Then [Jesus]
said to the disciple, "Behold your mother." And From that hour the
disciple took her into his own [home]. (John
19:27 [my translation from the Greek])
Latter-day Saint “Mariology” (the theology concerned
with the person and work of Mary, the Mother of Jesus) is very similar to
modern Protestantism, rejecting the later traditions of Mary which have been
dogmatised by the Catholic Church (e.g., perpetual virginity; Immaculate Conception;
Bodily Assumption). Similarly, Latter-day Saints would reject the doctrine
within Catholicism that Mary is co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, and advocate, as well as being the "spiritual mother" of all believers, doctrines that Catholic apologists, leaders, and theologians have been petitioning the
papacy to dogmatise. The most commonly cited “proof-text” for this doctrine is
John 19:27. The argument goes is that John represents all Christians and, by
taking Mary “into his own [household],” the “spiritual” meaning is that Mary is
to be taken as our own (spiritual) mother (as unbelievable as this “interpretation”
is [eisegesis of the most perverted form, to be blunt], see the works of Dr.
Mary Miravalle et al., who advocate this doctrine—I am not making this up).
The following exegesis of this text is rather helpful at
refuting such a claim:
The fact that
the beloved disciple took Mary into his home rather than the reverse, rather
favours the view that he was commissioned to look after her. Thus the theological
reading favoured by many Catholic exegetes tends to move in a direction
contrary to an historical reading of the text. Certainly it is true that
John uses history to teach theology, and that both Jesus and John use
historical events, institutions and utterances in symbolic ways to teach deeper
truths to those with eyes to see. But such theological readings are in line
with the historical reading. In this instance, however, the Fourth Gospel
focuses on the exclusiveness of the Son, the finality of his cross-work, the
promise of the Paracelte as the definitive aid to the believers after Jesus has
been glorified, and correspondingly de-emphasises Mary by giving her almost no
part in the narrative of the text, it is most natural to see in vv.26-27 and expression
of Jesus’ love and care for his mother, a thoughtful provision for her needs at
the hour of supreme devastation. To argue, then, that the scene is symbolic of
a continuing role for Mary as the church comes under her care is without
adequate contextual control. It is so anachronistic an interpretation that it
is difficult to imagine how it could have gained such sway apart from the
developments of later traditions.
D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Apollos, 1991), 617-18.
