Why did Jesus entrust the care of Mary to John?

[joe370]

Hey Kevin…

Lets see in Mark 3 20-21 "when Jesus returned to the house where he was staying…His family tried to help him but the wouldn’t let them so they thought he was not in his right mind.

So, his supposed blood brothers and sisters questioned his motives - is your point. Got it. Don’t forget, family implies His mother too. Jesus’ ways were not their ways, at the time, but they understood His ways after His resurrection. They were, no doubt, still focusing on an earthly Davidic King. They, like the apostles, including John, did not understand Jesus’ ways, even as late as John 16. Peter, who was bold enough to speak up, had doubts just as the rest of Jesus’ disciples did, at least until His resurrection.

*From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. *

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.”

Again, they did not understand Jesus’ ways. They did not understand why Jesus could not go to Judea with them, for the celebration. Jesus did tell them why though: "Therefore Jesus told them, “The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.” How could they fully understand/comprehend until Jesus’ resurrection?

Nowhere is the word ridicule used by the way. Even the apostles doubted him to the very end; this proves nothing.

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."

What’s your point?

The first 2 his brothers did not believe who he said he was and what he said he could do.

Nor did Jesus’ apostles, many times prior to his resurrection.

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.

No. What Jesus is clearly saying is: all Christians will be his true family in heaven, as opposed to just His earthly brother, sister and mother.

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.

If they continued to “ridicule” Jesus, reject Jesus, then why were they all with united together in the upper room in prayer, after Jesus’ death? Jesus knew His flock would scatter just as He predicted.

*Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.
*

Like the apostles, they had doubts, the supposed blood brothers and sisters had doubts, but like the apostles, those doubts were removed after Pentecost, and just as the cowardice apostles were renewed with a sense of animated boldness, so were the supposed blood brothers and sisters of Jesus. After Jesus’ resurrection, all doubt would have been removed, but, prior to that moment, Jesus predicted that everyone would abandon him:

*You believe at last!" Jesus answered. "But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me. *

If you want me to believe that Jesus defrocked **all of His **supposed blood brothers and sisters due to their confusion and doubt prior to Jesus’ resurrection, experienced by His apostles as well, in favor of John as Mary’s “son” and caretaker, who I guess, in your mind, never had doubts like the rest of the apostles, then use the bible to prove it. This is a theory and nothing more. I am told by sola scriptura advocates: if it’s not in the bible it is not to be believed, and nowhere does the bible tell me that Jesus’ supposed blood brothers and sisters rejected Jesus after His resurrection; quite the opposite! Peter doubted and did not believe who Jesus said he was and what Jesus said he could do, to the point of rejecting Jesus 3 times, so, according to your logic, Jesus should not have entrusted His sheep…His lambs, to Simon, renamed Kepha - correct, just as He should not have entrusted His mother to all those blood brothers and sisters - not even one?

 

[joe370]

Jon, are you saying you don’t think Mary had relatives?
Let’s just agree she had no other children

You and I do agree, but I am curious to understand why non-Catholics do not agree.

I think it’s also agreed she had at least two sisters - Mary of Clopas, and Mary Salomae

Probably half sisters; I doubt Mary’s mother would give them all the same name, but who knows, big George Foreman gave all his sons the ame name. LOL…

Then there is Joseph’s family, and possibly her step children?
Then there are extended family via cousins, aunts & uncles.

Exactly…

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

No doubt about that, which is why it would be so strange for Jesus, who was suffering horribly on the cross, to exert any energy to tell John to take care of His mother, if He had all those supposed blood brothers and sisters.

 

[joe370]

Hey Rom_8_35;7110886

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.

That is how I see it, and saw it before I came home to the CC.

 

[Todd520]

No doubt about that, which is why it would be so strange for Jesus, who was suffering horribly on the cross, to exert any energy to tell John to take care of His mother, if He had all those supposed blood brothers and sisters.

Since Mary had family, what Jesus did was symbolic.
Instead of focusing on his own problems, he thought of his mother and expressed his love for her.

This scripture only makes sense when you look at it’s symbolic value - the example of thinking of others instead of being self absorbed.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by Todd520
Since Mary had family, what Jesus did was symbolic.
Instead of focusing on his own problems, he thought of his mother and expressed his love for her.

This scripture only makes sense when you look at it’s symbolic value - the example of thinking of others instead of being self absorbed.

:whacky:

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

By this logic if you take the Bible literally here, then John is the son of Mary and she his mother.

Jn 19:26-27 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

 

[JonNC]

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.

No, I am saying he had no blood brothers and sisters, who, in my limited understanding, would have been first in line to care for their widowed mother.

I am also not convinced that, in that time of limited communication and transportation, had He had siblings, there absence would necessarily have been due to being cowards.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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:

You are right, Joe, for it to be an article of faith, I would say it would have to have some explicit scriptural support, or at least be connected to what is necessary to salvation. The perpetual virginity of St. Mary doesn’t seem to rise to that importance (or scripture would say more about it).

But SS does not exclude Tradition. In fact, if there is no Tradition, there is no need for SS, as the function of the practice is to hold teachers and teachings accountable to scripture. This is why I believe that those who reject all Tradition -“if its not in the Bible…” etc. - are rejecting sola scriptura too.

Jon

 

[Rom_8_35]

Since Mary had family, what Jesus did was symbolic.
Instead of focusing on his own problems, he thought of his mother and expressed his love for her.

This scripture only makes sense when you look at it’s symbolic value - the example of thinking of others instead of being self absorbed.

The simplistic way you state the above is missing the essence and purpose of Jesus’ sacrifice of allowing himself to be crucified on the cross. He was not just simply a man trying to be noble and less self-absorbed in the hope of obtaining enlightenment and becoming like God. Jesus was both God and man. Read John Chapter 17. He is the son of God. He was sent here by God The Father, for our redemption, salvation and incorporation into His family. Jesus knew what he was going to have to endure. So aware of the fact, that in the garden he had asked God the Father to “…take this cup from me; yet not my will but yours be done.” Lk 22: 42.

Jesus’ passion did not just involve physical pain but spiritual anguish as well. It was the spiritual side that caused him the most agony. Jesus is the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” Jesus took on the sins of those who had died, were living and would be born. Throughout his passion, He felt the pain we feel when we sin. Sin separates us from God and this action lead us to feel depression, sadness, despair, grief, inadequacy, anger, etc. Jesus, who was free of sin, cloaked himself with our sin so that he could conquer death that was brought into this world by sin. In addition to that, he also felt the abandonment of his apostles and disciples, plus the horrific physical pain inflicted on him. So to say Jesus stopped focusing on his problems just to express his love for his mother is not an accurate assessment of the situation. As I stated in my post above, Jesus’ words meant so much more then what you imply. I invite you to pray and meditate over the passion of Christ so that God can grant you the grace to understand and accept the tremendous gift he gave you by dying on the cross and giving you the most perfect mother, in Mary. Once we accept Jesus as our savior, we need to persevere in the faith and produce good fruit (with his grace).

 

[joe370]

Todd - Since Mary had family, what Jesus did was symbolic. This scripture only makes sense when you look at it’s symbolic value - the example of thinking of others instead of being self absorbed.

Instead of focusing on his own problems, he thought of his mother and expressed his love for her.

Todd, I am not following you; could you elaborate?

 

[Todd520]

Rom
Please don’t blow my comments way out of context, and stay on topic.

I was responding to a specific question on what Jesus said to John and Mary while on the cross. The purpose of Jesus on the cross is our salvation, and not the purpose of this thread

The simplistic way you state the above is missing the essence and purpose of Jesus’ sacrifice of allowing himself to be crucified on the cross. He was not just simply a man trying to be noble and less self-absorbed in the hope of obtaining enlightenment and becoming like God. Jesus was both God and man. Read John Chapter 17. He is the son of God. He was sent here by God The Father, for our redemption, salvation and incorporation into His family. Jesus knew what he was going to have to endure. So aware of the fact, that in the garden he had asked God the Father to “…take this cup from me; yet not my will but yours be done.” Lk 22: 42.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Joe, for it to be an article of faith, I would say it would have to have some explicit scriptural support, or at least be connected to what is necessary to salvation. The perpetual virginity of St. Mary doesn’t seem to rise to that importance (or scripture would say more about it).

Even if scripture did have more to say about Mary, it would have nothing to do with anything connected to salvation, for we are saved by Jesus only, which is why I don’t understand why so many non-Catholics (especially in my own experience as a former protestant) - think that catholics worship Mary.

If Mary had several sons and daughters then there would have been no reason for Jesus to tell John to take her into his home. While Jesus was gasping for air, He looked down at His mother, (who was probably at the point of collapse) - and said to her, (paraphrasing) “Mom, let John take care of you.” “John, please watch over my Mother.” Now, if I were in John 's shoes, and I knew that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, I would be really confused, as would Mary, I would imagine.

John, what did you mean when you said: if there is no Tradition, there is no need for SS?

 

[joe370]

Hey Rom_8

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.

I believe that is why the book of Revelation refers to those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus, (the church) - as the rest of Mary’s offspring. We are all spiritual sons and daughters of Mary. We are the rest of her offspring!

17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

 

[Todd520]

Todd, I am not following you; could you elaborate?

Let me try this again:

• we agree that Mary had family, be they sisters, cousin’s, nieces, nephews, inlaws, stepchildren (?) or the purported children (?). Were not several disciples also cousins (?)
• we should agree this extended family could not help but love mary and would support her as needed

SO, why would scripture make the effort to tell us this episode?
I feel scripture must be trying to teach us a profound lesson.

While Christ was making the ultimate sacrifice for us, while he was in incredible pain on the Cross, he expressed his concern and love for others.
I believe his selfless action, this example of selfless love where no human would expect it - this is the example Christ is setting for us to follow.

This scripture is another lesson on Christ’ love rather than an obtuse reference to lack of siblings.

 

[joe370]

Let me try this again:

• we agree that Mary had family, be they sisters, cousin’s, nieces, nephews, inlaws, stepchildren (?) or the purported children (?). Were not several disciples also cousins (?)
• we should agree this extended family could not help but love mary and would support her as needed

SO, why would scripture make the effort to tell us this episode?
I feel scripture must be trying to teach us a profound lesson.

While Christ was making the ultimate sacrifice for us, while he was in incredible pain on the Cross, he expressed his concern and love for others.
I believe his selfless action, this example of selfless love where no human would expect it - this is the example Christ is setting for us to follow.

This scripture is another lesson on Christ’ love rather than an obtuse reference to lack of siblings.

I get it! But, that doesn’t explain why Jesus, who was in incredible pain on the cross, would have expended His last bit of energy to ask John to care for His mother, in His absence, if He had so many blood brothers and sisters. No doubt Mary had extended family, but it would have been expected of the Father first, and if he was dead, then one of the brothers or sisters, to care for the mother. In this case Joseph was gone already leaving that filial obligation to the next of kin, and that would not have been John if in fact Jesus had other blood brothers and sisters.

Your thoughts…

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7113257]Hey Jon…

Even if scripture did have more to say about Mary, it would have nothing to do with anything connected to salvation, for we are saved by Jesus only, which is why I don’t understand why so many non-Catholics (especially in my own experience as a former protestant) - think that catholics worship Mary.

If Mary had several sons and daughters then there would have been no reason for Jesus to tell John to take her into his home. While Jesus was gasping for air, He looked down at His mother, (who was probably at the point of collapse) - and said to her, (paraphrasing) “Mom, let John take care of you.” “John, please watch over my Mother.” Now, if I were in John 's shoes, and I knew that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, I would be really confused, as would Mary, I would imagine.

Agreed, Joe.

John, what did you mean when you said: if there is no Tradition, there is no need for SS?

This is what I mean; the practice of sola scriptura is to hold teachers and teachings(Tradition) accountable to scripture, the final norm. If one rejects any and all teachings
(the “if it ain’t in the Bible…” approach) - rejecting all councils and creeds, etc., then you are not practicing sola scriptura because you’ve rejected all teachings out of hand.

Jon

 

[rev_kevin]

By this logic if you take the Bible literally here, then John is the son of Mary and she his mother.

Jn 19:26-27 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Yes, Isn’t that what Jesus said? Read what you wrote in John 19:26-27.
Was Jesus incorrect when he said this?
Did Jesus say something he did not mean?
Aren’t we the sons and daughters of Mary?
Isn’t Mary said to be our Mother?
Isn’t she called Mother Mary?
Isn’t she the Mother of all mankind?
Was she John’s biological Mother? NO.
If Jesus didn’t mean what he said then why would he say “Here is your Mother.” and “here is your son?”
What parts of the Bible do you take literally and what parts don’t you?
Is it pick and chose what fits our agenda?

 

[Rom_8_35]

Rom
Please don’t blow my comments way out of context, and stay on topic.

I was responding to a specific question on what Jesus said to John and Mary while on the cross. The purpose of Jesus on the cross is our salvation, and not the purpose of this thread

It is unfortunate you feel that way but I believe any action that Christ did while on the cross is intertwined with his plan for salvation. I don’t feel I was moving off topic but reinforcing it. If you read the second part of my post, I contended that Jesus’ actions toward his mother were not just simple acts of kindness or selfless love to be used as a model for good behavior as you affirmed. According to the clarification you provided to Joe370, you asserted that what matters about this passage is not whether Jesus had sibling but that he provided a good example for us to follow by demonstrating an act of love while under extreme duress.

Quote from Todd520 “While Christ was making the ultimate sacrifice for us, while he was in incredible pain on the Cross, he expressed his concern and love for others.
I believe his selfless action, this example of selfless love where no human would expect it - this is the example Christ is setting for us to follow.”

I see Jesus’ whole passion (starting at the garden and ending at his crucifixion) as a testimony of his great love for us and an example of a complete act of self-sacrifice that we should emulate (with the help of God’s Grace). That includes the words He directed toward his mother and disciple. Nonetheless, I believe that His actions in that incidence were meant to mean much more than just establishing a good role model. It was an expression of love in which he entrusts His church into his mother’s care and then places her, in our care (His church). From your posts, I get the impression that you do not agree with this so to clarify your viewpoint for my better understanding of your position, I would like to ask you some questions. Do you believe that Jesus gave us Mary, to be our mother? Do you believe she is the mother of Jesus’ church? Do you believe we should honor and venerate her? Do you see Mary as our advocate?

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes, Isn’t that what Jesus said? Read what you wrote in John 19:26-27.
Was Jesus incorrect when he said this?
Did Jesus say something he did not mean?
Aren’t we the sons and daughters of Mary?
Isn’t Mary said to be our Mother?
Isn’t she called Mother Mary?
Isn’t she the Mother of all mankind?
Was she John’s biological Mother? NO.
If Jesus didn’t mean what he said then why would he say “Here is your Mother.” and “here is your son?”
What parts of the Bible do you take literally and what parts don’t you?
Is it pick and chose what fits our agenda?

I happily agree with you.

Yes, Mary is our Mother as John is given as a son to her. But are we blood sons and daughters of Mary or is John her blood son? No.

Similarly, the brothers and the sisters you mention in Jn 7 and Mk 3 were not necessarily Jesus’ blood brothers and sisters.

Yes, I agree with you; I don’t pick and choose because I don’t have an agenda in all this; just to know what exactly the Bible says, the brothers in John 7 and Mark 3 are not blood brothers of Jesus nor John is blood son of Mary.

 

[wwolverine]

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.

Having read kevin’s posting, it makes me wonder what he is trying to show here. The complete post suggests that it was Jesus who had some indifference with the family, and not the family with their mother. But the question OP asks Why the mother instead of going home was told to go with John. Does it not create animosity in the family, something Jesus never wants as the very principle of His teachings is LOVE?