Replies

The passage in Numbers 27 deals with the disposition of physical property in an inheritance, not the care of a surviving parent. The assignment of the care of a parent as Jesus apparently did on the cross is not the same thing as the disposition of assets. Not surprisingly, His actions were perfectly consistent with "Honor your father and mother" whether physical assets were involved or not.

Why quote from a source on Jewish law when Jesus was not obligated to follow rabbinical tradition, only the Word of God? A review of Matthew 15:1-9 might be in order.

In another post, you claim that this was a working hypothesis. Perhaps, you should consider Occam's Razor. Redleghunter (and other) have suggested a far cleaner explanation for the data: Jesus gave Mary to John's care because he was in the body of believers and hadn't abandoned Him like his siblings had. Remember that Jesus held his spiritual brothers in higher regard than his actual siblings (Matthew 12:46-50). Going with the clear meaning of Scripture means no more linguistic gymnastics to explain away a myriad of verses of Scripture which speak clearly about Jesus' siblings.

The passage in Numbers 27 deals with the disposition of physical property in an inheritance, not the care of a surviving parent. The assignment of the care of a parent as Jesus apparently did on the cross is not the same thing as the disposition of assets. Not surprisingly, His actions were perfectly consistent with "Honor your father and mother" whether physical assets were involved or not. Why quote from a source on Jewish law when Jesus was not obligated to follow rabbinical tradition, only the Word of God? A review of Matthew 15:1-9 might be in order.

To this day, I detect a persistent antiJewish, as well as antiCatholic, bias in some branches and twigs of Protestantism. It affects and guides interpretations. The Jewish laws and customs of caring for parents are, and were, observed. The Messiah spoke against those trying to avoid righteous behavior, not those practicing it. There have always ben those seeking to cast off righteousness with a cloak of piety.

Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
First Timothy, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses three to eight
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

In another post, you claim that this was a working hypothesis. Perhaps, you should consider Occam's Razor. Redleghunter (and other) have suggested a far cleaner explanation for the data: Jesus gave Mary to John's care because he was in the body of believers and hadn't abandoned Him like his siblings had. Remember that Jesus held his spiritual brothers in higher regard than his actual siblings (Matthew 12:46-50). Going with the clear meaning of Scripture means no more linguistic gymnastics to explain away a myriad of verses of Scripture which speak clearly about Jesus' siblings.

More conjecture that does not pass a credible threshold with respect to the scriptures, Jewish law, and Catholic tradition.

Excellent clarification. Thank you.