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

Ken Ham's Illustrations on Spiritual Warfare Against Humanism

Dr. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis made these beautiful illustrations to show what's wrong with the church today. Let's take a look at the two illustrations on how Christians engage their spiritual warfare. 
The first illustration reveals the following:
One member is asleep when he should be doing something.Another person is firing at the balloons because the person who's supposed to fire it is asleep on the job.Somebody is focused on deflecting cannon balls than hitting the source of the cannon balls.Somebody is treating the whole situation like a game.  
By doing so, humanism is victorious whenever the local church is asleep. This is the problem to why Christians tend to fall down in battle at times:
Ezekiel 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
In short, if you're not going to stand in the gap on behalf of the land then who will? It's the…

The Ridiculous Roman Catholic View That Marriage Must Be Done Inside Their Church or It's Invalid

I remembered reading through the seven sacraments or ordinances of the Roman Catholic institution in a catechism. One of the teachings is that marriage must be treated as a sacrament. What it also implies is that if your marriage is done in a civil court that even if it was duly registered, that both couples were in a sexually pure union then it's not a marriage. So does that mean that a person can marry in a civil court, get divorced and marry his next spouse in the Roman Catholic institution?

Let's address the issue of civil marriage that is pure and holy. In short there was no incest, no adultery and it was between two people who are eligible for marriage. So why should the Roman Catholic institution even think that two people who got married with the sexually pure prerequisites in the eyes of God should be rejected. Is it because unless it's a priest who performs the marriage then the marriage can't be validated? It's a problem with how Roman Catholics have thei…

No Moral Absolutes Means No Human Rights

We have the truth that human rights activists are everywhere who reject the truth that there are moral absolutes. Many of them have their idea of "Judge not and you will not be judged." As for the atheistic human activists, they tend to carry out Richard Dawkins' quote from the River Out of Eden which says that there's no good, no evil but only pitiless indifference. They think that there are no such thing as moral absolutes. So if they believe that there are no moral absolutes then why are they fighting for human rights which requires moral absolutes to determine them? After all, Dawkins just said there is no purpose but only pitiless indifference.

Here's another problem with atheists' appeal to human rights. Why do they appeal to human rights when they claim that there are no moral absolutes and morality is relative? Human rights are determined by moral absolutes that God made. When God made His Ten Commandments and gave the whole Law - He made it as the st…

James 2 DOES NOT Teach Works Salvation

In a hasty attempt to defend works salvation, they would appeal to James 2.  It would be time to actually clear the fact that Paul and James DO NOT contradict each other. James 2 DOES NOT teach works salvation in which now can be clearly seen when this whole chapter is being dissected to show that James 2 does not defend the heretic crowd.  So let's try to check out what James 2 really is saying.
So first, it's time to think about these facts to debunk the heretical argument of using James 2:
1.) James 2:14-18 is not talking about works salvation but rather, again showing one's faith by one's works.  James 2:18 is a challenge to show one's faith.  Want to know about faith?  Hebrews 11 talks about the results of faith with some of the heroes of the Bible.  Try to coincide Hebrews 11 and James 2 and one sees the results of faith.  As said, when one says that a faith without works is DEAD because true faith produces good works to validate faith.  That's really th…

Does Salvation by Grace Through Faith in Jesus Christ Grant a License to Sin?

Here's a commonly heard argument saying, "Well salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ is unjust and grants a license to sin." which is frequently done by most world religions.  They demand people must work for their salvation and for one, it's NOT even realistic or practical as it promotes the idea of a dictator God PLUS it's nothing more than asking for the impossible because God's standard of holiness is a LOT higher than all the good works man does.  Despite all the good man does, still they will fall into sin and the followers of almost every false religion this world has to offer shows that like how your average religious person attends religious services yet he/she falls into sin for the rest of the week, showing he/she is WEAK in the flesh.
Now it's time to really correct the whole erroneous argument as false.  Why?  The Bible says otherwise about what God's salvation by grace through faith really does- it transforms the individual to resist…

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…