someone else we know of? And so on, and so on.

Thus, when you harmonize the gospels with the dogma, brothers and sisters become cousins, step-siblings, etc. And characters became sundered. Mary suddenly had a sister named Mary because the mother of James, Joses, Simon, and Judas could no longer also be the mother of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Two things here. Firstly, this is why we rely on the Church as the interpreter of Scripture. The Bible is the witness to God’s actions, mostly his dealings with man. It is not a proof text for doctrine or dogma, but a help and a guide.

Secondly, nowhere is Mary described as being the mother of anyone but Jesus. Familial relationships were tribal and very close in that culture, unlike today when we all separate ourselves into nuclear families isolated from one another, sometimes by thousands of miles.

We have to keep the culture firmly in mind in order to make sense of these things. To overlay modern societal norms onto the NT is a huge mistake (not that you are making this mistake here, but I’ve seen it time and time again when discussing these matters).
 
grandeorgue said:
Also, when Matthew said that his mother and his brothers were outside, who are his brothers?
Click to expand...
As the Gospels make clear, the referenced brothers are James, Joses, Simon, and Judah. In other words, the people referenced are the four of the first apostles who were with Jesus at the time, not actual blood relations.
 
Most likely Mary was not doing the will of the Father when she and the brothern came to get Jesus. Even, a church father says she was sinning at that time. And, last I checked God still forgives sin.
 
Big_Dummy said:
Most likely Mary was not doing the will of the Father when she and the brothern came to get Jesus. Even, a church father says she was sinning at that time. And, last I checked God still forgives sin.
Click to expand...
I don’t think such a statement was ever made by a Church Father so, like Promethius, I would like to see an actual source.

But how can this gospel passage be interpreted to mean that Mary was not doing the will of God? She simply wanted to speak with her son, as we can naturally expect of any mother. Obviously Jesus did not want to stop speaking to the crowd, so it was clearly his will (i.e., God’s will) to remain in the room teaching. But in order for Mary to be guilty of sin she would have had to know this and freely choose to act in violation of it. There is no indication that she had this knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top