"Behold your son"

[FLMike]

"When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, 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 to his own home." (John 19:26-27)

So, why did Jesus do this from the cross? Is there any deeper meaning to the words and/or the timing? Or was He just taking care of a last little bit of business, asking John to take care of His mother (a funny place and time to do this, it seems)?

BTW, did Jesus even have a right to send His mother to live with John, if He had brothers?

 

[Borealis]

If Christ had brothers, He would never have told John to care for Mary; to do so would have been a mortal insult to them, and a gross violation of Jewish custom and tradition.

Ergo, he didn't have any brothers or sisters.

 

[FLMike]

If Christ had brothers, He would never have told John to care for Mary; to do so would have been a mortal insult to them, and a gross violation of Jewish custom and tradition.

Ergo, he didn't have any brothers or sisters.

I agree. Further, it seems to me that if He did have brothers, the brothers would have forbidden their mother from living with John, for the reason you give. And poor John would have been put in an impossible spot (obey Christ and be a party to breaking up Mary's family? obey Jewish custom and tradition and disobey Christ?) And yet we know that she did go to live with John.

So what about the meaning and timing of Christ's words "behold your son" and "behold your mother"?

 

[Borealis]

Well...the Catholic explanation is that in the beloved disciple are prefigured all the disciples of Christ. Thus, by his gift from the cross, Christ makes Mary the spiritual mother of us all. Jesus is her firstborn (Luke 2:7), the firstborn among many brothers and sisters (Rom. 8:29). Mary is the Mother of all those brothers and sisters, ourselves, destined for glory.

At least, that's the way it's explained on a Catholic website. Others may disagree.

 

[Splendor Of My Soul]

By entrusting his mother to the apostle John, Jesus is in fact asking his mother to finally accept his sacrifice and impending death and thus open the way to broaden her motherhood to include all men, beginning with John. In this way, Mary becomes our mother as well.

Pax Vobiscum

Gerardo

 

[rstrats]

Just a couple of questions:

1. How do you know the disciple was John?

2. Why do you think "behold, you son" wasn’t referring to the disciple?

 

[Miss Shelby]

Just a couple of questions:

1. How do you know the disciple was John?

Some other John is going to make a last minute appearance, with no explanation as to who he is, at the most CRUCIAL moment in Christianity? THAT is going to be left ambiguous?

2. Why do you think "behold, you son" wasn’t referring to the disciple?

What is it that you think that would mean, if I were to entertain such a notion?

Michelle

 

[Splendor Of My Soul]

The "disciple whom Jesus loved" has been mentioned in John's gospel at least five times. Now, we know from the gospel accounts that among all the tewlve disciples, the closest to Jesus were John, Peter and James. However, it cannot be Peter since he is always mentioned in John's gospel separately from the beloved disciple, and evidence points to the fact that it cannot be James as well, which leaves us John himself, who sat closest to Jesus at the last supper. The evidence for John being the beloved apostle is so convincing that to assume that it was another John becomes unbelievable.

Pax Vobiscum

Gerardo

 

[rstrats]

Miss Shelby,

re: "Some other John is going to make a last minute appearance...?"

I meant, why do you think the disciple’s name was John?



re: "What is it that you think that would mean, if I were to entertain such a notion?"

Well, it would solve the problem addressed above of handing Mary over to a non-relative

 

[blackwasp]

What happened to Joseph?

 

[InnerPhyre]

Miss Shelby,

re: "Some other John is going to make a last minute appearance...?"

I meant, why do you think the disciple’s name was John?



re: "What is it that you think that would mean, if I were to entertain such a notion?"

Well, it would solve the problem addressed above of handing Mary over to a non-relative

Even if it were a relative, it would be scandalous for Mary to go live with him when she had other sons to take care of her.

 

[gadzookz]

What happened to Joseph?

Many assume he died early in Jesus's life.

 

[rstrats]

InnerPhyre,

re: "Even if it were a relative, it would be scandalous for Mary to go live with him when she had other sons to take care of her."

Not if the relative was her son. The Messiah told Mary to "behold her son". There is nothing in the passage to suggest that He wasn’t referring to the disciple.

 

[Knowledge3]

"When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, 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 to his own home." (John 19:26-27)

Interesting thought.

What my exegesis/eisegesis/askesis is that Christ Jesus was speaking as God. When you look at Scripture from an ontological standpoint, it appears that Christ Jesus was referring to Mary and John in the form of a Godly communion or as a Father would refer a family member.

Which points me to a NT Gospel verse, If David is his father, how can he be his Son?.......

When it is said in the normal biblical setting it comes of as strange, but when you consider Christ Jesus as being transfigured into God, it makes more sense to me in terms of divinity or divine family relations. I consider God omniscient so He may have very well been peering into the future.

So, why did Jesus do this from the cross?

I do not know.

is there any deeper meaning to the words and/or the timing?

There is always a deeper and further meaning when we deal with the deep things of God.

Or was He just taking care of a last little bit of business, asking John to take care of His mother (a funny place and time to do this, it seems)?

BTW, did Jesus even have a right to send His mother to live with John, if He had brothers?

Why ask a question of that nature? Wait...Jesus was going to die, so He may have very well prepared in advance for the caring of a family member. just like a wealthy man writes a will to ensure the safety and well-being of his own family members upon his death. Do you see?

BTW, I'm not Catholic. Just another Christian.

 

[FLMike]

re: "Even if it were a relative, it would be scandalous for Mary to go live with him when she had other sons to take care of her."

Not if the relative was her son. The Messiah told Mary to "behold her son". There is nothing in the passage to suggest that He wasn’t referring to the disciple.

OK, now I understand your question. Why would Jesus, at such a climactic time in salvation history, dying on the cross, state something so obvious to all present? Not only obvious, but, frankly, trivial. "Mom, behold your son John. John, behold your mom." And why would Mary only at that point go to live with John? Where was she living before, if not with her other sons (assuming for argument that she had sons)? I doubt she was living with Jesus, since He was moving around so much.

 

[FLMike]

Or was He just taking care of a last little bit of business, asking John to take care of His mother (a funny place and time to do this, it seems)?

BTW, did Jesus even have a right to send His mother to live with John, if He had brothers?

Why ask a question of that nature? Wait...Jesus was going to die, so He may have very well prepared in advance for the caring of a family member. just like a wealthy man writes a will to ensure the safety and well-being of his own family members upon his death. Do you see?

BTW, I'm not Catholic. Just another Christian.

My point is, this was not "in advance". It seems very odd to conduct such a piece of business from the cross, at the crucial moment of salvation history. Would Jesus really have waited until He was dying on the cross simply to remember to make sure His mother had a place to live? Does that seem likely? And further, that it would be important enough to be reported in scripture? As to wealthy men and wills, they probably write them earlier than on their deathbeds, and, unlike Jesus, they don't know the time and place of their deaths.

And why do you think the beloved disciple was a family member? If Jesus had brothers, as many claim, surely Mary would have gone to live with them.

 

[thereselittleflower]

"When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, 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 to his own home." (John 19:26-27)

So, why did Jesus do this from the cross? Is there any deeper meaning to the words and/or the timing? Or was He just taking care of a last little bit of business, asking John to take care of His mother (a funny place and time to do this, it seems)?

It does have a deeper meaning than just giving care of His mother to the "Beloved Disciple" . .

But first, it is Jesus' duty to provide for her care . . He would have sinned had He not provided for her care after His death if He were able to.

But the deeper meaing is this . . .

John refers to himself as "the beloeved disciple" or "the disciple whom Jesus loved" . .

He does this to help us to all identify with him, to not hold himself out as different than the rest of us.

We are ALL disciples whom Jesus loves. When Jesus gave His mother to the beloved disciple as his mother, Jesus gave Mary to all of us to be our spiritual mother. This is one reason Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and many Lutherans and other Protestants honor Mary in this way.

BTW, did Jesus even have a right to send His mother to live with John, if He had brothers?

Nope!

If he had given care of His mother to John when there were other children of her own, He would have been in violation of Jewish law, and thus have sinned . . . .

This is one of the proofs that Jesus had no siblings by Mary . ..


Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

What happened to Joseph?

Obviouslsy he had died some time ago, otherwise Jesus would have been sinning to give Mary into John's care . . .


Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

Interesting thought.

What my exegesis/eisegesis/askesis is that Christ Jesus was speaking as God. When you look at Scripture from an ontological standpoint, it appears that Christ Jesus was referring to Mary and John in the form of a Godly communion or as a Father would refer a family member.

Which points me to a NT Gospel verse, If David is his father, how can he be his Son?.......

When it is said in the normal biblical setting it comes of as strange, but when you consider Christ Jesus as being transfigured into God,

What do you mean by "Christ Jesus as being transfigured into God" ?

Do you mean that at some point Jesus was not God, but became God?

I am confused.

it makes more sense to me in terms of divinity or divine family relations. I consider God omniscient so He may have very well been peering into the future.

I do not know.

Isn't that important?

There is always a deeper and further meaning when we deal with the deep things of God.



Why ask a question of that nature?

Because the answer sheds light on other questions that are asked about Jesus and His family.

Wait...Jesus was going to die, so He may have very well prepared in advance for the caring of a family member. just like a wealthy man writes a will to ensure the safety and well-being of his own family members upon his death. Do you see?

BTW, I'm not Catholic. Just another Christian.

In fact, by Jewish law, He was OBLIGATED to provide care for His mother, not leave her to fend for herself. . . It would have been scandalous for her to have gone to John's home otherwise . .


Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

OK, now I understand your question. Why would Jesus, at such a climactic time in salvation history, dying on the cross, state something so obvious to all present? Not only obvious, but, frankly, trivial. "Mom, behold your son John. John, behold your mom." And why would Mary only at that point go to live with John? Where was she living before, if not with her other sons (assuming for argument that she had sons)? I doubt she was living with Jesus, since He was moving around so much.

As long as Jesus was living, he would have been making sure her needs were provided for . . that was his duty and obligations under Jewish law . . If there were other siblings to do so, then Jesus would have been stepping out of his bounds to give her care to another . .

Mary would not have had to live with Jesus in order for Him to care for her while alive . .. But we see instances of Mary being with Jesus, where Jesus was, so it is not at all out of line to suggest that she travelled with Him, at least at times.


THe reason that He chose, at such a climatic point, at the fulcrum of time and space, to give care of His mother to His disciple, John, is greater than just the physical care of His mother . . . and on more than one level.

For instance:

The Church was birthed at Calvary from the side of Christ as Eve was taken from the side of Adam. Mary represents the Church and John is representative of the Apostles . . Jesus is entrusting the Church to the care and protection of the apostles.

John represents ALL believers, for Christ loves ALL of us, and He gives His mother to us all as our spiritual mother. Again, this is accepted by Catholics, Orthodo, Anglicans and many Protestants.


Peace