How One Should Understand “Who Is My Mother?”

From the Amphilochia by St. Photios the Great (+ 893)

Translated by Hierodeacon Photii of St. Gregory Palamas Monastery, Etna, CA

 

 

It is not at all surprising if someone with an unstable mind stumbles on that from which there shine forth for many salvation and edification. But it is astonishing that the noetic light does not refuse to shine with knowledge even on those who deliberately make themselves blind to it and that it does not disdain to guide them to the perception of truth. For even our Lord and Savior, the stone which was laid as the head of the corner, became for the perishing a stumbling block, the stone that was rejected (I St. Peter 2:7-9), not being so Himself, but only appearing thus to those gone astray.

Thus the Savior says here, “Who is my mother?” not rejecting His Mother, as the lawless mind of the impious would like to think, and not with a view to denigrating Her who gave Him birth. For could He Who was, in His youthful years, subject, according to the laws of nature, to His Mother and Who upheld her maternal prerogatives, begin, on coming of age, to behave towards His Mother with diminished respect and gratitude? Obviously, this saying is not of one rejecting His Mother, but one expressive of a different sentiment. For how could it naturally follow, and how could it remain undisputed should He disdain to recognize as His Mother, and verbally deny His relationship to her from whom He deigned, in His love for mankind, to appear in this world in the flesh, and from whose immaculate blood He was well-pleased to fashion for Himself, and to clothe Himself in, the form of a mortal, having previously brought about, ordained, and granted her this actual relationship in very truth? And if He was planning to disavow her (oh, what blasphemy!), why did He approve of her at all in the first place? Why would He take on the form of the essence of which He considered an insult? For this is the conclusion that those with audacious tongues have reached. But their mindlessness can be refuted by this and many other means.

It is possible, however, that someone, thinking himself not far from the understanding of the Gospels, [1] will say that the Savior said these words, not undermining the honor due to His Mother nor, much less, at all denying His natural relationship with, and love for, her—by no means!—but that, while ascribing His Mother due respect, He nonetheless preferred the salvation of men, and the teachings that lead to it, over care for her. After all, it was for their sake that He had a mother, and that there occurred His birth, His exalted self-abasement and condescension from the Father’s bosom, His dwelling and remaining among men, His voluntary Cross, His death between two thieves, and later His entombment and Resurrection. We could further support this argument with the thought that Jesus could not have acted in any other way than to lay out the chain of providential events according to this scheme. For in a manner consistent with other salvific teachings, the Savior taught us not to prefer father, mother, or wife over His soul-profiting teachings and dedication to Him. For, He says, “Whosoever will not leave father and mother” and so on, “is not worthy of me” (cf. St. Matthew 10:37); that is, whosoever does not prefer my saving exhortations and admonitions, as well as love for me, falls away from the eternal good things and falls short of the blessedness, in which those who have preferred my laws and Divine love to familial ties eternally delight.

Showing the ease and attainability of this commandment, the Savior Himself is the first to fulfill it and prefers the instruction of His hearers to the pleasure of being in the company of His Mother. It is as if to say, “Just as I, teaching you and being concerned about your salvation, have put care about my mother in second place, preferring to save you, so ought you to exchange all the relationships and sympathies that proceed from the bonds of the flesh for your own salvation and the fulfillment and keeping of my teachings and laws.” For the same reason, He refused permission to the one who asked to go bury his father (St. Matthew 8:21; St. Luke 9:59-60), not as an excuse to despise one’s father (in no manner, and especially at a funeral!) or to reject relations and to scorn love, but as a constant exhortation to prefer the salvation of the soul over any fleshly ties and connections. This then, as we said earlier, is one approach that one can put forth, thinking by this not to deprive His Mother of supreme honor, but endeavoring equally to maintain proper respect and reverence. However, this method of comparison expounds matters in such a way that what is compared is brought down to a vulgar level, and it does not free her from low estimation.

I am aware that some of our blessed Fathers, whom I often and in many things enthusiastically endorse, but whom I do not praise for this opinion, in trying to refute an impious view, have come to this conclusion: that the Mother of Jesus, having succumbed to a human weakness and having been puffed up by vain self-opinion, as is natural to womanly nature, was proud because of her Son and sought to proclaim far and wide her joy at being the mother of such a Son; and that the reason why she came while He was teaching was that, when He would be praised for His teaching, she could be glorified with Him and could share His praises. Thus the Savior, cleansing others from passions of the soul and desiring to free His Mother from such defects, said these words as a rebuke: “Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?” These individuals have just expressed whatever ideas came to them.

First of all, the investigation of the truth shows that His Mother in no wise displayed anything of the like; nor did she have a prideful self-opinion. After all, she did not come to Him without warning when He was teaching, and did not break into the midst of the assembly. Neither did she interrupt the word of instruction or say anything high-minded or boastful, but, standing outside with all reverence, only made her presence known, or maybe did not even send word, but wisely reckoned that those who saw her would carry the message. How is such behavior reflective of a vainglorious woman seeking to take pride and exalt herself in the eminence of her Son? How differently would a slave act if need arose to come to his master? That is why the word of Jesus directed to His Mother is not a rebuke or some way of correcting shortcomings through a reproach, for there was nowhere any shortcoming. Rather, this word checked the mockery of the Jews. For just as the quibbling and ungrateful Jews, in order to slander and insult the Savior, would at times say, “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” and, at times, “Are not His Mother and brethren with us?” (St. Matthew 13:55-56), or again, “We know this Man whence He is” (St. John 7:27), and then, while He was teaching and instructing the multitude about the salvation of the soul, envied Him and wished Him evil, and were aroused to slander Him, even though there were no grounds at all for slander, they now resorted to their usual invective and subjected His Mother and brethren to censure and denigration, as if to say: “Whom do You teach? And whom do You consider yourself? Are You not the son of a poor woman and are Your brothers, who live from the work of their hands, any different from You? There they stand outside and seek You. Leave off Your teaching and run to Your relatives. Live the same life as they and do not dare to assume the dignity of a teacher.” That is why, when they, according to their habit, were speaking evil, the Savior, having put forth to them a magnanimous and meek answer, said: “I am so far from being ashamed of my mother and brethren, that not only do I not turn away from her whom nature gave me as mother and those whom public opinion holds as my kinsmen, nor do I consider them a shame and reproach. But all those whom you see here listening to the holy and saving words I do not consider unworthy of the appellation of fathers and brothers, provided only that they do the will of the Father, even if the aforementioned fleshly love is not supported by nature or opinion. Who is my mother and who are my brethren? Why do you twist these names into insults and reproaches? I am so far from being ashamed of them that I have even decided to bind my true disciples with these same appellations and relationships.”

From this we can see that not only did the words He said not bear any ingratitude or disdain for His Mother, but accorded to her the greatest and most fitting honor. He reserves such a high degree of respect, glory, and appropriate love for her that those who do the Father’s will and those who have ascended this height of virtue He raises to the relationship and calling of a mother, as something great and glorious, a special dignity, and because of which the name “brethren” is even now used as something honorable. How could it be that, as the crown and pinnacle of blessedness, He conferred upon and granted to the inheritors of the Heavenly Kingdom the very relationship which He decided (if He indeed decided) to reject and the calling which He deemed proper (if He did so deem) to annul? Therefore, I think it becomes absolutely self-evident that, as was said before, the words “Who is my mother?” and what follows not only do not entail any violation of love and respect for His Mother, but rather express, from every standpoint, the glory and praise due to her.

In the same manner, the passage, “O Lady, what hath this to do with me and thee? Mine hour is not yet come” (St. John 2:4), could be turned, for the unwise, to the opposite of what they have fabricated, and redirected toward a pious and correct understanding of things divine. If someone carefully investigates for what reason this was said, and if Divine Grace will work together with him and help him in his investigation, then it will be discovered that these words accord the mother glory and honor, rather than any form of disparagement whatsoever. In the working of miracles, there was nothing common between mother and Son, since it is proper only to the Godhead to work miracles on His own, while the human nature does not do this on its own, but on account of the Word Who has assumed it. Nevertheless, even where there is no commonality between Mother and Son, look how He shows exceeding honor, even in that in which they differ. When His Mother asks Him to perform the miracle, He, having shown that this is not something common between them and having added that the time for miracles had not yet come, showed that respect and honor for His Mother prevailed over both the particular timing and the differences in abilities. Thus this saying is so far from diminishing His Mother’s glory that it actually multiplies this glory many times over. If it is taken into consideration that she is more important than timeliness and transcends the laws of the proper sequence of performing signs, and also that her request was granted, then how much honor and respect would we have failed to see, had none of this been said or transpired? For by what He uttered and did, it is as though He says: “Commonality of nature does not entail commonality of working miracles (O Lady, what hath this to do with me and thee?), and the time is not appropriate for Godly deeds; however, so that you and those whom necessity has brought to see and hear should come to know that I maintain your maternal rights intact, and that I myself am he who established the law that children show honor to mothers, or rather, that I place respect, obedience, and honor towards you before the proper sequence and timeliness, behold, I hold your request higher than all these things and turn water into wine.”

Here the words “what hath this to do with me and thee?” are not said with the same meaning with which they were said to the one who asked Him to arbitrate the matter about the fatherly inheritance. For there, He, having said, “What is that between me and thee? Man, who made me a ruler or a judge over you?” (cf. St. Luke 12:13-14), by deed confirmed the denial of the request and did not want to become the arbiter of a base argument or of material gain, and so after the verbal refusal followed an objection by deed. Here, however, using the same form of speech, He did not dismiss her maternal request for a miracle and did not leave the plea without attention, but, having shown, even in the commonality of nature, their difference regarding Divine deeds, He fulfilled the request, clearly establishing that, as has been said numerous times, His love for, and honor of, His Mother had more meaning to Him than convenience of time or the particulars of miracle-working.

 

1. For this phrase, the Greek text in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. Cl, col. 341C has been used, since it more effectively conveys the Saint’s meaning.

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XXXIV (2017), No. 3, pp. 10-15.