Behold your mother

[tadoflamb]

What do these three simple words from the 19th chapter of John mean to you?

 

[laconicstudent]

It means this:

Ikos 5
Beholding Thee crucified with Him in Thy heart and standing with His beloved disciple by the Cross, Thy Son and God did say: Woman, behold Thy son, and to His disciple: Behold thy mother, thereby giving Thee as sons all that believe in Him. And having in Thee a good mother, placing all our hope in Thee amid our sorrow, as partakers of the sorrows and sufferings of Thy Son, we cry to Thee:
Rejoice, mother of the Christian race!
Rejoice, Thou that didst adopt us at the Cross of Thy Son!
Rejoice, Thou that didst unite God with mankind!
Rejoice, Thou that didst join the faithful to the Lord!
Rejoice, ewe that didst bear the Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world!
Rejoice, cup that drawest joy for us from the Fountain of Immortality!
Rejoice, surety of the salvation of sinners!
Rejoice, search for the perishing!
Rejoice, unexpected joy of sinners!
Rejoice, raising up of all the fallen!
Rejoice, healer of all infirmities!
Rejoice, alleviation of every sorrow!
Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos, full of Grace, Joy of all who sorrow!

 

[Stryder06]

Means that John was to take care of Mary. Which he did.

 

[MrPolo]

Means that John was to take care of Mary. Which he did.

Wouldn't you have to say it's peculiar that if this is what he meant that Jesus would tell John Mary was his "mother"? Rather than a house guest? "Behold you mother" = "take her to live with you" doesn't sit well with my sensibilities of the written language of Scripture.

 

[MamaZ]

We are not John. Jesus did not give Mary to Peter nor Paul nor any one other than John. And John took care of Mary as his own mother.

 

[tadoflamb]

We are not John. Jesus did not give Mary to Peter nor Paul nor any one other than John. And John took care of Mary as his own mother.

So that verse is just a nice side note in the bible and has no real implications for us today?

 

[Tangible]

This is actually a very interesting passage. I personally believe that it is one of the strongest evidences of PV, although it does not rule out the possibility that Mary was not PV but also did not have any other children besides Jesus.

I think this passage is mostly about Jesus ensuring the welfare of his mother, in effect directing John and Mary to 'adopt' one another as mother and son. These kind of historical narratives lend credence to the validity of the gospel accounts. It also demonstrates one way that God kept his promise made to Mary prophetically that all generations would call her blessed.

 

[MamaZ]

So that verse is just a nice side note in the bible and has no real implications for us today?

Actually it show us how we sould honor our widows. But it does not mean that Jesus gave us Mary as our mother. She is not even here on earth anymore..

 

[MrPolo]

Actually it show us how we sould honor our widows.

Since you are able to draw this lesson from the text (even though the text doesn't say that), you therefore also have the capacity to draw from the text that a "disciple Jesus loves" takes Mary into home.

 

[simonthezealot]

Jesus had already seperated Himself when He said, who is my mother and brothers? behold my brothers and mother pointing to the crowd...

This part where He says woman behold your son and vice versa was simply an extension to that,
The Lord in His sovereign knowledge KNEW you Roman Catholics and others would blow her story so far out of proportion He likely wanted to reitirate this seperation, and be sure the likely widowed Mary was cared for.
Recall His brothers did not become believers until after the reurrection.

 

[lionroar0]

Jesus had already seperated Himself when He said, who is my mother and brothers? behold my brothers and mother pointing to the crowd...

This part where He says woman behold your son and vice versa was simply an extension to that,
The Lord in His sovereign knowledge KNEW you Roman Catholics and others would blow her story so far out of proportion He likely wanted to reitirate this seperation, and be sure the likely widowed Mary was cared for.
Recall His brothers did not become believers until after the reurrection.

The passage is a strong support for the PV, because in Jewish culture His "supposed" brothers and sisters would have had to take care of His mother.

He did not seperate Himself from His mother when He stated that who are His mother and brothers and pointed to the crowd. He invited them to be part of His family.

Also the very first miracle that is recorded in Scripture is Jesus doing something at the request of His mother. That is turning water into wine at the wedding of Cana.

He did to protect His mother from her detractors and by extension also His.
He was giving His mother to St. John to take care of and also Mary was given to St. John as his mother. We could also look at it as Jesus giving us His mother as our own.

He knew that there would be those that would have tried to hunt her down and even killed, because she was His mother. The apostles kept her hidden away and protected.

The CC church and others that have succession from the Apostles are still protecting His mother from those that would like to seperate her from her son and her son his mother.

We are still caring out the the charge that Jesus gave to St. John.

 

[MamaZ]

Jesus did not live the traditions of man. For He was only bound to one and that is the Father. This is why we are not to know men according to the flesh. We are united to Christ no through Mary but through The Spirit . Mary was according to the flesh.

 

[lionroar0]

Jesus did not live the traditions of man. For He was only bound to one and that is the Father. This is why we are not to know men according to the flesh. We are united to Christ no through Mary but through The Spirit . Mary was according to the flesh.

Honor you father and mother is one of the ten commandments. Hardly the traditions of man

 

[MamaZ]

Honor you father and mother is one of the ten commandments. Hardly the traditions of man

Honoring your mother and Father are wonderful. But as you know the 10 Commandments were not being followed by man and could not be followed completely by mere men. Only one fulfilled these.. Christ Jesus our King. This is why Jesus gave Mary to John.. His fleshly brothers and sisters were not recorded in scripture as being at His cross.

 

[laconicstudent]

This is why Jesus gave Mary to John.. His fleshly brothers and sisters were not recorded in scripture as being at His cross.

Which means absolutely nothing.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[katherine2001]

Honoring your mother and Father are wonderful. But as you know the 10 Commandments were not being followed by man and could not be followed completely by mere men. Only one fulfilled these.. Christ Jesus our King. This is why Jesus gave Mary to John.. His fleshly brothers and sisters were not recorded in scripture as being at His cross.

His "brothers" wouldn't have had to be there to be responsible for Mary. By Jewish Law, they would have been responsible for her if she'd been their mother. However, she was not their mother and, therefore, they were not responsible for her. Since she had no other children other than Jesus, Jesus was responsible for seeing that someone was responsible for her. He gave that responsibility to the Apostle John.

 

[katherine2001]

Jesus did not live the traditions of man. For He was only bound to one and that is the Father. This is why we are not to know men according to the flesh. We are united to Christ no through Mary but through The Spirit . Mary was according to the flesh.

Christ was according to the flesh also. He became incarnate and became a human being through His mother, Mary. Also, He was bound to His mother and honored her. If He had not honored His mother (as some here contend by treating her with disdain and disrespect), He would not have been sinless, because honoring your mother and father is one of the ten commandments.

 

[laconicstudent]

His "brothers" wouldn't have had to be there to be responsible for Mary. By Jewish Law, they would have been responsible for her if she'd been their mother. However, she was not their mother and, therefore, they were not responsible for her.

Hence, it is an argument better suited to defending the virginity of the Theotokos, ironically.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hence, it is an argument better suited to defending the virginity of the Theotokos, ironically.

Do you mean her viginity before Jesus was born or after?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7400512/
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

 

[MamaZ]

His "brothers" wouldn't have had to be there to be responsible for Mary. By Jewish Law, they would have been responsible for her if she'd been their mother. However, she was not their mother and, therefore, they were not responsible for her. Since she had no other children other than Jesus, Jesus was responsible for seeing that someone was responsible for her. He gave that responsibility to the Apostle John.

His brothers though Jesus was a nut case. They were not there according to scripture. She was their mother for she birthed them and this is why we see in scripture that Jesus was Mary's firstborn. He was Gods only Begotten. Jesus wanted to make sure that Mary was cared for is very true. So He gave her care over to John. Not to us. We were not there. Jesus had brothers and sisters according to the flesh as well as He does according to the Spirit.