Tuesday, October 21, 2014

John 19:27 and the “spiritual motherhood” of Mary

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.