- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous Post31 Days of Wisdom - Day Twelve
- Next Post »31 Days of Wisdom - Day Thirteen
Behold Your Mother
- 03/12/04
- 11
I do not often answer questions directly on this site, but since this one fits the theme of the crucifixion which I have been writing about this week, I thought I would post it publicly.
Question: Why did Jesus “give” his mother to John when He was hanging on the cross?
Answer: A very good question. The passage relevant to your question can be found in the book of John.
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!"7Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. (John 19: 25-27)
Though the Bible does not explicitly state it, the evidence indicates that Joseph, Mary’s husband, had died before this time. The last we hear of Joseph was when Jesus was twelve years old (see Luke 2: 41-50). It seems that Joseph died while Jesus was somewhere between 12 and 33 years old. As the oldest son Jesus would have assumed the responsibility as the head of the household. Knowing that He was going to die, Jesus honored the fifth commandment by making provision for His mother.
The next question to consider is this: why did Jesus not assign the care of His mother to His brothers? Again, the Bible does not explicitly say why Jesus told John to provide for Mary. However, the evidence does point to a logical conclusion.
We do not know how many children Mary and Joseph had after Jesus, but we do know there were several. They were Jesus’ half-siblings because they had Joseph as their father while Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. One of Jesus’ brothers, James, went on to become an important figure in the early church and pastored the church in Jerusalem. He also wrote the book of the Bible that bears his name. So why, then, did Jesus not tell James to take care of their mother?
The answer is found in John 7. In verse 5 we read “For even His brothers did not believe in Him.” The gospels make it clear that Jesus’ siblings did not believe in Him until after the resurrection. We know that Jesus appeared to James, for 1 Corinthians 15:7 says “After that He was seen by James.” It is probable that this event is what finally inspired James to believe in His brother as the Son of God.
At the time Jesus hung on the cross, His siblings did not believe in Him. It stands to reason, then, that He would ask one of His followers to care for His mother. He selected John, his closest friend who is consistently referred to as “the disciple Jesus loved,” to take on this responsibility. We can assume that if James had believed in Jesus at this time, He would have received this responsibility.
NOTE: The Catholic Church teaches that, because of Mary’s perpetual virginity, Jesus had no siblings. I do not know how the Catholic Church answers this question.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (11)
As to the Catholic church teaching on this: Some Catholic apologists use the fact that Jesus had John take care of Mary as evidence that Jesus had no brothers or sisters, the reasoning being that if brothers or sisters had existed, then Jesus would surely have had them take care of their mother.
Oops--forgot to fill in the name box, but that previous comment is min.
Of course! I knew that! I don't know why it didn't occur to me at the time. Of course the RCC uses it to attempt to prove that Jesus had no siblings...
Besides this passage, the RCC's "answer" comes from "holy tradition".
The Church also teaches that there is a more universal, symbolic meaning to Jesus' words- as was often the case. Notice He does not call her Mother, but Woman. This represents that Mary is the new Eve, the new Mother of humanity. By not choosing a sibling to look after Mary, Christ is proclaiming that Mary is the Mother of us all. And while that may be "holy tradition," it is from the early members of the church- the disciples chosen to spread God's Word.
For a real reading treat on this subject (as on the whole Bible!) check out Matthew Henry's Commentary...read his commentaries on the two times Jesus addressed His mother as 'woman', one found in John 2:4 (the wedding at Canaa) and the other, of course, when He spoke to her from the cross. You can find Matthew Henry's Commentary and more, lots of free study tools, at searchgodsword.org (hope it's o.k. to plug their website).
For those who hold to Luther's teachings, you will find it interesting to note Luther's teachings about the perpetual virginity of Mary. And I quote, "Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mother bore NO more children besides Him...'brothers' really means 'cousins' here , and Holy Writ and the Jews have always called cousins brothers" (Sermons on John, Chap. 1-4)Tim writes, "I do not know how the Catholic Church answers this question." Tim, have you ever gone to a Catholic apologetics website to find the anser to your question? There are several based on Scripture. But at least now you know how Luther answered your question. Here you will find a list of resources.http://www.catholicgoldmine.com/apologetics/pages.html
For the Catholic response to questions about Mary, you will find tons of Scriptural support for our beliefs, here at this website. Please check it out.http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.htmlBlessings.
1.John's mother, the wife of Zebedee was present at the crucifixion, yet Jesus gave John to Mary(before He gave Mary to John. 2.according to Paul(Galatians), Brother James was an Apostle. We know who the fathers of the 2 apostles named James and it was Joseph the carpinter.3. the Protestant insistence on attacking Mary's perpetual virginity and sinlessness stems from their view of ecclesiology. The Potestant Church is made up of many conflicting denominations and errors , the Catholic , like her prototype, is one,holy and spotless virgin bride.4. Finally; if God had selected the sleaziest street-walking prostitute on earth to be His mother, I guarantee you that even she would never again have sexual relations. Even she would feel set apart for a holy perpose. The Mary you speak of is lower than a whore.
00ps! didn't proof read. Joseph NOT father of James. Purpose.
speaking of joseph(who was not the father of james); being a just man,he would have had to denounce mary as an adultress if their was a question of her fidelity. But since he knew she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit, he was going to put her away from himself much as peter ,a "sinful man" didn't feel worthy to be near to Jesus. We also know that according to jewish law,if a woman had relations with another man,even if raped, her husband could never have relations with her afterwards(see 2 sam.20). i.o.w., Joseph could not approach Mary after she had concieved by the Holy Spirit. Next point; John1;13 says Jesus was born "not of BLOODS"(plural). Leviticus uses this term for mentrual and childbirth blood. i.o.w., Mary's virginity was kept intact even during childbirth. Jesus' birth was "holy" according to Luke. No defiling blood involved. Why would God preserve mary's virginity here only to allow it to be broken by susbsequent births of sinful son? mary did/does have other children(Rev.12;17). The beloved disciple of John 19 is anyone who takes mary" to his home 'as his own".