Jesus Set Precedent for Shunning

by JosephAlward 53 Replies latest jw friends

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    Jesus' appointment of john to the exclusion of mary's own children, to the task of looking after jesus' mother supports josephalward's claim. In this case, jesus set the precedent for breaking up families, by placing an outsider between mary and her children.

    There are just a few things wrong with a statement like this... and the thinking that goes along with. (Peace to you, Saint!):

    First, it assumes the knowledge that Mary's other children WANTED to... and would... take care of her. Since my Lord's "blood" brothers still followed Judaism as taught by the scribes and Pharisees, it would be SAFER to assume that they, too, had fallen victim to false teachings, including that of "corban." Thus, my Lord would have been in the right to ensure that his mother was properly cared for.

    Second, it also assumes that my Lord was directing John to USURP the responsibilities of the others; the account, however, in no way indicates that John's new commission was not IN ADDITION to what the others were obligated to do... by LAW. John, however, was to do it, would have done, and did it... due to LOVE. Unlike the "blood" brothers of my Lord, rather than care for Mary out of compulsion under the Law, John would do it... because he WANTED to... and my Lord knew this and so did not hesitate to grant the direction. Unlike with Peter, whom he asked repeatedly, "Do you have affection for me"?, my Lord KNEW John did, and by connection had affection for my Lord's mother. So, he was granted the PRIVILEGE of helping to feed and care for Mary, just as Peter, who assured his affection, was granted the PRIVILEGE of feeding and caring for my Lord's sheep.

    Third, it disregards that in doing so, my Lord would have been fulfilling the Law in two ways: (1) caring for his elderly mother; (2) knowing that HE would no longer be able to, rather than saying, "Hey, look... I'M GONNA DIE... why should I worry about HER?", even in his last hour he put the well-being of someone else... before himself. Check out Death Row and see how many folks there are concerned with making arrangements for the continued care of their mothers: most... are still trying to get clemency (rightly or wrongly so) versus worrying about saving someone else's hide.

    The above-quoted thinking is flawed simply and PURELY due to its presupposition, assumption and presumption: a "wrong" motive is being implied where there was none, but rather a VERY right motive... LOVE... was being put in place. First, in the place of my Lord... who fulfilled his obligations in EVERY way (caring for his mother, caring for his "sister", caring for one of his "sheep"), and John... who did not protest that it wasn't HIS responsibility... but accepted... willingly and lovingly. To think anything less of either of these under the recorded circumstances... is EVIL. And to assume anything ungodly in the account's narrative is... arrogant. Of course.

    May the one that has ears... hear.

    Again, I bid you peace.

    A slave of Christ,

    SJ

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Aguest

    Are you saying that:

    a Jesus' brothers and sisters were not caring for their mother because of the corban thing.

    b Jesus' brothers and sisters were caring for their mother, but grudgingly.

    If a, then you are reading a lot into the text that isn't there. All indications are that mary, joseph and their relatives were quite godly, conscienteous in following the jewish laws. That is apparently why god chose to put his son in their group. One of the main laws was to honor father and mother. You are assuming that they were ignoring this law, being pharisaic.

    If b, then again, you are saying that jesus brothers and sisters were shirking their mother. I see no indication of this attitude on their parts in the bible. Even if it is the case that they were caring for her grudgingly, they were still doing it. If they were doing it, and jesus appointed a nonfamily member between mary and her children, then my arguement in the other post stands. Jesus was abusing his influence by placing a wedge inside his own family.

    SS

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    Here are what some different Bible Commentaries say about John 19:26-27:

    Robertson's Word Pictures Commentary:

    John 19:26:

    His mother (ten metera). Common Greek idiom, the article as possessive.
    Standing by (parestota). Perfect active (intransitive) participle of paristemi, vivid and picturesque scene. The dying Saviour thinks of the comfort of his mother.
    Whom he loved (hon egapa). Imperfect active. Surely John is justified in inserting this phrase here. If John were his cousin, that helps explain why Jesus turns the care of his mother over to him. But the brothers of Jesus are not present and disbelieved his claims. John is the only one of the apostles with courage enough to take his stand with the women by the Cross. There is no disrespect in the use of Woman (Gunai) here as there was not in John 2:4. This trust is to John, though Salome, Johns own mother, was standing there.

    John 19:27:

    Unto his own home (eis ta idia). See this same idiom and sense in John 1:11; John 16:32; Acts 21:6. John had a lodging in Jerusalem, whether a house or not, and the mother of Jesus lived with him there.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:

    John 19:26:

    The disciple - whom he loved - John, the writer of this Gospel.
    Woman, behold thy son! - This is a remarkable expression, and has been much misunderstood. It conveys no idea of disrespect, nor of unconcern, as has been commonly supposed. In the way of compellation, man! and woman! were titles of as much respect among the Hebrews as sir! and madam! are among us. But why does not Jesus call her mother? Probably because he wished to spare her feelings; he would not mention a name, the very sound of which must have wrung her heart with additional sorrow. On this account he says, Behold thy son! this was the language of pure natural affection: Consider this crucified man no longer at present as any relative of thine; but take that disciple whom my power shall preserve from evil for thy son; and, while he considers thee as his mother, account him for thy child. It is probable that it was because the keeping of the blessed virgin was entrusted to him that he was the only disciple of our Lord who died a natural death, God having preserved him for the sake of the person whom he gave him in charge. Many children are not only preserved alive, but abundantly prospered in temporal things, for the sake of the desolate parents whom God hast cast upon their care. It is very likely that Joseph was dead previously to this; and that this was the reason why the desolate virgin is committed to the care of the beloved disciple.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Albert Barne's Notes on the Bible:

    John 19:26:

    The disciple ...whom he loved - See John 13:23.
    Woman - This appellation certainly implied no disrespect. See the notes at John 2:4.
    Behold thy son! - This refers to John, not to Jesus himself. Behold, my beloved disciple shall be to you a son, and provide for you, and discharge toward you the duties of an affectionate child. Mary was poor. It would even seem that now she had no home. Jesus, in his dying moments, filled with tender regard for his mother, secured for her an adopted son, obtained for her a home, and consoled her grief by the prospect of attention from him who was the most beloved of all the apostles. What an example of filial attention! What a model to all children! And how lovely appears the dying Saviour, thus remembering his afflicted mother, and making her welfare one of his last cares on the cross, and even when making atonement for the sins of the world!

    John 19:27:

    Behold thy mother! - One who is to be to thee as a mother. The fact that she was the mother of Jesus would secure the kindness of John, and the fact that she was now intrusted to him demanded of him affectionate regard and tender care.
    From that hour ... - John seems to have been in better circumstances than the other apostles. See Joh_18:16. Tradition says that she continued to live with him in Judea until the time of her death, which occurred about fifteen years after the death of Christ.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The People's New Testament Commentary:

    John 19:26:

    Woman, behold thy son! In his mortal agony, Jesus does not forget his bereaved mother, but commits her to the care of John, her nephew, it is supposed. His love shines forth in the sufferings on the cross.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

    John 19:26:

    When Jesus therefore saw his mother,.... Standing near him, within the reach of his voice, as well as sight, he took notice of her, and showed a concern for her temporal, as well as for her eternal good:

    and the disciple standing by; either by his cross, his mother, or both:

    whom he loved: meaning John, the writer of this Gospel, who for modesty's sake often describes himself in this manner; he being distinguished by Christ from the rest, by some peculiar marks of affection as man; though as God, and as the Redeemer, he loved his disciples alike, as he does all his true and faithful followers:

    he saith unto his mother, woman, behold thy son; meaning not himself, but the disciple, who was her son, not by nature, nor adoption; but who would show himself as a son, by his filial affection for, care of, honour and respect unto her. Christ calls her not mother, but woman; not out of disrespect to her, or as ashamed of her; but partly that he might not raise, or add strength to her passions, by a tenderness of speaking; and partly to conceal her from the mob, and lest she should be exposed to their rude insults; as also to let her know that all natural relation was now ceasing between them; though this is a title he sometimes used to give her before.

    John 19:27:

    Then saith he to the disciple,.... The same disciple John:

    behold thy mother; take care of her, and provide for her, as if she was thine own mother: this shows the meanness of Christ, who had nothing to leave her, though Lord of all; it is very probable that Joseph was dead, and Mary now a widow; and whereas Christ had taken care of her, and maintained her hitherto, he now, in his dying moments, commits her to the care of this disciple; which is an instance of his humanity, and of his regard to every duty; and this in particular, of honouring parents, and providing for them in distress, and old age:

    and hour that disciple took her to his own home: or house; so the Septuagint render ביתו, "to his house", by εις τα ιδια, in Est_6:12 the phrase here used, and in John 16:32. Some say she lived with John at Jerusalem, and there died; and others say, that she died in the twelfth year after the resurrection of Christ, being 59 years of age, and was buried by John in the garden of Gethsemane: where his house was is not certain, whether at Jerusalem or in Galilee, nor how long she lived with him; but this is not to be doubted, that he took care of her, and provided for her, as if she was his own mother; and his doing this forthwith shows his great regard to Christ, his readiness and cheerfulness to comply with his orders and directions, and his unfeigned love unto him.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary:

    John 19:26-27:

    When Jesus . . . saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved, standing by, he saith to his mother, WOMAN, BEHOLD THY SON! Then saith he to the disciple, BEHOLD THY MOTHER!--What forgetfulness of self, what filial love, and to the "mother" and "son" what parting words!

    from that hour . . . took her to his own home--or, home with him; for his father Zebedee and his mother Salome were both alive, and the latter here present (Mark 15:40). See on Matthew 13:55. Now occurred the supernatural darkness, recorded by all the other Evangelists, but not here. "Now from the sixth hour (twelve o'clock, noon) there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour" (Matthew 27:45). No ordinary eclipse of the sun could have occurred at this time, it being then full moon, and this obscuration lasted about twelve times the length of any ordinary eclipse. (Compare Exodus 10:21, Exodus 10:23). Beyond doubt, the divine intention of the portent was to invest this darkest of all tragedies with a gloom expressive of its real character. "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried, ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI . . . My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46). As the darkness commenced at the sixth hour, the second of the Jewish hours of prayer, so it continued till the ninth hour, the hour of the evening sacrifice, increasing probably in depth, and reaching its deepest gloom at the moment of this mysterious cry, when the flame of the one great "Evening Sacrifice" was burning fiercest. The words were made to His hand. They are the opening words of a Psalm (Psalm 22:1) full of the last "sufferings of Christ and the following glories" (1st Peter 1:11). "FATHER," was the cry in the first prayer which He uttered on the cross, for matters had not then come to the worst. "Father" was the cry of His last prayer, for matters had then passed their worst. But at this crisis of His sufferings, "Father" does not issue from His lips, for the light of a Father's countenance was then mysteriously eclipsed. He falls back, however, on a title expressive of His official relation, which, though lower and more distant in itself, yet when grasped in pure and naked faith was mighty in its claims, and rich in psalmodic associations. And what deep earnestness is conveyed by the redoubling of this title! But as for the cry itself, it will never be fully comprehended. An absolute desertion is not indeed to be thought of; but a total eclipse of the felt sense of God's presence it certainly expresses. It expre'sses surprise, as under the experience of something not only never before known, but inexplicable on the footing which had till then subsisted between Him and God. It is a question which the lost cannot utter. They are forsaken, but they know why. Jesus is forsaken, but does not know and demands to know why. It is thus the cry of conscious innocence, but of innocence unavailing to draw down, at that moment, the least token of approval from the unseen Judge--innocence whose only recognition at that moment lay in the thick surrounding gloom which but reflected the horror of great darkness that invested His own spirit. There was indeed a cause for it, and He knew it too--the "why" must not be pressed so far as to exclude this. He must taste this bitterest of the wages of sin "who did no sin" (1st Peter 2:22). But that is not the point now. In Him there was no cause at all (John 14:30) and He takes refuge in the glorious fact. When no ray from above shines in upon Him, He strikes a light out of His own breast. If God will not own Him, He shall own Himself. On the rock of His unsullied allegiance to Heaven He will stand, till the light of Heaven returns to His spirit. And it is near to come. While He is yet speaking, the fierceness of the flame is beginning to abate. One incident and insult more, and the experience of one other predicted element of suffering, and the victory is His. The incident, and the insult springing out of it, is the misunderstanding of the cry, for we can hardly suppose that it was anything else. "Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias" (Matthew 27:47).

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Uh, Saint, dear... peace to you... and methinks it is you who is reading more into it... as follows:

    All indications are that mary, joseph and their relatives were quite godly, conscienteous in following the jewish laws.

    Mary, yes. Joseph? Uh, after my Lord's birth in the flesh there is absolutely NO reference to Joseph. None at all, other than Mary had more children (which would imply the presence of Joseph). And as for "following the Jewish laws," indeed, that was my point: Going up to Jerusalem to register was NOT required by JAH, but by ROMAN law (Luke 2:1)... to keeps "tabs" on the Jews. And "corban" WAS a "Jewish" law... established, however, NOT by my Father, but the scribes and Pharisees (Mark 7:9-13; please... pay CLOSE attention to verse 12).

    That is apparently why god chose to put his son in their group.

    My Father put my Lord "in their group" due SOLELY to Mary. How do we know? It was prophesied by Isaiah. Mary had FAITH; however, Joseph, remember, wasn't going for it... until Gabriel appeared to him and told him about it.

    One of the main laws was to honor father and mother. You are assuming that they were ignoring this law, being pharisaic.

    Who rejected my Lord? The Pharisees, yes? AND his "blood" brothers... until after his death... yes? Why, may I ask? Now, then, who established corban? The Pharisees, yes? Why do you assume his "blood" brothers did NOT follow the "teachings of the Pharisees"? Was that not what he told the Jews, which would include his brothers, they were doing... following the "traditions and doctrines of men," as taught by the scribes and Pharisees? Wasn't that one of the reasons he was there, to EXPOSE the false teachings and doctrines of the scribes and Pharisees? Was anyone ELSE protesting against the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees... other than my Lord? Dare anyone? What happened to him when he protested? If his brothers did not follow the teachings of those, what, do you think the same would not have happened to them... or at least expulsion from the synagogues? C'mon, Saint... THINK! They HAD to be obedient to the scribes and Pharisees and their false teachings... otherwise, they would have been PERSECUTED... and perhaps even killed! My Lord was.

    They, however, went ALONG with the scribes and Pharisees... and called my Lord "mad". Remember?

    If b, then again, you are saying that jesus brothers and sisters were shirking their mother. I see no indication of this attitude on their parts in the bible.

    But I DO. IF they were reliable in caring for Mary... why would my Lord even NEED to appoint John? Think, Saint, think! The scribes and Pharisees had overruled the requirement... with the "law" of "corban". My Lord's siblings followed the law... THINK, man!

    Even if it is the case that they were caring for her grudgingly, they were still doing it. If they were doing it, and jesus appointed a nonfamily member between mary and her children, then my arguement in the other post stands.

    See, here is where YOU err: you assume by my Lord giving John the direction, he was having him USURP the others. Where does it indicate that? If I, having four or more brothers or sisters, and terminal cancer, and you are my best friend, and I tell you to look after my mother, or say to you, "See, your mother," in what way am I telling you to take over from my siblings? In what way am I telling you that you have more authority than they or are to replace them? Wouldn't I also have to tell THEM that, too? Or am I just telling YOU... please... look after my mother... and such could well be IN ADDITION to anything my brothers/sisters were doing. Just because they ARE doing something does not mean you can't, too. Yes?

    Jesus was abusing his influence by placing a wedge inside his own family.

    Or... maybe he was just being kind... and loving. And maybe... John had more and could do more, which we don't know. What we DO know, however, for a FACT, is at the time that he died, my Lord's brothers did NOT have FAITH in him... and in fact, opposed him. John... did not. Now, say you were a former JW... and considered "apostate" by your JW family... and knew you were about to be put to death BY the JWs: who would YOU ask to take care of your ALSO "apostate" mom... 'cause she left THEM and went with YOU, remember? Who would you ask: the JW's? Or your "apostate" best friend... who never left your side?

    Think, Saint. And again, peace to you.

    A slave of Christ,

    SJ

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit