I disagree with the Roman Catholic interpretation on this matter, but that is not what I want to respond to. The last line has a simple answer:
“If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why did He entrust the care of His mother to the Apostle John?”
Answer: Jesus’ siblings didn’t believe in Him as the Son of God until after His resurrection. He brought a lot of trouble on them as Torah-believing Jews. Brother James finally got it after Jesus arose from the Dead. Nevertheless, Jesus was free to pick out whomever he wanted to take care of his mother.
I have a question for all believers, Catholics and Prostestants alike: Just where in the Bible does it ever say that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is John? Nothing Jesus actually said to or about John in the Bible gives the least inkling of this. Yet, because these word appear in the Gospel of JOhn and because John is the only one of the original apostles who was not executed, an assumption is made by the Church that this is who Jesus was talking about.
I have heard sermons on this,one stating that John was just too darn humble to name himself. Right- The Son of Thunder too humble. I don’t buy it.
There were no brothers and sisters. That’s why Christ gave his mother to John’s care.
Did you read the article? any of the links? Especially the highlighted ones that have to do with language?
A Mother's your mother no matter what you brother does. They did not believe in trusting strangers for their mother unless there were no other relatives. It was not like today's thinking. They took care of their own.
Nobody went to the senior living center old age home.
Families took care of it.
I have heard sermons on this,one stating that John was just too darn humble to name himself. Right- The Son of Thunder too humble. I don’t buy it.
I'll make a stab at this since you direct your question to all believers. I lean a great deal, with certain qualifications naturally, on Paul, who wrote 2/3rds of the New Testament canon. As such, I take seriously his admonition not to allow ourselves to be blown about by every wind of doctrine. He also took pains to explicitly connect himself with his writings, as in Galatians, "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand."
But Paul was a scholar, a scribe and a cleric. John was a fisherman. While I don't buy sight unseen the traditional picture of their primitive poverty attributed to the rural working class in Galilee we can guess he was certainly a worker, a man of action, living in a community of such people, though there were scribes everywhere at the time - as they always are in times of great uncertainty.
The fishermen among the Apostles were direct, not given to subtleties, and we have many examples of this in Peter and in the Zebedee brothers, those "Sons of Thunder," backing that up.
As to the contrast in his character as he himself describes it before and his behavior after, well... I'm getting ahead of myself. First...
As to John being "the beloved apostle," the verse that may come closest to answering your question directly is second to last in his Gospel, wherein he is reliably reported to have testified, "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true."
Here John explicitly connects himself with the Third Person narrative, though without calling himself the "beloved apostle" in that context. In the context of the entire manuscript, however, it adds weight to the traditional interpretation.
In John's style, either dictating, with assistance, or writing directly, there are also more obscure clues having to do with the use of the middle voice, something at the heart of the Hellenistic languages but alien to our English.
In the narrative there are also events, as I'm sure you've long noted, where John is a definite participant (e.g, the Transfiguration) but confines himself to describing the actions of the others present, especially Simon Peter, who may have begun babbling inappropriately.
It's interesting to compare his writing style in his reliable report of good news, his Gospel, with his epistles written when he was much older. He may well have sharpened his writing skills since his almost monosyllabic and pointed style retains the simplicity.
As to a change in John's character, the notion that John's behavior was greatly changed following the Resurrection, along with that of the others of the Eleven following the Resurrection and after Pentecost, has always been one of the most compelling "proofs" of the historic accuracy of the Gospel.
All the Apostles operated in ways counter to their former behavior, and these changes are complete. They were empowered, their eyes were opened, and they saw their teacher alive and sailing off into the blue. Peter preaches boldly, fearlessly, and though he makes some mistakes in line with his former character, he's still Simon Peter but he's no longer even capable of thinking the same way.
That John would permanently adopt a more circumspect humility following his being a direct witness to the death, burial and resurrection of his Master is not strange at all.
And that humility when describing his own behavior during Christ's ministry would fit with a reluctance to bring up a lot of things necessary to the telling of his testimony.
"The eye the light of God hath clarified remains open, and we may close it nevermore."
Now if these alleged siblings disagreed with Jesus, why would they not be willing to take care of their mother? Why would He even go against the family, not be the perfect Jewish man by entrusting His mother to an outsider?
I'm sorry, but that argument does not make sense -- if there were brothers, she would be entrusted to them.
You can make some kind of argument if the brothers were dead or if there were sisters, but even in the event of sisters, it was the duty of the son-in-law to take care of the mother-in-law.
La familla :)
in this case even then by no means is Jesus was free to pick out whomever he wanted to take care of his mother. -- that was not done. And that is not done today in a conservative society in say the Arab world or India.
In a modern Western society you may do that, but you wouldn't do it in a pre-Industrial west either...
No, we should not view the past through our own moral code but through their own code.