Posted on 04/15/2016 7:25:23 AM PDT by verga
For years there has been disagreement between Catholics and some non-Catholic groups about the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Marian Dogmas, particularly, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother. This will attempt to clear up some of the confusion.
Catholics have always held that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and following the birth of Jesus. Many non-Catholics contend that scripture proves that she did not and points to several instances of people being called brothers or sisters of Jesus.
When we study the scriptures carefully, paying particular attention to the order of sentences and view the language with precision, we see that the Catholic position is both logical and scriptural.
We see the annunciation in Luke Chapter 1. Luke 1:26-27 “In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.”
Notice that Mary is described as “betrothed”. For all intents and purposes this means that they are married, but the marriage has not yet been consummated. I will go into more detail about this further on.
The angel says to Mary in Luke 1:30-33 “And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
It is important to note here that the angel has not specified a time when or how this would occur.
Mary’s response is very telling Luke 1:34 “εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;” Luke 1:34 “And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?” In both the Douay-Rheims and the King James version ἔσται is correctly translated as “shall” From Strong’s concordance 1510 εἰμί eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be"). Ἔσται is the future tense or “will be.”
Mary is not a 21st century city girl, She is a 1st century farm girl who understands the mechanics of procreation. Her response only makes sense if she had no intention of having a conjugal relation with the man she was already betrothed to. In the usual state of affairs a woman would expect to have children, but Mary is expressing amazement. Remember the angel has not yet told her that the child will be the literal Son of God only that he would be called the son of the most high and sit on the throne of David.
There are some who will say that the word betrothed meant that they were merely engaged, but scripture shows differently; in the Hebrew culture a couple became betrothed then, the husband prepared a house, returned for the wife, and took her into the house to consummate the marriage.
Jesus used the language of the bridegroom in John 14:1-3 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith* in God; have faith also in me”.
2 “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?”
3 “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be”.
Months later after she is already living with Joseph on the way to Bethlehem Mary is still referred to as being betrothed,
Luke 2:5 “to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.”
If they were not married but only “engaged” it would not have been necessary for Joseph to divorce her.
Matthew 1:19 “Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν.”
Matthew 1:19 “Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately”. The word ἀπολῦσαι from Strong’s concordance 630 /apolýō ("to release") is specifically used of divorcing a marital partner
We see the exact same term used when Jesus is discussing marriage and divorce in Mt 1:19, 5:31,32, 19:7-9.
At this point the non-Catholics will point out that this does not prevent them from having a conjugal relationship after the birth of Jesus and the purification ritual. I have shown above that Mary had no intention of entering into a conjugal relationship with Joseph and this is is due to her having entered into a “relationship” with the Holy Spirit.
This is evidenced in the language used in Luke when the angel explains how Mary is to conceive.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answering, said to her: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
The term “overshadow” is nuptial language. We see similar language in Ruth and Ezekiel. Ruth 3:9 And he said to her: “Who art thou?” And she answered:” I am Ruth thy handmaid: spread thy coverlet over thy servant, for thou art a near kinsman.”
Ezekiel 16;7-8 “I caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field: and thou didst increase and grow great, and advancedst, and camest to woman's ornament: thy breasts were fashioned, and thy hair grew: and thou wast naked, and full of confusion
. And I passed by thee, and saw thee: and behold thy time was the time of lovers : and I spread my garment over thee, and covered thy ignominy. And I swore to thee, and I entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God: and thou becamest mine.”
At this point some will ask how could Mary be in a matrimonial relationship with both the Holy Spirit and Joseph, The answer is in the exact same way that all Christians are in that relationship with Christ.
Mary had both an earthly temporal nuptial relationship with Joseph and an eternal nuptial relationship with the Holy Spirit, just as all Christians hope to have with God. This comes from the Hebrew word אֲרוּסָה (kiddush) which means betrothed, The root of kiddush is קָדוֹשׁ (kadash) which means holy or sacred.
Matthew 9:14-15 Then the disciples of John came to Him, asking, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?" And Jesus said to them, "The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” (See also Mark 2:18-20, Luke 5:33-35) Matthew 25:1 "Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom”
Isaiah 61:10 “I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”
John 3:29 "He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice So this joy of mine has been made full.
2 Corinthians 11:2 “For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God. For I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”
Revelation 21:2 “And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”
The difference between Mary’s nuptial relationship with God and ours is that hers intersected here in the temporal world and resulted in the conception of the Man, Christ Jesus.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The question will still remain to some: How does this prevent Mary and Joseph from engaging in a conjugal relationship?
By law he was strictly prohibited from entering this type of relationship with Mary. To understand this we need to refer to the Old Testament, specifically the book of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.
Deuteronomy 1:1-4 1 “When a man, after marrying a woman, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house,
2 if on leaving his house she goes and becomes the wife of another man,
3 and the second husband, too, comes to dislike her and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house, or if this second man who has married her dies, 4 then her former husband, who dismissed her, may not again take her as his wife after she has become defiled. That would be an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring such guilt upon the land the LORD, your God, is giving you as a heritage.”
Jeremiah 3:1 “If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and then becomes the wife of another, Can she return to the first? Would not this land be wholly defiled? But you have played the prostitute with many lovers, and yet you would return to me!—oracle of the LORD.”
In the The Babylonian Talmud: (Neusner vol 11 pg 123) It states that a man can not enter into a marriage contract with a woman who has been made pregnant by a former husband. If he does, he is required to give her a bill of divorce.and not remarry her.
We see this in 2 Samuel. Absalom had relations with ten of David’s concubines.
2 Samuel 16:22 “So a tent was pitched on the roof for Absalom, and Absalom went to his father’s concubines in view of all Israel.
After Absalom’s plot to overthrow his father failed David did the only thing he could. He took them back but he never had relations with them.
2 Samuel 20:3 David came to his house in Jerusalem, and the king took the ten concubines whom he had left behind to care for the palace and placed them under guard. He provided for them, but never again saw them. And so they remained shut away to the day of their death, lifelong widows.”
As we saw in Matthew 1:19 Joseph had planned to divorce her quietly, but again an angel intervened.
Matthew 1:20 “But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.”
Now we need to compare the language used 1:18 and in 1:20 Matthew 1:18 “Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.” Sunerchomai συνελθεῖν to come together, to assemble, to marry to have marital relations.
Matthew 1:20 “ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου κατ’ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυείδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ Πνεύματός ἐστιν Ἁγίου·”
Paralambanó παραλαβεῖν I take from, receive from, or: I take to, receive (apparently not used of money), admit, acknowledge; I take with me.To take charge of.
At this point Joseph became her guardian/ protector and legal spouse. This fulfilled the prophecy that the Messiah would come from the line of David of which Joseph was a member. Had he divorced her Mary would have been subject to at least ridicule and scorn and possibly stoning, which was the punishment for adultery. Joseph was able to fulfill all the temporal duties of a father that the Holy Spirit could not.
Further evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity is seen Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 44:1-2 “Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary facing east, but it was closed.2The LORD said to me: This gate must remain closed; it must not be opened, and no one should come through it. Because the LORD, the God of Israel, came through it, it must remain closed.”
The Sanctuary is the Temple and only God is permitted to enter through that gate. Jesus told us in John that He was the Temple
John 2:19-21
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?”
21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
Logically if Jesus is the temple then Mary must be the eastern gate since she is how He entered the world.
There will still be some die hards that will say: But what about the “brothers” and “sisters” referred to in the gospels?
In John 19:26-27 we read 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
Some have offered that his siblings were unbelievers. Paul describes James in Galatians 1:19 “But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” So much for James being an unbeliever if he was one of the Apostles. Also nowhere does James describe himself as related to Jesus.
Jude describes himself as “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1). If Jude is a sibling of Jesus, why does he talk in this weird way?
If any of them were to be unbelievers it would be a very temporary state of affairs. We see this in John 17:12 When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.
The claim of unbelief came in John 7:5 For his brothers did not believe in him. During the feast of tabernacles (See John 7:2). That was 6 months prior to the Passover and both James and Jude were present for that.
Further Jesus would have known that they would to him based on his predictions of the behavior of others in the gospels.
Matthew 26:13 He knew the woman that anointed Him with oil would be remembered.
Matthew 26:34 He knew of Peter’s triple denial.
Peter's death in John 21:18-19, and the list goes on.
Even if they did not believe in Him they were still faithful Jews and had a responsibility that Jesus went into great detail about ignoring parents for “religious” reasons.
Mark 7:9-12 9 He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’
11 Yet you say, ‘If a person says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is qorban” (meaning, dedicated to God),
12 you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
We also know from the Gospel that Jesus was the First born of Mary, and siblings would be younger and it was absolutely unheard of in the middle eastern culture that a younger sibling would upbraid and older brother for any reason.
If non-Catholics are going to be consistent then are they willing to say that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus?
John 6:42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?
Luke 2:33 The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him; Luke 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” Of course not, every Christian realizes that Joseph was His father by adoption not by nature.
Let’s look further at the gospels.
Matthew 13:55 “Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?”
Matthew 27:56 “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
Matthew 28:1 “After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”
We see when we look at John that the biological father of these men is actually Clopas. John 19:25 “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.”
Notice that John refers to Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas as “sisters” Most families do not give uterine relatives the same first name. At best they are probably first cousins, which would make the sons of Clopas 2nd cousins to Jesus.
Paul states in Galatians 1:17-19
17 “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus.”
18 “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.”
19 “But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.”
There were two Apostles named James. The first was the son of Zebedee He was killed by Herod (Acts 12:1-2). This James must be the son of Alphaeus referred to in Luke 6:15-16. Jude refers to himself as the brother of James in Jude 1:1
Three of the four have been ruled out as uterine brothers of Jesus. It should also be noted that not one of these “brothers” was ever referred to as either the son of Joseph or Mary. Also note that in Luke 2:41-52 when Jesus was lost and later found in the temple no mention is made of any other children.
The only conclusion that can be drawn, based entirely on the Scriptures, is that Mary did remain a virgin for her entire life.
There was no full consensus on the doctrine of perpetual virginity within the early Church by the end of the second century, e.g. Tertullian (c.160 – c.225) did not teach the doctrine (although he taught virgin birth), but Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202) taught perpetual virginity, along with other Marian themes.[35] Origen (185-254) was emphatic on the issue of the brothers of Jesus, and stated that he believed them to have been the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.[43] However, wider support for the doctrine began to appear within the next century.[35]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary#Development_of_the_doctrine
In your opinion. I supplied The accepted "Strong's concordance definition for every word that required definition. I quoted the scriptures verbatim and documented additional points from the Hebrew Talmud using the best translation possible and cited volume and page.
I engaged in the strictest exegesis. The only ones engaging in eisegesis are those non-Catholics that refuse to accept the plain truth of the scriptures.
Please go to the original Greek.
And it started very early the Protoevangelium of James.
There is nothing, repeat nothing, in Mary's statement indicating she was vowing to remain a virgin.
If you think you engaged in exegesis, you need to go back to wherever you got your Greek training and get a refund.
Unlike you, however, I documented my sources. I put these verses in my post on how the NASB, KJV AND DR translated the passage in question.
If you think Mary's reply to the Gabriel indicates perpetual virginity you are practicing deceit in your translation.
It's. not. in. there.
Here's a challenge to you. Using the Greek and that verse only, show how Mary is saying she is pledging perpetual virginity.
I'll go paint my house while you dig that up.
We already have. But here it is again. This is how the Greek would read if translated into English.
and not knew her until that she had brought forth a son; and he called the name of him Jesus.
But by actually showing the truth of what the Word says we show we do love the truth.
“Here is the rest of the challenge for the non-Catholics. Lets see if you can find an Early Church Father from the first 300 years or so that denied the Perpetual Virginity. Several of you have claimed (erroneously) that the Catholic Church did not exist until around 313 AD. So any of the ECF’s would belong to the “mystery Christian” sect and would be all over this.”
Better yet, find any source before 100ad - the time of the Apostlrs. If they taught it, just demonstrate it.
Better yet, find any source before 100ad - the time of the Apostlrs. If they taught it, just demonstrate it.
If he could just show it in Luke 1:34 that would be a good start.
Verga,
I too want to commend the amount of effort you put into your thread post.
Obviously, I don’t agree with all you or your conclusion. No problem there.
Maybe you be richly blessed in His grace. May we all grow in grace and truth.
This stems from the Protoevangelium of James does it not?
In your opinion. Every single non-Catholic has ignored the citations from the book of Deuteronomy that strictly prohibits Joseph from a conjugal relationship as well as the Example set by David in 2 Samuel.
Can you cite anything from the Talmud that reverses this: In the The Babylonian Talmud: (Neusner vol 11 pg 123) It states that a man can not enter into a marriage contract with a woman who has been made pregnant by a former husband. If he does, he is required to give her a bill of divorce, and not remarry her.
If you go all the way back to the original post you will see ALL those citations from a book called, .....wait for it......The Bible.
So Mary is the Wife of God as well as the Mother of God?
I think the OT prohibits that sort of behavior, and I’m sure the Talmudic scholars would frown upon it as well.
And trying the 'prove a negative for me' routine is also a hollow gesture. You can do better than that.
Please! How inane! The Catholic Church existed before Scripture. The teaching of the Church includes not only the strong scriptural passages cited in Verga’s post but also the sacred oral and liturgical tradition of the Catholic Church.
The Roman Catholic Cult began before Scripture? Wait -- I've been told repeatedly on this site by Catholics that Christ FOUNDED the Church on Peter... who is right? You, or the myriad of others who have said Christ founded the Catholic Church?
Uhhh. Neither. The Catholic Church didn't roll around until sometime near 300 A.D. Founded by man. Not Christ.
Hmmm. Next...
The narrative of St. Luke must ultimately be traced back to the testimony of Our Blessed Lady. The evangelist himself points to Mary as the source of his account of the infancy of Jesus, when he says that Mary kept all these words in her heart (2:19, 51)
This is so laughable as to almost be not worth addressing. But yet, I will. The Scripture you cherry pick, Luke 2:19, and 2:51:
2:19 "But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart."
2:51 "And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart."
Funny -- neither of these cherry picked verses indicate anything about Luke taking Mary as the source of his account; it only makes reference to what Mary did regarding the events that occurred... "she pondered them in her heart."
She pondered. That's it. Claiming that it indicates anything other that what it plainly says is to add to Scripture. And claiming that means Luke sourced Mary for his Gospel is adding to Scripture.
Scriptura Sola folks wade in shallow theological waters and have no clue of the great and towering intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church that spans centuries of scholarship, theology, ritual, and teaching.
Now... THIS is rich -- "shallow theological waters..." <-- this is the purview of Catholicism as it holds Scripture in such low esteem. And Sola Scriptura doesn't mean what you think it means -- you might try some of that "towering intellectual tradition, scholarship, theology, ritual and teaching" to figure out that your definition is the great Straw Man of the Catholic Church. I'm surprised the RCC doesn't have statues of the Sola Scriptura Straw Man for all to venerate.
If "shallow theological waters" is the accusation thrown at those who believe that Scripture is God-breathed, inerrant, infallible, and the whole, total source for living the Christian life, then I'm more than happy to roll up my pants legs and be right there. But if that shallowness is what we have, the parched, arid desert of the Roman Catholic Church would make the Atacama Desert look like an oasis.
The only inanity I've seen is the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of God's Word.
Hoss
Please provide chapter and verse for what you are citing.
Verga! You just argued that God caused Mary the Mother of Jesus to violate her marriage contract! She was already betrothed to Joseph when God placed Jesus in her womb! Your premise starts with this betrothal is the same as being married! Please, FRiend, look at what you are mistakenly arguing.
Personally, I do appreciate all the painstaking time and effort you’ve apparently put into writing this, verga. I can’t say I’m going to agree with your conclusions, but I do recognize that you must have worked very hard on this to put it together.
I’ve read quite a lot of what you wrote thus far, and I have to say that to the point I’ve gotten so far I haven’t seen any convincing arguments.
- On the point about Mary’s response and “shall be,” the “shall be” refers only to her conceiving in her womb and bringing forth a Son, which is going to happen in the future.
- On what the relationship was between Joseph and Mary at this point, they were married but the situation wasn’t exactly like marriages today.
- All that’s said about the “nuptial” language and Mary “having entered into a ‘relationship’ with the Holy Spirit” are possibilities, not certainties, and it doesn’t seem to me that the overall evidence supports the possibilities you mention. You mention that Mary’s simultaneous matrimonial relationships with the Holy Spirit and Joseph are possible in “exactly the same way that all Christians are in that relationship with Christ.” In that case, then, since Christians can also marry and consummate their relationships while being the bride of Christ, there is no basis either in that sense to prevent Mary from doing so.
- Comparing Joseph and Mary’s marriage other situations in which the woman has gone with another man or had a child with him is
- I believe it’s truly a mistake to in any way read something sexual into Mary’s marriage to the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit overshadowing her. Sexual relations are for creatures. God is Spirit. Do you know how Jesus healed people in different ways. Some He touched, but not always in the same way. With one man He took His own spittle and some mud and put it in his eyes. With others, He never touched them but just spoke. As Jesus said as He raised Lazarus, and as the voice of His Father came from Heaven that to some sounded like a thunderclap, He and His Father said and did certain things for the benefit of the people who heard and saw them, not because He needed to do or say certain things. The point is to be more UNDERSTANDABLE to us. That is what it sounds like that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. From Psalm 91:
“He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.” (1)
“He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.” (4)
Psalm 17: “Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings...”
Psalm 36: “How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.”
During Jesus’ transfiguration, a cloud also overshadowed Peter, James and John.
We have to think that one of the many reasons for why God created both birds and shadows, for example, is so that once we had observed birds and shadows, then God could explain about Himself and spiritual truth to us through psalms like these.
- “Logically if Jesus is the temple then Mary must be the eastern gate since she is how He entered the world.”
Again, maybe. But the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament always have to be considered. We are also the temple of the Holy Spirit, Christ living in us.
- The claim about Jesus having John take Mary as his mother, thereby meaning that Jesus had no brothers and sisters, doesn’t have merit. Whatever the situation with Jesus’ brothers and sisters, they weren’t at the Cross. John was. This is simply of no relevance whatsoever: “it was absolutely unheard of in the middle eastern culture that a younger sibling would upbraid and older brother for any reason.” And it was unheard of to do many things that Jesus, the Son of God, did. What comes first is God’s family, the spiritual one of the Church. Anyone in the Church should, unless doing so means to sin against God, obey the command of taking care of their parents. Jesus fulfilled the Law, as He said, and part of that was providing for His mother. He did that by leaving her with a devoted family member, the family of God, whose devotion was such that he followed Jesus to the Cross. Who better to take care of Mary than the one who would do so out of Christian love, one who had been discipled (taught) by Jesus, believed in Him, and was an Apostle? Even if Jesus’ brothers were believers at this point, they weren’t at the Cross, and we know that while Jesus was discipling (training), they didn’t believe in Him. John was a true son, a son IN CHRIST, out of his devotion to God, while Jesus’ brothers, it seems, were only so at that point out of the flesh. (I would also think, if the blood kin argument had merit, and if Jesus’ brothers were only cousins, they would have a similar responsibility to take care of Mary, especially as in that culture of close extended families, cousins could be called brothers.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.