Why did Jesus entrust the care of Mary to John?

[joe370]

My non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, why, in your opinion, would Jesus entrust the care of His mother Mary to John, if Jesus had brothers and sisters?

John 19:

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his blessed mother Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, Woman, behold, your son. Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother. And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

If this does NOT confirm that Mary had no other children who could care for her, necessitating the need for Jesus to entrust her care to one of his disciples, then could someone please elaborate? If Mary had several sons and daughters who could have, and would have, according to Jewish custom, been entrusted with Mary’s care, then why was John necessary? It would have been the responsibility of Jesus’ brothers and sisters to be the caretakers of their beloved widowed mother.

 

[manygift1spirit]

I gather from your smiley that you already know the answer to your queries.

Mary was perpetually a virgin. There were no such brothers and sisters in the sense you are using the words.

Check in the CCC. This is all spelled out.

While not the only evidence for it, the implication of the verses you mention do suggest the truth of the situation.

 

[St_Francis]

If Mary and Joseph had not already agreed to an unconsumated marriage, why would she, after her betrothal, ask the angel how it could be that she was to become a mother?

St Luke, 1:34: And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

 

[Trishie]

John proved his faithfulness at the foot of the cross. To whom would the most loving of Sons entrust His dear Mother…surely not those who fled in terror, but to the one who proved his love and trustworthiness in Jesus’ darkest hours!

 

[JonNC]

John proved his faithfulness at the foot of the cross. To whom would the most loving of Sons entrust His dear Mother…surely not those who fled in terror, but to the one who proved his love and trustworthiness in Jesus’ darkest hours!

Boy, Trishie, do I love this!!! And it doesn’t make the likelihood of her perpetual virginity any less true.

Jon

 

[Todd520]

John 19 does not confirm anything about the number of children Mary had.

Facts to contend with:

• Mary was loved by all
• Mary had an extended family
• John was the only male disciple at the foot of the cross
• all other male disciples had deserted Christ ** even his cousins or ‘brothers’

Logic to contend with:**

• Since anyone who knew Mary loved her as their own mother, and she had extended family, there was no need to fear for her care.
• Jesus thinking of Mary while dying on the cross is an example of pure selfless love, something we should strive to emulate.
• John was the most noble, and only disciple to stand by Jesus. Who else could work for this act of love.

Net, this act by Jesus proves his love for Mary, not the number of siblings.

My non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, why, in your opinion, would Jesus entrust the care of His mother Mary to John, if Jesus had brothers and sisters?

John 19:

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his blessed mother Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, Woman, behold, your son. Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother. And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

If this does NOT confirm that Mary had no other children who could care for her, necessitating the need for Jesus to entrust her care to one of his disciples, then could someone please elaborate? If Mary had several sons and daughters who could have, and would have, according to Jewish custom, been entrusted with Mary’s care, then why was John necessary? It would have been the responsibility of Jesus’ brothers and sisters to be the caretakers of their beloved widowed mother.

 

[JonNC]

John 19 does not confirm anything about the number of children Mary had.

Facts to contend with:

• Mary was loved by all
• Mary had an extended family
• John was the only male disciple at the foot of the cross
• all other male disciples had deserted Christ ** even his cousins or ‘brothers’

Logic to contend with:**

• Since anyone who knew Mary loved her as their own mother, and she had extended family, there was no need to fear for her care.
• Jesus thinking of Mary while dying on the cross is an example of pure selfless love, something we should strive to emulate.
• John was the most noble, and only disciple to stand by Jesus. Who else could work for this act of love.

Net, this act by Jesus proves his love for Mary, not the number of siblings.

Well, He could have simply asked John to see to it that she was received into the care of His siblings. My limited understanding of Jewish culture of the time, that might have been the more typical request, ISTM.

Jon

 

[stephe1987]

Think about the times, though.

In today’s world, people often send their aging parents off to nursing homes. Anyone can care for an aging person.

But back then, she would have needed a husband or relative to care for her. If she had children after Jesus, they would (obviously) be younger than him and perfectly able to care for their mother. John of course would check in with Mary, but her care would have been trusted to a son or daughter, since I believe Joseph had passed away at that point.

Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus’s siblings deserted Him?

 

[Todd520]

Well, He could have simply asked John to see to it that she was received into the care of His siblings. My limited understanding of Jewish culture of the time, that might have been the more typical request, ISTM.

Jon

So Jon is this what you think?
While Christ is dying, he should have gotten John to promise to hand Mary over to his cowardly cousins (or brothers) that were lurking in the shadows?

If he was going to express concern about Mary’s welfare, entrusting John WITH Mary’s welfare was the only option.

 

[JonNC]

So Jon is this what you think?
While Christ is dying, he should have gotten John to promise to hand Mary over to his cowardly cousins (or brothers) that were lurking in the shadows?

If he was going to express concern about Mary’s welfare, entrusting John WITH Mary’s welfare was the only option.

Is it possible, Todd, that not all of His siblings were in Jerusalem for the Passover? Assuming He had siblings (which I don’t), what scriptural references would you reference that they were cowardly?

Jon

 

[rev_kevin]

Lets see in Mark 3 20-21 “when Jesus returned to the house where he was staying, the crowd began to gather again, and soon he and his disciples couldn’t even find time to eat. When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him home with them, He’s out of his mind, they said.”
His family tried to help him but the wouldn’t let them so they thought he was not in his right mind.

John 7 it when Jesus’ brothers ridicule him. John 7:2-5 “But soon it was time for the Festival of Shelters, and Jesus’ brothers urged him to go to Judea for the celebration. Go where your followers can see your miracles! they scoffed. You can’t become a public figure if you hide like this! If you can do such wonderful things, prove it to the world! For even his brothers didn’t believe him.”

Mark 3:31-35 Jesus’ mother and brothers arruved at the house where he was teaching. They stood outside and sent word for him to come out and talk with them. There was a crowd around Jesus, and someone said, Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you. Jesus replied, Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? Then he looked at those around him and said, These are my mother and brothers. Anyone who does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother."

The first 2 his brothers did not believe who he said he was and what he said he could do. In the third on he (in a way) rejects he brothers, sisters, and mother.
So the Jewish way that has been talked about here on this forum Jesus didn’t go by. So why on the cross would he go by Jewish tradition of giving his care to his brothers or his family when they did not believe who he was and he (in a way) rejected them. According to Mark 3:31-35 every believer was his brothers, sisters, and mother so he could give the care of his mother to any believer he wanted to.

 

[Todd520]

Is it possible, Todd, that not all of His siblings were in Jerusalem for the Passover? Assuming He had siblings (which I don’t), what scriptural references would you reference that they were cowardly?

Jon

John was the only Male disciple at the foot of the cross, ergo any family in the area besides his mother had deserted him. I can’t possible believe they did not know about his trial and crucifiction. The comment on cowardice is self evident by the action of all disciples who deserted Christ.

John was the only male Christ could bind to care for his mother, again I call it an act of love rather than a requirement.

There is no biblical proof here that Jesus did or did not have siblings.

 

[JonNC]

=Todd520;7109399]John was the only Male disciple at the foot of the cross, ergo any family in the area besides his mother had deserted him. I can’t possible believe they did not know about his trial and crucifiction. The comment on cowardice is self evident by the action of all disciples who deserted Christ.

Hi Todd,
I wasn’t thinking of the disciples, and I don’t know the where alleged brothers and sisters might have lived.

John was the only male Christ could bind to care for his mother, again I call it an act of love rather than a requirement.

Certainly an act of love.

There is no biblical proof here that Jesus did or did not have siblings.

Hard to prove the negative, but I am content to side with the Lutheran reformers who held to semper virgo, without condemning those who don’t.
Jon

 

[Rom_8_35]

There is no verse in the bible that states Jesus’ Mother had children other than Jesus himself nor is there one that names someone besides Jesus as “son of Mary”. In several passages, there are references to Jesus’ brothers. It is often argued that the term “brother” may refer to “cousins” as there was no word in Aramaic to distinguish the difference between brother, cousin and/or close relative. James and Joseph, two of the four men listed as Jesus’ brothers in MT 13:55 were actually his cousins, sons of his Mother’s sister who was named Mary wife of Cleophas. Cross-reference Jn 19:25 with Mt 13:55.

Lk 2: 22—51, Jesus was taken to the temple as a child and was feared lost but in the retelling of this incident there is no mention of brothers or sister. It would have been strange for Mary or Joseph not to have taken their other children on the trip if they had had any.

Furthermore, in Jn 7: 3-5, according to Jewish tradition it would have been considered scandalous or inappropriate for Jesus’ supposed brothers to reprimand him because they would have had to have been younger then Jesus, yet no mention of this is made in the passage. Younger brothers were not alowed to correct or reproof their older brother. It is more than likely the term brother here did not refer to younger siblings. There is no real evidence that Jesus had blood siblings that would have been obligated to care for His mother after his death.

 

[Rom_8_35]

As to Jesus seeing to the well being of his mother, how short sighted do you think Jesus was in regard to the care of his mother? Jesus was the perfect loving son and would not have left the care of his dear mother to chance. He knew what was going to happen and that his apostles would abandon Him. He was always very careful with his actions and the timing of them. Prior to being betrayed, He may have made arrangements for her care within his community of disciples or apostles. If he had had brothers or sisters, he would have placed her in their care before his death instead of one of his disciples. Even if his supposed siblings had rejected Him (as a poster above stated), it wouldn’t have meant that they would have rejected their mother for Jewish tradition demanded that they honor their father and mother.

Jesus knew what he was doing when he made his declaration on the cross (John 19: 26-27). Note how he calls Mary, “Women” as he did at the wedding of Cana (Jn 2:4). This was not a sign of disrespect but a reference to Mary as “the woman” that was referred to in Gn 3:15. Jesus had a specific intent when he made his declaration on the cross aside from the obvious. He didn’t just recall in a moment of lucidness, Oh sorry mom, I almost forgot about you. Let’s see, which of my disciples are still around. Hey John, I need a favor…. Take care of my mom. No, To Mary he said, “Women there is your son” and to his disciple he stated “this is your mother.” Who was a disciple of Jesus? Those people who followed Jesus’ teachings. Who are his disciples today? Those people who follow him and form part of the church he founded. More than just establishing who was to care for his mother (which he had probably already spoken to John about) this was a telling gesture, here Jesus is placing all of his disciples under the care of His mother and then giving her to us (his followers) as our Mother to care for and take into our homes. That is why Mary watches over her children (the church) and why we are called to seek, honor, and venerate The Virgin Mary and call her our mother. How wonderful and great Jesus is. He thought of everything.

 

[joe370]

John proved his faithfulness at the foot of the cross. To whom would the most loving of Sons entrust His dear Mother…surely not those who fled in terror, but to the one who proved his love and trustworthiness in Jesus’ darkest hours!

Hey Trish, JonNC is right; that is pretty good, and I give you major points for originality, but it is still lacking I am afraid, in my humble opinion for a couple of reasons: if it is to be believed, it must be proven, purely from a sola scriptura standpoint; it must be stated somewhere in scripture - correct? At least that is what I am told by all of my SS friends! Your theory would fall under the heading of tradition, which is a big no -no according to the SS rules. Moreover, Peter was one of the most demonstrative cowards of them all, yet Jesus still said to Pater:

“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Trish, why would Jesus entrust Simon (renamed Kepha) - with the ultimate mission of feeding Jesus’ Lambs, and taking care of His sheep, considering the fact that he fled in terror and left Jesus’ side, unlike Mary and John? Your logic, in my humble opinion, loses its persuasiveness in light of these facts.

 * "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
  Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."

16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

Trish, if you can prove, using sola scriptura, that the supposed blood brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, that fled in terror, (just as Peter and James did) - ** did not turn back with fearless might **to do the work of their supposed blood brother, JC, (see Acts 2 for an example of what I am talking about) - just as Peter and James did, then I will absolutely concede your point!!!

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that Jesus would defrock his blood brothers and sisters for doing something that is all too human, at a time when fear was at its peak, for all those associated with Jesus, especially Jesus’ siblings.

Remember, Jesus’ supposed blood brothers and sisters that deserted him, as did His apostles, were all there in the in the upper room joined together with the cowardice apostles and Jesus’ courageous mother and beloved disciple, constantly united and in prayer. Obviously they did turn back and Jesus would have known this!

• Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, **and with his brothers. ***

Thanks Trish for your (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[joe370]

Trish, Jesus said to His mother: “Woman,** there is your son…”**

According to scripture, the apostle John **was Mary’s son, which would logically, make him Jesus’ blood brother - right? **Scripture nowhere says anything remotely close to this regarding Jesus’ supposed blood brothers and sisters. The Bible never states directly that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had other children. Only Jesus is said to be the son of Mary, well, other than the apostle John, and we all know that John was not a blood relative of Jesus.

Heck, the only reason we know the beloved disciple was John, the author of the Gospel, is through Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. It is to be found nowhere in Sacred Scripture, so why can’t we trust the tradition of the CC regarding Jesus’ brothers and sisters?

 

[joe370]

Jesus spoke few words from the Cross, due to the unimaginable pain He must have been experiencing. If Mary had another son or even if John was her son, (which of course he was not) - Jesus would not have wasted His words, in such unimaginably agonizing pain, on the obvious - right? After all, Jesus is God, and without doubt He knew if his supposed blood brothers and sisters were going to be trustworthy candidates to care for his mother in his absence, prior to His crucifixion - right? If you were in Jesus’ shoes, and I mean you, in general, would you have waited until the moment of your worst pain, on the brink of death, to reveal something so important to your mother or would you have taken care of it in advance? Take your worst pain and multiply by it by 1000 and then answer the question.

Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God. In parallel fashion, Jesus is the only-begotten son of Mary. To me it just seems logical that Mary, not having other children, would have helped her to remain focused on her one child - God, and His will to save all mankind, but that’s just my opinion.

 

[joe370]

;7109183]Well, He could have simply asked John to see to it that she was received into the care of His siblings.

Jon

Good point Jon. It would seem rather unnecessary to point out the obvious though. Mary’s supposed blood brothers and sisters would not need John to remind them of the obvious - right? All children are in tune with their filial obligations, and certainly all those supposed blood brothers and sisters would have been aware of this fact as well. Jesus’ statement makes no sense to me, at all, if Jesus had blood brothers and sisters to take care of His mother in His absence, but I am trying to see things from the opposite perspective.

 

[Todd520]

Good point Jon. It would seem rather unnecessary to point out the obvious though. Mary’s supposed blood brothers and sisters would not need John to remind them of the obvious - right? All children are in tune with their filial obligations, and certainly all those supposed blood brothers and sisters would have been aware of this fact as well. Jesus’ statement makes no sense to me, at all, if Jesus had blood brothers and sisters to take care of His mother in His absence, but I am trying to see things from the opposite perspective.

Jon, are you saying you don’t think Mary had relatives?
Let’s just agree she had no other children
I think it’s also agreed she had at least two sisters - Mary of Clopas, and Mary Salomae
Then there is Joseph’s family, and possibly her step children?
Then there are extended family via cousins, aunts & uncles.

Mary had no shortage of blood and marriage relatives to look after her. And they woul love her and care for her.