Skip to main content

Did Jesus Declare Mary the Mother of Humanity in John 19:26-27?

Roman Catholics try to justify devotion to Mary by quoting John 19:26-27 and I'll be quoting from Roman Catholic translations instead of the Authorized Version of 1611 which I uphold as the only Bible translation that Christians can use:
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. (New American Bible)
Jesus saw his mother and the disciple he loved standing there; so he said to his mother, "He is your son." Then he said to the disciple, "She is your mother." From that time the disciple took her to live in his home. (Good News Translation)

That is their defense to why indeed we should have devotion to Mary. It's very easy for them to say that they don't worship Mary but they only pray for her or they don't pray to her at all. It's true Jesus honored His earthly mother but just because He honored certain people doesn't mean that they should be prayed to. Jesus never told His mother to mediate for people.

What did Jesus really mean when he told John "behold your mother"?

Here's something that I found interesting from Just For Catholics:
There were several other disciples beneath the cross. If He meant to appoint Mary the mother of His church, surely He would have addressed all the disciples present. But instead He addressed Mary and John as individuals. At the hour of His death, the Lord asked His beloved disciple, John, to take care of Mary with filial affection and comfort her in her loneliness as a true son would. That John so understood the Lord's words is clear from his own explanation in the sentence immediately following: "And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."

From Got Questions we also get this statement on the seven last words of Jesus:
(5) "Dear Woman, here is your son!" and "Here is your mother!" When Jesus saw His mother standing near the cross with the Apostle John, whom He loved, He committed His mother’s care into John’s hands. And from that hour John took her unto his own home (John 19:26-27). In this verse Jesus, ever the compassionate Son, is making sure His earthly mother is cared for after His death.

Jesus was making sure that John took His place to care for His earthly mother. This is most likely an instruction to care for those in need. Mary herself no longer had a husband and how he died is not even recorded in Scripture. John was tasked to take care of Mary. Jesus wouldn't hand over care of His mother to His unbelieving half-brothers and half-sisters. Jesus knew His time has come and He knew that Mary had to be take care of. It's a picture of telling Christians to care for those who in the most need of help. Mary was probably considered aged during her time. If she wasn't a sinner then why would she need care. Getting sick and growing old are all parts of the consequences of sin. If yo don't grow old you die young because of sin.

Going back to the scene of a wedding feast in Cana

Let's reread John 2:1-12 to understand the story that Roman Catholics are taking out of context. We notice that Jesus didn't call Mary as "mother" but "woman". Even the New American Bible which is an approved Roman Catholic translation has this footnote about the term "woman" concerning John 2:4:
This verse may seek to show that Jesus did not work miracles to help his family and friends, as in the apocryphal gospels. Woman: a normal, polite form of address, but unattested in reference to one’s mother. Cf. also Jn 19:26. How does your concern affect me?: literally, "What is this to me and to you?"—a Hebrew expression of either hostility (Jgs 11:12; 2 Chr 35:21; 1 Kgs 17:18) or denial of common interest (Hos 14:9; 2 Kgs 3:13). Cf. Mk 1:24; 5:7 used by demons to Jesus. My hour has not yet come: the translation as a question ("Has not my hour now come?"), while preferable grammatically and supported by Greek Fathers, seems unlikely from a comparison with Jn 7:6, 30. The "hour" is that of Jesus’ passion, death, resurrection, and ascension (Jn 13:1).

Even the NAB as a Roman Catholic translation has a footnote that ends up acknowledging that Jesus politely told His mother to know her place. Mary fully understood why. Although she's the mother of Jesus in His humanity but she knew she carried the Son of God in her womb. She knew that before she was born that Jesus made her. Although Roman Catholics don't teach that Mary is God (and they shun it as heresy) or that they believe that Jesus created Mary or that He created His mother but they end up deifying Mary without knowing it.

The footnote of John 19:26-27 from the NAB also says:
This scene has been interpreted literally, of Jesus’ concern for his mother; and symbolically, e.g., in the light of the Cana story in Jn 2 (the presence of the mother of Jesus, the address woman, and the mention of the hour) and of the upper room in Jn 13 (the presence of the beloved disciple; the hour). Now that the hour has come (Jn 19:28), Mary (a symbol of the church?) is given a role as the mother of Christians (personified by the beloved disciple); or, as a representative of those seeking salvation, she is supported by the disciple who interprets Jesus’ revelation; or Jewish and Gentile Christianity (or Israel and the Christian community) are reconciled.

That alone is a contradiction of the first account. If they try and take it in context, normally you don't call your mother as "woman" in a form of respect. Try to notice the problem behind thinking that John became an example that Christians must have Mary as their Heavenly Mother. This is a problem that many Roman Catholics need to answer.

Why did Jesus hand the responsibility to John if he had brothers and sisters? 

Also they say that if Jesus had brothers and sisters so why was Mary handed over to John?
John 7:5  
( Not even His brothers believed in Him.) (GNT)

The idea that Mary remained a virgin is a heresy that even hit the early Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin and even those who reject Mary worship still bought the heresy. In reality, some need to understand this verse from the Bible from Psalm 69:8:
I am like a stranger to my relatives, like a foreigner to my family. (GNT)
In the case of the NAB, it's Psalm 69:9 that says:
I have become an outcast to my kindred, a stranger to my mother’s children.

Mary had other children besides Jesus. It would be stupid that Joseph wouldn't exercise his rights to consummate his marriage with Mary.
Matthew 1:20

Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. (NAB)

If Joseph was told not to be afraid to take Mary then he shouldn't be ashamed either to exercise his rights towards Mary. Also Isaiah 7:14 doesn't mean that Mary didn't have other children as the prophecy was already fulfilled when Jesus was born. Also this verse should at least show that Joseph did consummate his relationship with Mary as husband and wife:
Matthew 1:25 
He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

The same footnote also manages to just disprove Roman Catholic doctrine:
Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated "until" does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

In short, there's nothing to suggest that Joseph did or did not consummate his right to Mary. The early Reformers were also wrong about it but they didn't claim to be infallible. The problem is that this heresy is taught by those who claim that the Holy Spirit supposedly guarded them from doctrinal error. I believe that he did but these half-brothers of Jesus who shared the same mother but not the same father (because God is His Father) didn't believe yet. What's amazing is to think we read this verse by Paul:
Galatians 1:19 
I did not see any other apostle except James, the Lord's brother. (GNT)

Mary was a sinner saved by grace

Besides, Mary already declared it long ago:
Luke 1:47 
My soul is glad because of God my Savior, (GNT)
Luke 2:22-24 
The time came for Joseph and Mary to perform the ceremony of purification, as the Law of Moses commanded. So they took the child to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the LORD: "Every first-born male is to be dedicated to the LORD." They also went to offer a sacrifice of a pair of doves or two young pigeons, as required by the law of the Lord.

What Mary did is in complete this task:
Leviticus 12:1-8 
The LORD gave Moses the following regulations for the people of Israel. For seven days after a woman gives birth to a son, she is ritually unclean, as she is during her monthly period. On the eighth day, the child shall be circumcised. Then it will be thirty-three more days until she is ritually clean from her loss of blood; she must not touch anything that is holy or enter the sacred Tent until the time of her purification is completed. For fourteen days after a woman gives birth to a daughter, she is ritually unclean, as she is during her monthly period. Then it will be sixty-six more days until she is ritually clean from her loss of blood. When the time of her purification is completed, whether for a son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of the Lord's presence a one-year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. The priest shall present her offering to the Lord and perform the ritual to take away her impurity, and she will be ritually clean. This, then, is what a woman must do after giving birth. If the woman cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two doves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering, and the priest shall perform the ritual to take away her impurity, and she will be ritually clean.

Here's what Catholic Answers has to say to why Mary offered a sin offering if they believe she's sinless:
For the same reason Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent. Mary fulfilled the Law. 
According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them. 
The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn't imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn't written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.

While I do agree with what the site had to say that ritual uncleanness was the cause and that there's no moral fault at childbirth. But here's another issue that they may have dodged or left unnoticed. That would be that if Mary wasn't a sinner why would she still be ceremonially unclean? Ceremonial uncleanness is a result of being a sinner. The whole problem of the doctrine of Mary being sinless vs. the doctrine that she's a sinner saved by grace was already argued for centuries until Pope Pius IX declared by the right of papal infallibility whereby Popes are preserved from doctrinal error declared it as a doctrine on December 8, 1854. What's worse is that not all Popes and not all the previous doctors of the Roman Catholic Church upheld it but merely taught that Mary was a sinner saved by grace.  

See also:

Popular posts from this blog

Sorry Homosexuals, God Owns the Rainbow, Not You!

I found this absolutely funny picture and the maker got it right about homosexual activists getting mad at the rainbow light in the Noah's Park exhibit. Who could forget the time when homosexual marriage was made legal that those who are for it used the rainbow on their pictures on Facebook profiles or in other social networks. They claimed the rainbow as their color. I don't apologize for speaking the truth. The Bible is God's covenant with man and not homosexuality's banner of success. Genesis 9:14-17 - "And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said …

Politically Correct Organizations Need to Take the Beam Out of Their Own Eye First

Politically correct organizations meddling in worldwide affairs is not anything new. Whether it's the Vatican, the European Union, the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and any organization driven by political correctness (and not all of them are Illuminati or Jesuit ran but they're all still dupes of Satan and most of them don't even know it) it's always a problem that they are indeed meddling. While meddling isn't inherently wrong but here's some problems with politically correct organizations:
They only meddle when it's convenient for them as they are guilty of both selective outrage and selective justice.They meddle in the affairs of others without considering their own yard first.They meddle like as if they own the world.
It's stupid how political correctness demands Christians not to judge others but they end up failing to judge themselves. They are always taking "Judge not and you will not be judged." out of context without knowing wha…

The Error of Comparing Protestantism to New Atheism

The amazing blindness of Catholic.com is too amazing isn't it? I just read an article written yesterday which compares Protestantism to New Atheism. As much as the article is written as professionally as possible in contrast to some self-proclaimed apologists I've had a lot of useless arguments with but I'd like to give a friendly rebuke to the writer Karlo Broussard. It's my sincere prayer that Broussard will see the truth from the pages of the Scripture. 
The writer commits the fallacy of categorical error. He compares Sola Scriptura with Richard Dawkins' views on science. Here's one of the statements that really should be considered a categorical error:
Just as science is the only tool Dawkins and company are willing to use to arrive at knowledge of the natural truth, Protestants use only the Bible for determining what is revealed truth. And as many modern atheists reject anything that science cannot detect, so too do Protestants reject any teaching that is…

The Quest For "Unlimited Human Progress" is Really Destroying the Environment

Every time I read from the news of nature's decline due to pollution, how food supply can soon drop anytime, how plant and animal deaths are massively happening I can't help but blame it on one factor: SIN. Yes, sin and most people think it's a fantasy word. It wasn't just a fantasy word that kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden and cursed the Earth with all its imperfections. Sin brought disease and destruction to mankind. Unfortunately, man is to blame for the wanton destruction of the environment all in the name of "unlimited human progress".

You can't divorce science from the Creator and that's a fact. Yet you have people who want to benefit from science without considering the Creator. Christian scientists were conservative because they were aware of one truth that science without ethics is meaningless. I'd like to expand it to say that studying creation without the Creator is absolutely stupid. People can claim that removing God is the key to &qu…

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

What's Wrong with the Ang Dating Daan Movement?

The Ang Dating Daan movement is by the Members Church of God International spearheaded by its pastor (and so-called "prophet") Eliseo Soriano.  While claiming to be an expositor of the Scriptures with his "Itanong Mo Kay Soriano" or "Ask Soriano" In English, this religious group actually isn't Christian as some of the ignorant would want to believe.  Though the group claims the Bible is their only authority (as some cults do) but the problem is that they believe only Eli Soriano may interpret the Scriptures.  This is utter heresy!  Not even a great man in the Scriptures, Charles Spurgeon ever made such a preposterous claim!  This is no better than the "true church" movement by Darwin Fish which is exposed by Pastor Phil Johnson as a heretical movement.  In fact, I'm not going to waste my time debating with ADD members, they are a total waste of my time as every other debate.
Unlike John F. Macarthur of Grace to You that actually encoura…

Testimony of Former Iglesia Ni Cristo Member, Now a Born Again Christian

Editor's note: 
First and foremost, I would like to thank the Bereans for this wonderful story of a former Iglesia ni Cristo minister (or pastor), now he has become a Baptist Christian.  It's a sad story that some people have just jumped from one cult to another.  Some members of the Watchtower Society, Charismatic Movement or the Iglesia ni Cristo have left Roman Catholicism but they have never truly come to know the truth of salvation is by faith in Christ alone and that any good works after Christian life is but the grace of God at work in the believer.  Now for this brave testimony that I can really share after many years of searching for one testimony which I hope will further bring more INC members to Jesus Christ.

May I begin with a word of prayer that in the midst of all these trouble, I call upon Jesus Christ the Son of God who the Iglesia ni Cristo deny is indeed God, the only way to salvation, that they trust upon their works and church membership than Him alone.  I…