John 19:25

(25) Joh_19:25-27 relate an incident which is found in St. John only.

Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.—Better, Mary the (wife) of Clopas, as in margin. This Clopas is usually identified with Alphæus. (Comp. Mat_10:3; Mat_27:56, and Introduction to the Gospel according to St. Matthew, p. 41) The question arises, Are there three or four women mentioned here?—i.e., Is “Mary the (wife) of Clopas” sister of Mary the mother of our Lord? or does St. John mean by “His mother’s sister” an unnamed woman, who may not improbably be his own mother, Salome, whom he nowhere mentions? The question cannot be answered with certainty; but upon the whole, the balance of evidence inclines to the view that we have four persons here mentioned in two pairs: “His mother and His mother’s sister; Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” As early as the second century, the Peshito Syriac version adopted this view, and inserted “and” after the word sister. (Comp. Notes on Mat_28:1 and Luk_24:18, and especially the Excursus on The brethren of the Lord in Lightfoot On Galatians, pp. 247-282.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_19:25-27

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother

Manifold revelation of love

We have here a revelation in love of

I.

MORAL HEROISM--the presence of the woman and John. Scarcely could they have placed themselves in a more perilous position. Love is the soul of courage. There is no power for magnanimous endurance and fearless achievements equal to womanly affection. Such love you can trust. It clings to its object as ivy to the castle: holds on to it midst the scorchings of summer and the blastings of winter; survives even the ruin of its object, and spreads a beauty over its grave.

II. PARENTAL DISTRESS.

1. What must have been the feelings of Mary. Now was fulfilled the prophecy, a sword shall pierce thy soul also. There are no trials more poignant than those of a mother in the death throes of her child. Rachels, the world over, weep for their children and refuse to be comforted.

2. But there are circumstances which sometimes mitigate the distress when death occurs in unconscious infancy, or when a child is one of a large number, or when death occurs in maturity among friends Marys Son was in the prime of life, and died among malignant foes, and at their hands: and moreover was perhaps her only Son, and she probably a widow.

III. FILIAL COMPASSION. Woman, behold thy Son--a gleam of unearthly sunshine.

1. No sufferings, however great, can quench love. Christs sufferings surpassed all conception, yet they did not drown the memory of His mother. He seemed to forget His agonies m her tears. Children learn a lesson from this l Plead no personal inconvenience as a reason for neglecting your parents.

2. No engagements, however vast, can justify the neglect of domestic duties. How vast were Christs engagements! Here was a crisis in the history of the universe--yet Christ attended to the needs of His aged mother. Let none plead--statesmen, ministers, or reformers--their engagements as a justification for neglecting home duties.

3. No legacy, however precious, is equal to the Legacy of Love. Christ could have made His mother the mistress of an empire; but He bequeathed her what was better--the affection of a noble soul. What is equal to this?

4. No argument, however plausible, can justify us in regarding Mary as an object of worship. The mothers of great men are to be held in high veneration. Albeit, ought we to regard this poor desolate woman whom Jesus commended to the care of John as Queen of Heaven I

IV. CHRISTIAN OBEDIENCE. From that hour, &c. Tradition says that John never forsook his trust, and remained in Palestine till the mother of his Lord was dead. His obedience was prompt and full. There are only three admissible reasons supposable for not attending at once and fully to Christs commands.

1. If the command is inconsistent with the eternal principles of right.

2. If the difficulties are such that only time can remove them.

3. If there is ground to suppose that help not now obtainable will be granted in the future. Such reasons, though admissible, do not exist, and therefore, like John, we should at once obey. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The cross of Jesus

I purpose to consider the text with reference to

I. THE INDIVIDUALS spoken of in it. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all take particular notice of the women who ministered unto Jesus, and followed Him to Calvary, but St. John is the only one who mentions three of them by name. He does so, perhaps, as writing subsequently to the others, and as having himself stood with the Marys by the cross and observed them there. They were, moreover, persons peculiarly characterized, and therefore also worthy to be specifically mentioned. Mary, the mother of Jesus, would naturally feel a deep and solemn interest in all that befell her Divine Son. It is not determined in the original whether the second Mary was the wife, the mother, or the daughter of Cleophas: but it is generally believed she was his wife, and that he was also called Alpheus, and therefore the mother of James, and Joses, and Simon, and Mat_12:46; Mar_6:3). Be this, however, as it may, she was ardently and devoutly attached to her Lord. The other Mary, Magdalene, was a woman of Magdala, a large and populous town, near the lake Tiberias, in Galilee, and out of her Jesus cast seven devils. There, might Mary the mother of Jesus say, dies my Son. There, might the wife of Cleophas say, dies my Friend. There, might the Magdalene say, dies my Saviour.

II. OURSELVES. And first observe, that the cross, which the Marys beheld with their bodily eyes, we must behold by faith. Others personal witness does not supersede the necessity of our belief.

1. Would we have our sins forgiven? Let us stand by the cross of Jesus. Though by wicked hands He was crucified and slain, yet in His death was the meritorious means of our forgiveness.

2. Would we have our iniquities subdued? Let us stand by the cross of Jesus. There is with Him a power whereby He is able even to subdue all things to Himself. Our will, our affections, our memory, and imagination, He can bring into sweet and entire subserviency to the law of the Spirit of Life.

3. Would we be softened? Let us stand by the cross of Jesus. How were the pious sensibilities of the Marys moved as they stood and mourned for Him! When we can most feelingly enter into the condescending kindness, and the dying love of Christ, then shall we ourselves be most truly kind and conciliating.

4. Would we preserve serenity and peacefulness of spirit? Let us stand by the cross of Jesus. Nothing will so effectually quell mental strife as meditation on the death of Christ. Wild may be the tumult of conflicting opinions, and contrariety may pervade all human schemes and devisings; but, Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, &c.

5. Would we be crucified unto the world? Let us stand by the cross of Jesus. What was the world, either in its prosperous or adverse circumstances, to the Marys. When any feel it to be hard to give up some carnal pleasure or worldly advantage, let them inquire whether they recollect their Saviours cross?

6. And as Jesus our Lord endured the cross, despising the shame, would we take up our daily cross with cheerfulness? Let us stand by the cross of Jesus. Let us quell every complaining of our heart with the question, Did not Jesus suffer? Therefore let us both labour and suffer reproach; and esteem, like Moses, the reproach of Christ greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt, or all the wealth of worlds.

7. Would we truly love the Lord and Saviour of our souls? Let us stand by His cross. Boundless is the love we owe Him.

8. Would we descend ourselves into the grave resignedly? Let us stand by the cross of Jesus. If we go down into Hades from Calvary, we need entertain no distressing fear: Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. (W. Mudge, B. A.)

Nearness to the cross

I. THE SITUATION OF THE MOTHER. I admire in her the efficacy of Divine grace. She is able to stand near the cross; she does not faint away. Here are no outrageous exclamations, no bitter complaints flung at heaven. She feels as a mother, but endures as a Christian. The people of God know not what they can bear till they are tried: When the time of need comes, then comes sufficient grace to help. I shall never despair of the support of a Christian, in any situation, after beholding Mary here. Ye bereaved mothers, remember, religion allows you to feel, but forbids you to faint. Think of Mary, for who can adequately imagine her anguish! To see her Son enduring such a death! And such a Son! And to crown all she was now a widow.

II. THE ADDRESS OF THE SAVIOUR. He speaks in a manner suited to her trying circumstances. Though I die, there is one who will discharge the filial office. Then saith He to the disciple--Behold thy mother! Receive her--not as a pauper. Note

1. The indigence of our Lord. Many talk of poverty, but He was poor. When He came to die, all He had to bequeath was His wearing-apparel; and even this never came to His mother. What becomes then of riches? Foxes have holes, &c.

yet He was the brightness of the Fathers glory. But, alas! all this will not keep numbers from thinking money the essence of all excellency.

2. An instance of the Divine goodness, which ought to encourage the poor and needy. When one comfort is withdrawn, another is furnished. When Jesus is removed, John is raised up. Let those who are dying, and have nothing to leave, hear God saying, Leave thy fatherless children, &c.

3. We should endeavour to be useful, not only living, but dying. Christ dies as He had lived--doing good! Dr. Rivet said, in his last illness, Let all who come to inquire after my welfare be allowed to see me: I ought to be an example in death as well as in life.

4. A lesson of filial piety. Children are under an obligation to succour their parents, not out of charity, but in common justice. David, when wandering from place to place, seemed regardless of himself, if he could provide for his father and mother; and Davids Son and Lord, even in the agony of crucifixion, commends His poor mother to the beloved disciple. Why did He this? Could not He, who could feed a whole multitude, have furnished means for His destitute mother? The answer is that He does not needlessly work miracles. He generally fulfils His kind designs in the established course of things: The poor are as much consigned by Providence to the care of the affluent as Mary was charged upon John.

III. THE OBEDIENCE OF THE DISCIPLE. John does not stand weighing things; Can I afford the expense, trouble, reproach and suspicion? True obedience is prompt, and will lead us to do all things without murmuring and disputing. This is peculiarly the ease with regard to charity. While we stop to investigate, and take great pains not to be deceived, the opportunity is gone. Therefore, says Solomon, Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, &c. (W. Jay.)

Silences at the cross

Is it not a striking fact that our Lord was allowed to die under such conditions of cruelty and wrong-doing without a single protest, so far as we can find from the record, from the lips of aa apostle, disciple, or well-wisher? This is a fact which we ought honestly to consider. Catching a new inspiration, the apostles became eloquent in the proclamation of that Cross whose mystery, while it was uplifted, had silenced them. Let us consider

I. The silence of some IN THE PRESENCE OF A STRANGE AND PAINFUL SURPRISE, In order to understand this better, let us recall some of our Lords preceding utterances to His disciples: See how repeatedly He discourages the possible suggestion of resistance. He had also said, No man taketh it [My life] from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. He further intimated, when danger seemed to threaten Him prematurely, that there were twelve hours in the day, and that His hour had not yet come. Throughout it was not resistance, but passive endurance, that Christ taught.

II. The silence of the majority of the disciples arose also from FEAR OF THE APPARENT TRIUMPH OF EVIL, AND THE SUCCESSFUL CONSPIRACY OF WICKED MEN. Their fears weakened their grasp of Christ, and when that was done there was nothing left for them but flight. Not an apostles voice was heard at the cross. They alone of all men were those who had nothing to say! In the face of that silence the question comes to us, How could these men ever speak again in the name of that Christ? And with what a high sense of privilege the commission came to those who had so recently been silent when they might have spoken--Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature! It came to them as the restoration of a forfeited right ever to speak again for Jesus, since that gift had been neglected in the supreme moment of need.

III. The silence of HELPLESSNESS IN THE PRESENCE OF TYRANNICAL FORCE--a silence that would largely pertain to the women.

IV. The silence of LOVE IN THE PRESENCE OF INSCRUTABLE MYSTERY. This would above all apply to Mary. The cries of blasphemy which now rent the air, and pierced her ears, but ill accorded with the harmonies of the angels song which still lingered in her memory. There are times when our only safety is to be quiet, to bear passively the burden of mystery, and to look conflicting providences in the face and answer them nothing.

V. The silence of INTENSE GRIEF THAT COULD ONLY SPEAK--if it spoke at all--in tears, since words were too weak.

VI. The silence of FAITH THAT COULD WAIT FOR THE SOLUTION. I believe that Mary and John and the woman at the cross had that faith in a great measure. There might have been other obscure disciples in the crowd who had it. I wonder sometimes that some of the deaf and dumb to whom Christ had given speech and hearing did not use their new-born speech on this occasion; but it may be that in that throng, as well as in the smaller group near the cross, there was at least one here and there who could look the mystery in the face and say, I cannot solve it, but I will wait. He that believeth shall not make haste. Even at the cross of Christ, and among that tumultuous throng, there was a faith to be found in solitary hearts that could leave all with the Crucified One. I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it up again? To some at least who had heard those words, the suggestion would come, What if this be after all but the expression of His power? What if the Cross be but the Gospel in paradox? Conclusion: While, therefore, there is much in the silences at the cross of Christ that fills us with humiliation and shame, we will not indiscriminately condemn all the reticence of that hour. There are times in every true life when silence is the expression of the mightest faith. One man speaks and ejaculates, yet only reveals hysterical weakness; the other man waits, is calm, and utters not a word, because he is strong enough to be quiet. The Cross of Jesus Christ is too sacred, too sublime a thing for us to talk of until we know something about it. He loved me, and gave Himself for me. If you do not know that, the best thing you can do is to be quiet, and look at that Cross in silence. Do not talk flippantly, much less scornfully, about that in which you have no share. In the presence of His Cross the world is now silent for very shame, but we who have trusted in Him are in its presence filled with a joy which shall sustain us in all sorrow, and find its consummation in the rapture of that eternal world, where, Christ shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied, and where we shall face to face behold Him who has washed us from our sins in His own blood. (David Davies.)

Nearness to the cross

1. Many and dissimilar were the groups gathered round the cross. Some were drawn by hatred, some by curiosity, some by the duties of their office, these Marys by love.

2. Their position suggests the topic of spiritual nearness. All true piety begins in the souls coming to the Cross.: Bunyan was right in keeping the burden on the back of the Pilgrim till he had a sight of the Crucified. But when the soul has gained that position, then begins the conflict of opposing forces. On the one side the Cross with its mighty magnetism; on the other the world with all its witcheries. But the importance of nearness to the Cross is seen if we regard it as the place in which to see

I. OURSELVES. No one has seen himself till he has looked at himself in the light of the Cross. In that light sin is seen in its true colours--as God estimates it.

II. THE WORLD. The man of science has his position and outlook, and the statesman his. But only here is the true view. Here we see that it is a world for which Christ died and to every soul of which redemption is offered. It was this outlook that moved the great heart of Paul to heroic sacrifice and endeavour. The world had but one aspect to Him. Christ had died for it. This was the outlook of Judson and other devoted missionaries. Talk of philanthropy--there is none save that which is kindled at the foot of the cross!

III. THE CHARACTER OF GOD. The heavens declare His glory. God has never been without His witnesses if man would listen. But to fallen man another revelation was necessary, and that revelation just suited to mans deepest need was made by the Cross. It is there we learn how God loved a sin-blasted world. (W. Lamson, D. D.)

The disciple standing by whom He loved

The beloved disciple

Though the rest of the disciples forsook Christ and fled, yet John followed Him into the high priests palace, and was an afflicted spectator of His sufferings upon the cross. This may be ascribed in part to the greatness of his courage, and in part to the strength of his affection. John himself is the narrator of this event; and such was his humility that he does not mention his own name. This resembles the conduct of Paul (2Co_12:1-21). In this way do the sacred writers love to conceal themselves when speaking of their own attainments or enjoyments.

I. THE CHARACTER OF JOHN.

1. He is called a disciple.

(1) This implies that he was teachable. As Christ is qualified to give instruction, so His disciples are prepared to receive it. God has opened their ears, that they are capable of spiritual instruction; and their understandings, that they are capable of spiritual discernment. They receive with meekness the ingrafted Word (Psa_25:9).

(2) He was not only apt to learn, but was actually taught, like the noble Bereans, who received the Word with all readiness of mind. If they are asked, Will ye also go away? their answer will be, Lord, to whom should we go? They have learnt the evil nature of sin; of their own weakness; the world, and its insufficiency; the necessity of a Saviour, and the suitableness of Christ; and the grace of God teaches them, that denying ungodliness, &c. Such a disciple was the beloved John.

2. He was the disciple whom Jesus loved. Jesus loved all the disciples, and considered in His supreme character, He loved them all alike; all the members are alike necessary to the body, and as such are equally beloved. But in the peculiar affection which Christ bare to John, we may remark

(1) That this respects His human nature. Christ as a man had all the sinless affections of that nature which He assumed. Now this disciple being possessed of amiable qualities, it is probable, in a more eminent degree than the rest, Jesus loved him as a friend, as well as a disciple.

(2) That it respects love, not as inherent, but as manifested. If Christ made a difference between one disciple and another in His treatment of them, it is no more than what He continues to do. One is kept, as it were, at a distance, while another is laid in the bosom. All are alike justified by His righteousness, but not equally comforted by His Spirit.

(3) The words of our text being those of the beloved disciple, may denote the high sense he had of the favour of our Lord towards him. It seems natural for a gracious person to think that the love of Christ has been more freely and eminently bestowed on him than on any other, as feeling himself more unworthy of it. Thus Paul says, And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, &c., as if it had exceeded every former example of mercy. John had been distinguished, and was amazed that it should be so. The lower opinion he had of himself, the more exalted thoughts he had of Christs goodness towards him.

II. THE SITUATION OF JOHN. He stood by the cross.

1. That he might attentively observe the important transactions of that solemn season upon which so much depended. He might well think that so extraordinary a Person would finish His course in an extraordinary way; and he was not mistaken.

2. That he might show his attachment to Christ, and his faith and confidence in Him. He had been told, that if any one would be Christs disciple, he must hate father and mother, &c.: from these terms in this trying season he did not draw back. As the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, so was his soul knit to his indulgent and now suffering Saviour.

3. That he might perform any friendly office, and afford all the assistance in his power. Though he could not prevent the sufferings of his Lord, yet his standing by the cross would tend a little to mitigate them. When Paul made his appearance before Nero, he complained that no man stood by him 2Ti_4:16). David also seemed to take it hard that Mephibosheth went not with him when he left Jerusalem on account of the rebellion of Absalom. No blame, however, lay upon John in this respect. He did more than the rest; and though he could not drink of his bitter cup, yet he would sympathise with Christ.

4. That he might receive of Him His last instructions, or at least, learn of Him how to die. As there had been such an endearing friendship between them, be might think that the dying Saviour would have something to say to him in particular, and in this he was not disappointed. (B. Beddome, M. A.)

Woman, behold thy son

The sympathy of Christ

Among the friends who were gathered round the cross there is one whose presence does not surprise us--the beloved disciple. But who beside? Not Peter the rock, or Thomas once ready to die with Him. A few trembling women who had ministered to Him in life and would not forsake Him in death. Amongst these was His mother who, thirty-three years before, had pressed Him to her bosom a helpless babe, and who heard about that sword which now pierced her soul. Note here

I. THE SELF-FORGETFULNESS OF CHRISTS LOVE.

1. Try to think of what He was suffering--the anguish and shame of the most lingering and bitter of deaths. But bodily torture was His least agony. The worlds sin in its most awful form was there to trouble His last moments--the bitter taunts, &c. But who shall venture to imagine His thoughts as He hung a sacrifice for sin? Is it not wonderful that men should here pretend to explain and analyse. You might as well hope to fathom the sea or compass it. It is better to bow our heads in faith and confess that the Atonement far exceeds our poor logic, and to gratefully accept it. Surely if sorrow be a sacred thing, that of the Divine Sufferer must be far above our sympathy, as above our comprehension.

2. In that awful hour He was alone, but its loneliness did not render His suffering selfish. All His thoughts were for others. Ere He reached the cross He said, Daughters of Jerusalem, &c.: when nailed to it His first words are, Father, forgive them, and His next those of kingly grace to the robber. And now His words are the tender utterance of human love. Jesus forgot the greatest grief that ever fell on human heart that He might minister to the grief of others.

3. Have we learnt this lesson? It is a hard and costly one. In our sorrows we expect sympathy, but have we ever sought their sweetest, holiest alleviation in ministering to others. Learn at the foot of the cross, that whether in sorrow or joy, no Christian man liveth unto himself.

II. HIS FILIAL TENDERNESS.

1. All through His life He had seemed to stand apart from the ties of relationship. He was never only the Son, the Brother, He was always more.

His first recorded act was submission to His parents, but even then with a consciousness of a higher relationship. But no sooner does He enter on His public ministry than He refuses to recognize the tie, What have I to do with thee? Yea, rather blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it. Behold my mother and my brethren. Such conduct is evidence enough to refute the Roman view, and is studiously so framed as if by anticipation to condemn it. He would have us see, too, that He thought far more of spiritual than natural relationship, and so He bids us to hate father, mother, &c.

2. Yet now, upon the cross, He consecrates anew the love of parents and children, and ratifies with His blood the commandment, Honour thy father, &c. What a depth of tenderness does this reveal! He gave His mother His last solemn blessing, and bequeathed to her His best earthly legacy. She could be no more His mother, but He gave her another son, who of all His disciples was most like Himself. Jesus could thus discharge the debt of human love in the hour of His deepest passion. He did not say It is finished till He had said, Woman, behold thy Son.

3. How is it with us, who so often suffer our work for God to be a pretence for the neglect of home duties? He who gave the first table of the law gave the second. Whatever other duty God has given us, it can never excuse the parent in neglecting the child, or vice versa.

III. THE WISE THOUGHTFULNESS OF OUR SAVIOURS LOVE.

1. He calls her not mother: He never had. He does not acknowledge the parental right, even while He discharges the filial duty. But He does more. He teaches His mother the same lesson as when He said, I will not leave you orphans. He will not leave her childless. He can no more be to her a Son, but she shall have another son. If on earth He refused to call her mother, in heaven the relationship must be at an end for ever. In the selection of John we see wise thoughtfulness. He in a worldly sense could best bear the burden, being in easy circumstances. But it was not only for her earthly wants that Jesus provided. There He might have left her to her natural guardians. But He gave her a heart that could best understand her own. It is not always our relations who understand us best. A friend may be more to you than brother or sister, or father or mother. James, with his common-sense, practical view of religion, would probably be unable to sympathize with the deeper thoughts of her who loved to keep and ponder the mysteries of heaven. For her children after the flesh, she had now a son after the Spirit, St. John, the man of virgin soul, as the early Church loved to call him, for her of virgin mind the best friend. And the friendship was as abiding as it was holy. The friendships of the world are too often hollow, brittle, delusive. Friendships made beneath the Cross of Jesus are the truest and best. Death cannot destroy them.

2. Have we learned this? There is something better and truer than politeness, or even kindness. Politeness is a thing of the day, and changes with the changing customs of society. Kindness may be a matter of mere feeling, is often an evidence of weakness, and only touches the surface of other mens characters. And both may be only forms of selfishness. But wise, thoughtful love can only be learned at the foot of Christs Cross. (Bp. Perrowne.)

The bequest of Jesus

Here we see

1. The fulfilment of the promise: Them that honour Me, I will honour. John honoured Christ most emphatically. Consequently, Jesus applied to him the very name He had, Son, and made him the guardian of the Virgin in His place.

2. The disinterestedness of Christ. Pain and weakness often make people peevish and irritable. Jesus was anxious about others, in spite of agony indescribable. To the very last it was true that He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.

3. In one sense, the words, Behold thy mother, show how intensely human Jesus was. Of whom should a dying son think but of his mother?

4. What shall be said of Mary as she stands at the cross? Surely, if she were as great and as powerful as Popery teaches, Christ would not have committed her to the care of John. He would rather have commended John to her. Stabat Mater--the mother stands by the cross. What an impressive spectacle! She and three other women are there; John is the only man. Four women to one man--quite prophetic of Christianitys future. Behold Marys fortitude! Despite all the horrors, we see her stand, not faint. Mary avowed herself Christs disciple when disciples were few and enemies were many. May we do the same. The text delivers three messages.

I. ATTEND DILIGENTLY TO SECULAR DUTIES. Jesus was expiring as a martyr. But was that all? Nay. He was now offering Himself as a sacrifice for us. Yet, mark! in the midst of all He thinks of His mother, and commends her to the care of His friend. This is very significant. Preaching, singing, &c., are a small part of religion. They are chiefly means to an end--holy conduct in ordinary life. The earth has two motions: she turns onher axis, and she travels round the sun. Can the one be made a substitute for the other? We are to revolve round the Sun of Righteousness, and also on the axis of common, daily duty. Jesus Christ did not say much about theology. He taught that holiness finds itself at home anywhere. Why did He talk about fish, loaves, candles, salt, silver, &c.? To show that, save sin, nothing is common nor unclean. Dr. Arnold said, respecting literature, that what we want is not more books on religion, but more books written in a religious spirit. A distinguished ecclesiastic, whose overwrought brain urgently needed relaxation, was once engaged in a game of chess. His companion suddenly asked, If Christ were to come here now, what would you do? He replied, I would finish the game; I began it to the glory of God. A humble Christian was visited once by his pastor when he was occupied with his ordinary craft at the tan works. Offering an apology to the minister, the latter cut it short by saying, My friend, God grant that I may so be found when the Lord shall come--found doing my duty as you are. The New Testament abounds in exhortations and encouragements to the most commonplace obligations. Husbands love your wives, &c. The world cares little for many of our theological debates. But one thing it never fails to understand and to value, namely, goodness! Let the poor and the suffering find in us ready sympathy and succour; then will men exclaim, No man can do these works that thou dost, except God be with him.

II. TRUST THE APPOINTMENTS OF PROVIDENCE. Why did Jesus say to John, Behold thy mother? It seems strange that He passed over her own sons. Yes, and only seems. First, Marys sons rejected Jesus. Neither did His brethren believe on Him. They were out of sympathy, spiritually, both with Christ and Mary, whereas John was, heart and mind, devoted to Him. Secondly, John was in a better social position than the other apostles, and than the Lords mother. We see, then, that what looks strange was really very wise and kind. All Gods dealings are the same. If He was good at the cross, He must be good here and now. We sorely need this faith. There is much in our experience which is painfully mysterious. Why is might so often allowed to conquer right? Why do the innocent suffer for the guilty, &c.? We fully sympathize with the ancient writer who said: When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me. Is there rest anywhere? There is. At the feet of Jesus. Sit there. He will not remove all our perplexities. Nevertheless, be assured of this: Christ tells enough to console us, to take off the edge of our difficulties, and to render us trustful. He reveals a God so good that, if we take Christ at His word, we may be perfectly satisfied that somehow all shall yet be well. Have faith in God, and thus return unto thy rest, O, my soul.

III. GIVE PROFOUND HEED TO THE COUNSELS OF THE DYING. John did so. The advice of the expiring is almost invariably right and good. Fools men may live, but fools they cannot die. The dying tell us

1. That earthly possessions cannot satisfy us in death. Philip II. of Spain cried, O, would God I had never reigned! O that I had lived alone with God! What doth all my glory profit, but that I have so much the more torment in death? Albert the Good said, I am surrounded with wealth and rank, but if I trusted only to them, I should be a miserable man. Salmasius declared, I have lost a world of time. Oh, sirs! mind the world less and God more. Bunsen exclaimed, My riches and experience is having known Jesus Christ. All the rest is nothing.

2. That Christ, not themselves, is the ground of their hope. Archbishop Whately, a distinguished scholar, thinker, philanthropist, replied to a friend who said to him, You are dying as you lived, great to the last. I am dying, as I lived, in the faith of Jesus. Another remarked, What a blessing that your glorious intellect is unimpaired. Do not call intellect glorious, answered Whately; there is nothing glorious out of Christ. A third observed, The great fortitude of your character now supports you. He said, No, it is not my fortitude that supports me, but my faith in Christ. May such simple but sufficient trust be ours! (T. R. Stevenson.)

The legacy

Notice

I. THE STATION OF MANY. This suggests thought of

1. Her great love. A bird cleaves the storm to reach its nest; a mother walks through levelled lances to clasp her child.

2. Her great anguish. Once she had felt the most exquisite happiness that a mother could know.

3. Her strength. She stood. Here are no violences, no hysterics. Such strength to stand was not from nature. Her nature was timid and retiring. Once, at one word from Jesus that sounded like a check, she vanished for a long time out of the story (Joh_2:4). We see the efficacy of Divine grace. Look around, and you may find many illustrations of this. There is a woman who stands dumb beside her young husbands grave; there is another who stands in tender agony over an empty cradle; there is another who night after night stands listening for the tipsy stumble of a thing that was once a man. Poor heart! she must make what she can of life. It is a real cross, and strength to stand by it must be of the kind that Mary had. Such strength is never given for fancy crosses.

4. Her public profession of faith. It was grand to see Luther take his station in the face of a frowning world; it was grander to see Mary take her station at the cross. It would have been much for man to do; it was more for the shrinking, tremulous delicacy of woman. It is easy to stand by Jesus when others stand.

II. THE SAYING OF JESUS. Note

1. His tender considerateness. Suffering is proverbially selfish. While Jesus is Himself one flame of pain, His first cry is for the crucifiers; His second to sinful humanity; His third of love to His own.

2. Jesus providing for His own, and thus setting us an example. In treating John as if he were of nearer kin to Mary than her natural relatives were, He reminds us of the life which binds together all who axe one in Him. He leaves His people one to another.

3. The Saviours poverty. He made no will but this in relation to what He had in this life, and only the name of John was in it. Looking at the things of this world, the I am, not the I have, is the standard of His valuation. His own choice was the poor mans lot (2Co_8:9). Silver and gold are not named among the things that come to us through the death of Christ. But if we are not down in His will for earthly property, we shall, through His Cross, have the true riches.

4. The sentiments due to the Virgin Mary. Although they are not given in the form of law, they have the force of law. The offer of worship to Mary, on the ground that she is the mother of Jesus, is forbidden by this text.

(1) Attention is called to the text because it is one of the seven memorable sayings on the cross; on account of its publicity, for nothing ever can be so public as the cross; as the last of three recorded sayings spoken to Mary by our Lord in the course of His ministry. Look at this one in the light of the preceding two. In the first (Luk_2:41-50) we trace no regret or excuse; and the plain point of His language being that into the affairs of His Father in heaven, He repudiates her intrusion. In the second (Joh_2:3-4), with an air the most imperative, He gives an indication that in His own high province she, as His mother, has no authority. Here, again, soften the word as you may from seeming hardness, it is remarkable that, in these three instances, He calls her, not Mother, but Woman.

(2) You have heard His final words to her: what were His final words to John? Behold the mother of God? the queen of heaven? the mediatrix? Was John to make a shrine for her? No, but to make a home for her. The grandest honour a woman could have was that of being the medium through whom the Saviour came into the world. Yet I cannot forget that once, when a woman used words to that effect, He said, Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it. Surely it must have put great constraint upon His loving heart to accost her in words so studied, so cautious. I can only account for them on the principle that in His foreknowledge He saw what a handle would be made of even the most ordinary epithet of honour and affection applied by Him to her, and was resolved to leave no datum, no vestige, no shadow of a shadow of excuse for Mariolatry. After all this, millions who wear the Christian name still worship Mary as a goddess. Poor woman! If a sword could pierce the heart of Mary in heaven, it would be this.

III. THE OBEDIENCE OF THE DISCIPLE. What Christ told him to do he did at once. What He tells you to do do it at once. Take your orders from Mary herself; she refers you to Him, and says, Whatsoever He saith to you, do it. He is our Lawgiver. Why wait? (C. Stanford.)

Regard for a parent

A young man who was anxious to devote himself to the work of the ministry among the heathen, and had been recommended to the London Missionary Society, on undergoing the usual examination, stated that he had one difficulty: he had an aged mother entirely dependent upon an elder brother and himself for support; and in case of his brothers death, he should wish to be at liberty to return home, if his mother were still living, to soothe her pathway to the grave. Scarcely had he made this frank statement, when the harsh voice of a cast-iron committee-man exclaimed, If you love your mother more than the Lord Jesus Christ, you will not do for us! Abashed and confounded, the young man was silent. Some murmurs escaped the committee, and he was requested to withdraw for a while, that his proposal might be duly considered. On his being again sent for, Dr. Waugh, the venerable chairman, told him, with unaffected kindness, that the committee did not feel authorized to accept of his services for a period which might be so short and uncertain, but immediately added: We think none the worse of you, my good lad, for your dutiful regard for your aged parent. You are acting in conformity to the example of Him whose gospel you wished to proclaim among the heathen, who, as He hung upon the cross, in dying agonies, beholding His mother and the beloved disciple standing by, said to the one, Woman, behold thy son! and to St. John, Behold thy mother! (J. N.Norton, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 19:25-27. Now — While Jesus, hanging on the cross, suffered all manner of insults and sorrows; there stood by the cross his mother — “Neither her own danger, nor the sadness of the spectacle, nor the reproaches and insults of the people, could restrain her from performing the last office of duty and tenderness to her divine son on the cross. Grotius justly observes, that it was a noble instance of fortitude and zeal. Now a sword (according to Simeon’s prophecy, Luk 2:35) struck through her tender heart, and pierced her very soul; and perhaps the extremity of her sorrows might so overwhelm her spirits, as to render her incapable of attending the sepulchre, which we do not find that she did. Nor do we, indeed, meet with any thing after this in the sacred story concerning her, or in early antiquity: except that she continued among the disciples after our Lord’s ascension, which Luke observes, Act 1:14.”

And his mother’s sister, &c. — See note on Mat 27:55-56. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved — Jesus was now in the depth of his own sufferings, yet when he saw his mother and her companions, their grief greatly affected him, particularly the distress of his mother. Therefore, though he was almost at the point of death, he spake a few words, in which he expressed his most affectionate regard to her. He saith, Woman, behold thy son — Meaning John. His words were intended to assure her that that disciple whom he loved would, for the sake of that love, supply the place of a son to her after he was gone; and therefore he desired her to consider him as such, and expect from him all the duty of a son. And — Besides expressing great filial affection toward his mother, he gave the beloved disciple also a token of his high esteem. He saith to him, Behold thy mother — To whom thou art now to perform the part of a son in my place; thus singling him out as that disciple on whom he could most depend to fulfil that duty, and thereby conferring upon him a peculiar honour. And from that hour — That is, from the time of our Lord’s death; that disciple took her unto his own home — And maintained her; Joseph, her husband, it seems, being dead. Thus, in the midst of the heaviest sufferings that ever human nature sustained, Jesus demonstrated a divine strength of benevolence. Even when his own distress was at the highest pitch, his friends had such a share of his concern, that their happiness for a while interrupted the feelings of his pains, and engrossed his thoughts.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jesus commits his mother to the care of John, Joh_19:25-27.

25. Stood by the cross—The same feeling of safety which induced John to enter the high priest’s palace, seems to have emboldened him at the head of his female company to make the nearest approach to the cross. No danger was to be apprehended from the Roman authorities, who so reluctantly surrendered even Jesus to death. The only harm could arise from the malice of the multitude. It was probably just as the shades of the supernatural darkness were dense enough to obscure their approaching figures, that they came within listening distance of the dying Saviour. Abruptly, and avoiding (perhaps for her safety) addressing her as mother, Jesus utters his last words to her.

His mother’s sister—We suppose this clause to be in opposition with the clause following, and that his mother’s sister was Mary, wife of Cleopas; so that there are but three women here mentioned.

Cleopas—Rather Clopas. See note on Luk_24:18.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CARE OF JESUS FOR HIS MOTHER

Joh 19:25-27. “His mother and the sister of His mother, Mary the mother of Clopas do not identify the sister of our Savior’s mother with Mary the mother of Clopas, as in that case there would be two sisters in one family by the name of Mary, and Mary Magdalen are standing by. Then Jesus, seeing His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then He says to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.” Though Mary had four sons besides Jesus — Simon, Judas, James, and Joses, who are believed by Roman Catholics to be the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, but all the facts in the case decidedly favoring the conclusion that they were her own sons, younger than Jesus — and we also read about the sisters of Jesus in Nazareth, who were evidently her daughters, yet we see Jesus commits her to the Apostle John for safekeeping, confirmatory of the fact that the consanguinity of the Spirit is stronger and dearer than that of the flesh. Doubtless John was the most loving man in the world at that time, this being the reason why Jesus honored him with the custodianship of His mother. You see how John at that very hour took charge of her, under the expiring eye of her Divine Son. You see here that Jesus does not salute her by the endearing epithet “mother;” illustrating the consolatory fact that He is not a member of any isolated family to the exclusion of the rest of mankind; but, as He uniformly called Himself, “The Son of man” — i. e., the Son of humanity — representing the whole human race, everybody’s Brother in the common consanguinity of a universal blood brotherhood.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

19:25-26 This is the only reference to Jesus’ mother’s sister in the New Testament. She might have been the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (cp. Matt 27:56), which would make Jesus and John cousins. If so, it would help explain why Jesus assigned the disciple he loved (John) to care for Mary (John’s aunt). • Mary (the wife of Clopas) is only mentioned here. She might be the same person as Mary the mother of James and Joseph (cp. Matt 27:56). • Jesus had healed Mary Magdalene, a woman from the village of Magdala (Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2). • Dear woman was a formal and polite form of address (see John 2:4).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 19:25. Εἱστήκεισαν, there were standing) John from modesty does not mention his own mother Salome, who also stood by [Mar 15:40].—ἡ ἀδελφὴ, the sister) No brother of Mary is mentioned. She herself was heir of her father, and was therefore transmitting to Jesus the right to the kingdom of David.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_19:25-27. Another narrative, selected by John, and peculiar to him, as elevated and striking in its contents as it is simple and tender in form, and all the more unjustly relegated to the inventions made (Strauss, Baur, Schenkel) in the interest of John, although in the Synoptics (Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40) the women mentioned stand afar off, which standing afar off is to be placed after the present scene, not before, as Lücke and Olshausen, in opposition to the synoptical account, are of opinion.

ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ … Μαγδαληνή] Are only three women here named (usual opinion), so that Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ is in apposition to ἡ ἀδελφὴ, κ.τ.λ.; or are there four (Wieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 648 ff., Lücke, Lange, Ewald, Laurent, Neut. Stud. p. 170 f.), so that Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ is to be taken by itself, and the women are brought forward in two pairs? The Syr. already interpreted in the latter mode, and hence inserted a καί before Μαρία (as also Aeth. and Pers.); so also have Lachm. (ed. min., not in the large edition) and Tisch. interpunctuated (without a comma after Κλωπᾶ). As it is highly improbable of itself, and established by no instance, that two sisters bore the same name,as, further, it is in keeping with the peculiarity of John not to mention his own name, if he also does not mention his mother,[245] or even his brother James, by name (see on Joh_1:42), and as, according to Mat_27:56, Mar_15:40, Salome was also amongst the above-named women, Wieselers view, which is not throughout opposed by any well-founded doubts,[246] is to be deemed not a mere learned refinement (Hengstenberg), but correct, so that thus the unnamed ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ is Salome, the mother of John.

ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ] The wife of Klopas, according to Mat_27:56, Mar_15:40, Luk_24:10, mother of the younger James, hence Klopas is to be taken as Alphaeus, הלפי, Mat_10:3. According to Ewald, on the other hand, the mother of Kleopas, Luk_24:18, and according to Beza: the wife of this Kleopas.

Μαγδαλ.] See on Mat_27:56.

That Jesus enjoins on John to care for Mary, although the latter had several sons of her own, is not sufficiently explained by the unbelief of the brothers (Joh_7:5), for His speedy triumph over this (Act_1:14) could not be hidden from Him (Joh_2:24-25); but it presupposes the certainty in His mind that generally to no others hand could this dear legacy[247] be so well entrusted. That Mary had no other sons (see in opposition to this Joh_7:3, and on Mat_1:25) is, indeed, still inferred by Hengstenberg. For ΓΎΝΑΙ, comp. on Joh_2:4.

The words to the disciple, behold thy mother, meet no stumbling-block in the fact that he had his own actual mother, nay, that she herself was also present (see on Joh_19:25), but leave his relation to the latter untouched, and form with the ἴδε ὁ υἱός σου a parallelism, which expresses the filial care and protection which Mary, on the one hand, was to expect from John; which John, on the other hand, was to exercise towards Mary.

καὶ ἀπʼ ἐκείνης τῆς ὥρας, κ.τ.λ.] Not to be regarded as a parenthesis; to be taken with strict literality, that John forthwith, after Jesus had accomplished His end upon the cross, entered on his charge. Whether and where he possessed a property of his own is matter of conjecture. If he received Mary into his dwelling, into his family circle, formed by Salome, and perhaps by his brother, then εἰς τὰ ἴδια (comp. Joh_16:32) was a correct expression. Ewald well remarks on such traits of individual significance in the Gospel of John: it was for him at a late period of life a sweet reward to call up reminiscences of all that was most vivid, but for the readers it is also, without his will, a token that only he could have written all this. If, indeed, the designation of the disciple beloved by Jesus as a self-designation were a vanity (Scholten), nay, an arrogant and scornful self-exaltation (Weisse), then it could not have been he who wrote all this. But the consciousness of pre-eminent love on the part of the Lord, true, clear, and still glowing with all intensity and strength, in the heart of the old man, is inconceivable without the deepest humility, and this humility, which has long since ceased to have anything in common with the feeling evinced in Mar_10:35 ff., Luk_9:54, has precisely in that most simple of all expressions, ὃν ἠγάπα, its most correspondent expression and its necessary and sacred justification, which is as little to be passed over in silence, or to be denied, as is the consciousness of Paul, 1Co_15:10.

[245] He does, indeed, name in Joh_21:2 his father. But the latter appears so without participation in the evangelical history, that he might appear to Johns mind in his Christian relation, especially in the late period of the composition of the appendix, chap. 21, more foreign and remote, and that consequently a hesitation might not exist in reference to naming him, as there did in the case of the mother, founded on a delicate and more spiritual consideration.Scholten changes the mother into an allegorical person, in whom the Church is represented, to care for which was to be incumbent on John, not on Peter. So substantially also Späth in Hilgenfeld, ZeitsChr. 1868, p. 187.

[246] Insufficient objections in Luthardt, Brückner, Baeumlein, Weizsäcker, and others. According to Euth. Zigabenus, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, and several others, ἀδελφή would signify sister-in-law.

[247] This noblest blossom of dying piety is violently removed into a sphere foreign to it, if it is transported into dogmatic ground, as Steinmeyer, p. 200, does. According to him, the death of the Atoner for all men, as such, has completely cut asunder the tie that hitherto existed; by this death Jesus departed out of every naturally-conditioned individual fellowship, and like Melchizedek must also appear as ἀμήτωφ. Of such a meaning, John gives not the slightest indication.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 19:25 . This part of the scene is closed (that another may be introduced) with the common formula, οἱ μὲν οὖν στρατιῶται ταῦτα ἐποίησαν . (“Graeci … saepissime hujusmodi conclusiunculis utuntur.” Raphel in loc. ) οἱ μὲν … εἱστήκεισαν δὲ … The soldiers for their part acted as has been related, but there were others beside the cross who were very differently affected. ἡ μήτηρ … Μαγδαληνή . It is doubtful whether it is meant that three or that four women were standing by the cross; for Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ may either be a further designation of ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ , or it may name the first member of a second pair of women. That four women are intended may be argued from the extreme improbability that in one family two sisters should bear the same name, Mary. The Synoptists do not name the mother of Jesus among those who were present, but Matthew (Mat 27:56 ) and Mark (Mar 15:40 ) name Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome the mother of John. Two of these three are mentioned by John here, and it is natural to infer that the unnamed woman ( ἡ ἀδελφὴ κ . τ . λ .) is the third, Salome; unnamed possibly because of this writer’s shyness in naming himself or those connected with him. But the fact that Luke (Luk 24:10 ) names Joanna as the third woman reflects some uncertainty on this argument. If Salome was Mary’s sister, then Jesus and John were cousins, and the commendation of Mary to John’s care is in part explained. ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ may mean the mother, daughter, sister, or wife of Klopas; probably the last. According to Mat 27:56 , Mar 15:40 , Luk 24:10 , the Mary here mentioned was the mother of James and Joses. But in Mat 10:3 we learn that James was the son of Alphaeus. Hence it is inferred that Klopas and Alphaeus are two slightly varying forms of the same name תַלְפַי .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

25. εἱστήκεισαν δὲ παρὰ τῷ σταυρῷ κτλ. From the Synoptic parallels (Mar 15:40, Mat 27:56; cf. Luk 24:10) we gather that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and Salome the wife of Zebedee and mother of the apostles James and John, were present at the Cross. Jn. enumerates Mary the mother of Jesus (whose presence the Synoptists do not mention), her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene, i.e. four persons and not three as one reading of the text might suggest. Not only does the Peshitta make this clear by putting “and” before “Mary the wife of Clopas”; but the balance of the sentence, if four persons are indicated, is thoroughly Johannine. If we compare this with the Synoptic parallels we reach two important conclusions: (1) Salome was the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, and therefore John the son of Zebedee and Salome was a maternal cousin of Jesus. (2) Mary the wife of Clopas is the same person as Mary the mother of James and Joseph (cf. Mat 27:56, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47, Mar 15:16:1, Luk 24:10). It would be impossible to equate the Synoptic “Mary, the mother of James and Joseph” with the Lord’s mother, for no one can suppose that the Synoptists, when telling the names of the women at the Cross, would have described the mother of Jesus in so circuitous a manner. This James is called by Mk. ὁ Ἰακώβος ὁ μικρός or “James the Little,” the adjective not relating to his dignity, but to his stature. Of him we know nothing more.

Attempts have been made to identify Clopas with Alphæus, who was father of one of the Twelve (James the son of Alphæus, Mar 3:18, Mat 10:3, Luk 6:15, Act 1:13); but philological considerations will not permit us to reduce Clopas and Alphœus to the same Hebrew original.1 The N.T. tells us no more of Clopas (Cleopas of Luk 24:18 is a different name); but Hegesippus2 (fl. circa 150 a.d.), states that he was the brother of Joseph, the Lord’s foster-father, and so “the Lord’s uncle.” Hegesippus also says that he had a son, Symeon or Simon, who became second bishop of Jerusalem, “being a cousin of the Lord,” succeeding James the Just, “the Lord’s brother,” who was the first bishop. See, further, Additional Note on 2:12.

The MSS. vary as to the spelling of Mary Magdalene’s name (Μαριάμ or Μαρία), but Mary of Clopas seems to be always Μαρία. As we have seen (on 11:2, 20), B 33 always describe Mary of Bethany as Μαριάμ, while א always has Μαρία. But when Mary Magdalene (whom we take to be the same person) is mentioned the usage is different. In 19:25, 20:1, 11 B gives Μαρία, and א 33 give Μαριάμ. At 20:16, 18 אB 33 agree in reading Μαριάμ. Probably the Hebrew form Μαριάμ should be adopted throughout (this is the spelling in Pseudo-Peter).3

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Christ is a perfect example of all righteousness, not only in the keeping of the first, but also of the second table.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary, wife of Cleophas--This should be read, as in the Margin, "Clopas," the same as "Alpheus" (Mat 10:3). The "Cleopas" of Luk 24:18 was a different person.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 25. Mary the wife of Cleophas] She is said, in Mt 27:56, (see the note there,) and Mr 15:40, to have been the mother of James the Less, and of Joses; and this James her son is said, in Mt 10:3, to have been the son of Alpheus; hence it seems that Alpheus and Cleopas were the same person. To which may be added, that Hegesippus is quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. l. iii. c. 11, as saying that Cleopas was the brother of Joseph, the husband of the virgin. Theophylact says that Cleopas, (brother of Joseph, the husband of the virgin,) having died childless, his brother Joseph married his widow, by whom he had four sons, called by the evangelists the brothers of our Lord, and two daughters, the one named Salome, the other Mary, the daughter of Cleopas, because she was his daughter according to law, though she was the daughter of Joseph according to nature. There are several conjectures equally well founded with this last to be met with in the ancient commentators; but, in many cases, it is very difficult to distinguish the different Marys mentioned by the evangelists.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus. The Evangelist here mentions incidentally, that while Christ obeyed God the Father, he did not fail to perform the duty which he owed, as a son, towards his mother. True, he forgot himself, and he forgot every thing, so far as was necessary for the discharge of obedience to his Father, but, after having performed that duty, he did not neglect what he owed to his mother. Hence we learn in what manner we ought to discharge our duty towards God and towards men. It often happens that, when God calls us to the performance of any thing, our parents, or wife, or children, draw us in a contrary direction, so that we cannot give equal satisfaction to all. If we place men in the same rank with God, we judge amiss. We must, therefore, give the preference to the command, the worship, and the service of God; after which, as far as we are able, we must give to men what is their due.

And yet the commands of the first and second table of the Law never jar with each other, though at first sight they appear to do so; but we must begin with the worship of God, and afterwards assign to men an inferior place. Such is the import of the following statements:

He who loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me, (Matthew 10:41;)

and,

If any one hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, he cannot be my disciple, (Luke 14:26.)

We ought, therefore, to devote ourselves to the interests of men, so as not in any degree to interfere with the worship and obedience which we owe to God. When we have obeyed God, it will then be the proper time to think about parents, and wife, and children; as Christ attends to his mother, but it is after that he is on the cross, to which he has been called by his Father’s decree.

Yet, if we attend to the time and place when these things happened, Christ’s affection for his mother was worthy of admiration. I say nothing about the severe tortures of his body; I say nothing about the reproaches which he suffered; but, though horrible blasphemies against God filled his mind with inconceivable grief, and though he sustained a dreadful contest with eternal death and with the devil, still, none of these things prevent him from being anxious about his mother. We may also learn from this passage, what is the honor which God, by the Law, commands us to render to parents, (Exodus 20:12.) Christ appoints the disciple to be his substitute, and charges him to support and take care of his mother; and hence it follows, that the honor which is due to parents consists, not in cold ceremony, but in the discharge of all necessary duties.

On the other hand, we ought to consider the faith of those holy women It is true that, in following Christ to the cross, they displayed more than ordinary affection; but, if they had not been supported by faith they could never have been present at this exhibition. As to John himself, we infer that, though his faith was choked for a short time, it was not wholly extinguished. How shameful will it be, if the dread of the cross deters us from following Christ, when the glory of his resurrection is placed before our eyes, whereas the women beheld in it nothing but disgrace and cursing!

Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. He calls her either the wife or the daughter of Cleophas; but I prefer the latter interpretation. He says, that she was the sister of the mother of Jesus, and, in saying so, he adopts the phraseology of the Hebrew language, which includes cousins, and other relatives, under the term brothers. We see that it was not in vain that Mary Magdalene was delivered from seven devils, (Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2;) since she showed hersclf, to the last, to be so faithful a disciple to Christ.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

25. Now there stood] Or, But there were standing. By two small particles (men in Joh_19:23 and de here), scarcely translatable in English, S. John indicates the contrast between the two groups. On the one hand, the four plundering soldiers with the centurion; on the other, the four ministering women with the beloved disciple.

his mother’s sister, Mary] The Greek, like the English, leaves us in doubt whether we here have two women or one, whether altogether there are four women or three. The former is much the more probable alternative. (1) It avoids the very improbable supposition of two sisters having the same name. (2) S. John is fond of parallel expressions; ‘His mother and His mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene’ are two pairs set one against the other. (3) S. Mark (Mar_15:40) mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less, and Salome. Mary Magdalene is common to both narratives, ‘Mary the mother of James the Less’ is the same as ‘Mary of Clopas:’ the natural inference is that Salome is the same as ‘His mother’s sister.’ If this is correct, (4) S. John’s silence about the name of ‘His mother’s sister’ is explained: she was his own mother, and he is habitually reserved about all closely connected with himself. We have seen already that he never mentions either his own name, or his brother’s, or the Virgin’s. (5) The very ancient Peshito or Syriac Version adopts this view by inserting ‘and’ before ‘Mary the (wife) of Clopas.’

the wife of Cleophas] Rather, the wife of Clopas. The Greek is simply ‘the of Clopas,’ and ‘the daughter of Clopas’ may be right, or ‘the mother,’ or even ‘the sister:’ but ‘wife’ is more probably to be supplied. There is no reason for identifying Clopas here with Cleopas in Luk_24:18 : Clopas is Aramaic, Cleopas is Greek. The spelling Cleophas is a mistake derived from Latin MSS. All Greek authorities have Cleopas. If ‘wife’ is rightly inserted, and she is the mother of James the Less, Clopas is the same as Alphaeus (Mat_10:3; comp. Mat_27:56). It is said that Clopas and Alphaeus may be different forms of the same Aramaic name.

Mary Magdalene] Introduced, like the Twelve (Joh_6:67) and Pilate (Joh_18:29) abruptly and without explanation, as being quite familiar to the readers of the Gospel. See on Mat_27:56 and Luk_8:2.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus,.... So near as not only to see him, but to hear him speak:

his mother; the mother of Jesus, Mary; which showed her affection to Christ, and her constancy in abiding by him to the last; though it must be a cutting sight, and now was fulfilled Simeon's prophecy, Luk 2:35 to see her son in such agonies and sorrow, and jeered and insulted by the worst of men; and though she herself was exposed to danger, and liable to be abused by the outrageous multitude; and it also showed that she stood in need, as others, of a crucified Saviour; so far was she from being a co-partner with him in making satisfaction for sin, as the Papists wickedly say:

and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas. The Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions distinguish Mary the wife of Cleophas from his mother's sister, by placing the copulative and between them, and so make two persons; whereas one and the same is intended, and who was the sister of Mary, the mother of Christ; not her own sister, for it is not likely that two sisters should be of the same name; but her husband Joseph's sister, and so her's; or else Cleophas was Joseph's brother, as Eusebius from Hegesippus says (k): and who was also not the daughter of Cleophas, as the Arabic version has here supplied it; much less the mother of him; but his wife, as is rightly put in our translation: for, according to the other evangelists, she was the mother of James and Joses, and who were the sons of Cleophas or Alphaeus; which are not the names of two persons, nor two names of one and the same person, but one and the same name differently pronounced; his true name in Hebrew was or or "Chelphi", or "Chelphai", or "Chilphi", a name frequently to be met with in Talmudic and Rabbinic writings; and so a Jewish writer (l) observes, that , "Chilpha is the same as Ilpha"; and in Greek may be pronounced either Cleophas, or Alphaeus, as it is both ways: ignorance of this has led interpreters to form different conjectures, as that either the husband of this Mary had two names; or that she was twice married to two different persons, once to Alphaeus, and after his death to Cleophas; or that Cleophas was her father, and Alphaeus her husband; for neither of which is there any foundation. She was no doubt a believer in Christ, and came and stood by his cross; not merely to keep her sister company, but out of affection to Jesus, and to testify her faith in him:

and Mary Magdalene; out of whom he had cast seven devils, and who had been a true penitent, a real believer in him, an hearty lover of him, was zealously attached to him, and followed him to the last. Three Marys are here mentioned as together; and it is observable, that the greater part of those that are taken notice of, as following Christ to the cross, and standing by it, were women, the weaker, and timorous sex, when all his disciples forsook him and fled; and none of them attended at the cross, as we read of, excepting John; no, not even Peter, who boasted so much of his attachment to him. These good women standing by the cross of Christ, may teach us to do, as they did, look upon a crucified Christ, view his sorrows, and his sufferings, and our sins laid upon him, and borne and taken away by him; we should look unto him for pardon, cleansing, and justification, and, in short, for the whole of salvation: we should also weep, as they did, whilst we look on him; shed even tears of affection for, and sympathy with him; of humiliation for sin, and of joy for a Saviour: and likewise should abide by him as they did, by his persons, offices, and grace; by the doctrine of the cross, continuing steadfastly in it; and by the ordinances of Christ, constantly attending on them, and that notwithstanding all reproaches and sufferings we may undergo.

(k) Emseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 11. (l) Juchasin, fol. 92. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Ver. 25. Now there stood by the cross, &c.] The men were fled, the women stood to it. Souls have no sexes. Manoah’s wife was the more manly of the two. Priscilla is sometimes set before Aquila. When St Paul came first to Philippi, he had none that would hear him, but a few women, Act 18:18; Rom 16:3; 2Ti 4:19; Act 16:13.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

These words the wife are not in the Greek, but supplied by our translators; which leaves it doubtful whether that Mary was the wife, or the mother, or the daughter of Cleophas.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 25-30. (5) The words on the cross.

Vers. 25, 26. (a) Filial love thy son!

But there were standing by the cross of Jesus. Matthew (Mat_28:5 Mar_15:40, 41) that many women stood afar off beholding these things, and amongst them Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (the less, i.e. the son of Alphaeus) and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee"s children, expressly identified here as elsewhere with Salerno, "women who followed him from Galilee", (Luk_23:55) and ministered unto him. The para of this verse implies that, in the courage of their love and tenderness, they had drawn nearer to the cross, led on as it would seem by his mother herself, whom John with fuller knowledge mentions as the most important member of one group. John adds, and the sister of his mother, then (it must be admitted without any conjunctive kai) he adds, Mary the (wife) of Clopas, and Mary Magdalen. Klwpav is by almost all admitted to be identifiable with yplj, Alphaeus, Mat_10:3. Consequently, "the Mary (of Clopos)" is none other than the mother of James the less-known disciple, as well as of others. And this second Mary is identically the same as the Mary spoken of in Matthew and Mark by slightly different phraseology. The question arises Does John here speak, then, of four women? or does he say that this Mary was the sister of the Virgin Mary? If "Mary the wife of Clopas" be the sister of the Virgin, then James the less, Joses, and others are cousins of our Lord. This hypothesis has been used by those who identify these men with the "brethren of the Lord;" but it is rendered improbable by the fact referred to twice over in the synoptists and John, that his "brethren did not believe in him," and the growing certainty that "James the brother of our Lord" was not "James the less." Moreover, it is improbable that two sisters should have the same name. The other supposition is that the third woman mentioned by the synoptists (namely, Salome, the mother of Zebedee"s sons) was the sister of the mother of Jesus. Against this is the nonappearance of the kai between the second and third names. This absence may be simply due to the fact that John mentions "two and two," singling them out from "the many women," according to his wont. Against it, Godet and others have urged that we have no other hint of the relationship; but of many similar facts throughout the Gospel we have only the slenderest indications take, for instance, the identification of Judas (not Iscariot) with Lebbaeus and Thaddseus; Nathanael with Bartholomew and there is much which makes the identification natural. It is after the manner of John to omit the name of Salerno, as he always does his own throughout the Gospel and Epistles. But the entire narrative from beginning to end is illumined by the fact that John was the near relative of Jesus. The on hgapa flashes into light and justification at once. Very much, both in the synoptic and Johannine narratives, receives a deeper meaning. The early friendship, the private ministry of our Lord, with John as his principal companion, the request of Salome, and the exquisite incident which now follows, all receive a richer meaning when it becomes clear that Salome was so nearly related to Jesus. In this conclusion Wieseler, Luthardt, Lange, Westcott, Sears, Moulton, Schaff, and others coincide, though Meyer and Hengstenberg take the other view. Hengstenberg thinks the tradition of three Marys is enough to counterbalance what he calls a learned device! Assuming, then, that John was so dear a friend, so near a relative, we understand better what follows.

Vers. 25-27. The mother of Jesus at the cross.

Here is the record of the filial legacy.

I THE SYMPATHIZING GROUP OF WOMEN. "Now there were standing beside the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother"s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

1. The was a company of Galilaean women standing at a distance from the cross, "beholding afar off". (Mat_27:55) They were more courageous than Christ"s apostles, who had all, but John, fled through fear of arrest.

2. There was an inner circle of three women more courageous than the rest, who stood under the very shadow of the cross.

II THE LAST BEQUEST OF JESUS. "When Jesus therefore saw his mother and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he said to his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

1. Mary was now experiencing the bitter truth of Simeon"s prophecy, "A sword shall pierce through thine own heart." It was a terrible ordeal for a mother to watch the protracted sufferings of her beloved Son.

2. Jesus is not so absorbed by his agonies as to forget his mother.

3. He calls her "woman," not "mother, as if the old relation was now to end, and a new one to be formed for her future comfort. Death was to close all the earthly relationships of the Redeemer.

4. While he gives a son to his mother, he gives a mother to his beloved disciple. "Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother!

(1) It was a mark of loving confidence in John.

(2) John was to comfort Mary in her widowhood, for Joseph was evidently now dead.

(3) The charge was promptly accepted, and faithfully carried out. "And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home." Nothing is known of the after-life of Mary. Tradition says she died eleven years after the Lord at Jerusalem, in the fifty-ninth year of her age.

Clinging to the cross.

Earth, hell, and heaven were represented at the cross of Jesus. These representatives naturally formed themselves into groups. Notice

I THIS INTERESTING GROUP AT THE CROSS. Who composed it?

1. The mother of Jesus. She is mentioned first. She stands prominent among the rest, as well she may. Of all mothers, she is the most popular and interesting. She stands alone in the maternal roll of the world. Never a mother had such a Son, and never a son had such a mother. She has been made too much of on the one hand, and too little on the other. From her the Son of God inherited his humanity and his human breeding. Humanly speaking, he owed much to his mother for his fine human nature and sympathies. That Mary was his mother was not an accident. Never a mother had such joy nor such sorrow; and she was now overwhelmed with the latter. She was there: and what could keep her away?

2. Her sister. Who was she? not the wife of Cleophas. She was also a Mary; and two sisters of the same name was not a likely thing. She was doubtless Salome, the wife of Zebedee, and the mother of James and John. John was Christ"s first cousin, which accounts for the likeness, the attachment, and the trust. Her name is not mentioned, which is characteristic of John"s modesty. He would not mention his own name, neither that of his mother.

3. Mary the wife of Cleophas. The mother of James the Less, Joses, and Judas. Whether this Cleophas was the same as that who met Jesus on the way to Emmaus, it is difficult to decide. He was, doubtless, a good man and a disciple of Jesus; but is brought into prominence in the sacred history in connection with his more heroic wife, who outstripped him in the race, left him on the outskirts of the crowd, and pressed on with her comrades to the cross of the Lord.

4. Mary Magdalene. A well-known character of this period. Jesus healed her of many infirmities, at least from her seven unclean spirits, and ever afterwards she was specially attached to her great Benefactor, and was one of the many good women who followed Jesus from Galilee, and administered to him of their substance, according to the custom of the Jews; and she was now among that little group of sympathetic souls who attended his last moments.

II THEIR POSITION. "By the cross of Jesus." In this position they manifested:

1. Great fortitude. To realize this:

(1) Think of the sufferings they had to witness, and the spectacle they had to see. They had to witness the agonizing death, the shame, and the untold indignities of their best Friend. Many a stout heart has failed at the deathbed of a loved one; but they stood at the death-cross of their Lord.

(2) Think of the public scorn and ridicule to which they were exposed. They were, doubtless, known to many of the Savior"s foes as his adherents, and it was not at all fashionable for women to appear at such a scene; but what cared they for social propriety or public scorn? Their courage towered far above this in the performance of a sacred duty.

(3) Think of their personal danger. As the friends of the crucified One, in the very teeth of his cruel foes, their lives were in jeopardy; but they counted not these dear unto them, but stood there face to face with death.

2. Strong affection. This accounts for their courage. Their heroism was that of love, and their courage that of affection. Their affection may be looked at as:

(1) Maternal affection. What love so faithful and heroic as that of a mother? And it was never stronger than in her heart who was the mother of our Lord; and it drew her now near to his cross.

(2) Social affection.

(3) Pious affection. It was more than the ordinary affection of human kindred and friendship. It was love arising from pious attachment, from Christian hope, and faith in him as the Messiah and Savior. Mary Magdalene was still on fire with gratitude and faith, which blazed all the more near the cross.

3. Strong and genuine sympathy. They were ready to render him any help, and would, if possible, have taken some of his agonies upon themselves. They were helpless, but did what they could and went as far as possible.

4. Great self-control. We have read of mothers becoming frantic and losing their lives to save loved ones; but here there was a wonderful calm maintained, which makes the mother"s love more heroic, and her heroism more sublime. There were emotions deep and stirring in their breasts, with but little or no demonstration; but there was wonderful self-control manifested, as if their souls had caught the calm spirit of the crucified One.

III THEIR CONDUCT AS AN EXAMPLE FOR THE IMITATION OF ALL.

1. They stood by him in his hour of greatest trial and sufferings. It was one thing to stand by him in his hour of joy and triumph, in the day of his power and the exploits of his loving strength, when the heaven opened and streamed upon him its glory; when Divinity encircled his brow, and made his word omnipotent and his very gaze or touch almighty; when at his bidding diseases fled, and demons quitted their dark haunts; when the storm was hushed, and the waves crouched at his voice; when food increased under his hands, and even Death gave up his prey when he spoke. But it was another thing to stand by him on a cross, when hell besieged him with its torments, heaven seemed closed to his breathings, and Divinity itself seemed to have deserted him.

2. They stood by him when others had left him. It is one thing to stand by Jesus, one of many; but it is another to stand by him, one of four. It is one thing to follow him with faithful disciples and a jubilant crowd; but it is another to stand alone by his cross. Where were zealous and good-hearted Peter, James, Andrew, and Philip, and others? They had all left, with the exception of the disciple of love and these loving women. Others may be among the crowd, or on the outskirts, beholding from afar; but they stood by his cross when all had left him. As others leave Christ, let us stand by him and draw to him all the closer.

3. They did all they could. They were helpless, and could render no assistance. They could make no progress; still they stood their ground, and manifested their undying and unconquerable attachment. They clung to Jesus for his own sake apart from circumstances. Like them, let us do what we can, and advance as far as possible, and, when we cannot go any further, let us stand; and, indeed, in the hour of direst temptation the utmost we can do is to stand our ground.

LESSONS.

1. Jesus has not been at any time wholly deserted.

2. It is worthy of notice that the faithful ones at the cross were women. Surely "he giveth power to the faint." In the weaker vessels was the greatest strength.

3. Those who stood by the cross of Jesus unconsciously stood near a rich treasury. The outward scene was that of shame, poverty, and untold agony and misery; but the inward was that of untold peace, joy, riches, and glory. There was the atonement made, the fountain opened, and the work of redemption finished. They stumbled on a rich fortune. This did not occur to them then, but flashed upon them afterwards. The cross did more good to them than they to him who hung upon it.

4. Those who stand by Jesus in his hour of trial, he will stand by. We all have our crosses, affliction, and death in our turn. Let us stand by the cross of Jesus, and he will stand by ours, and will not leave us in the hour of our greatest trial. B.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

His mother's sister - But we do not read she had any brother. She was her father's heir, and as such transmitted the right of the kingdom of David to Jesus: Mary, the wife of Cleopas - Called likewise Alpheus, the father, as Mary was the mother of James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Christ’s care for His mother:

v. 25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

v. 26. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by whom He loved, He saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy son!

v. 27. Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

A beautiful evidence of the Savior’s filial love and care! In the midst of the excruciating agonies of the body and the still more horrible tortures of the soul He yet finds time to think of His mother and the duties He owed her in return for her mother’s devotion. During the act of crucifixion itself the friends of Jesus naturally stood at some distance, as Matthew and Mark relate. But when matters had quieted down somewhat, these friends, principally women that were proving themselves stauncher and stronger than the apostles in this emergency, approached as near as possible to the cross. Mary, the mother of Jesus, stood there, and her sister, or rather sister-in-law, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, the mother of James, and Mary Magdalene, all of whom were united with the Lord in faith and tender love. See Mat 27:56; Mar 15:40. The punctuation of the text may also be set to mention four women: the mother of Jesus, her sister Salome, Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. And of all the apostles there was only one present, the disciple whom Jesus loved, the writer of this account, John himself. Now Jesus, seeing them standing together in their sympathetic sorrow, turned first to His mother, bidding her look upon John as her son, who would take the place of Him that was about to be removed from His position of dutiful son. And in a similar manner He bade John look upon Mary as his mother, to show her all the kindness and care which a son owes to his mother in her old age. And John accepted the charge. Mary was received into his home with all the love which might have made her declining days cheerful, had Jesus remained in the flesh, personally to fulfill the obligations resting upon Him according to the Fourth Commandment which He here kept. John probably had a house in Jerusalem, as tradition has it, and could provide for Mary’s care and comfort in a proper manner, treating her altogether as an honored member of the household. Note: The provision of Jesus for His aged mother is an example of the proper fulfillment of the Fourth Commandment. This active obedience of Christ serves for our salvation; He has kept the Law in our stead. It may have seemed a trivial matter at a time when the redemption of millions was at stake, but it characterizes the Savior’s love. This Jesus, that died on the cross for us, to save our souls from damnation, will care also for our bodies, will make proper provision for their protection and keeping. Mark also: The small band of disciples under the cross of Jesus is a picture of the Christian Church. The believers properly belong under the cross of Christ. The world about them has nothing but mockery and blasphemy for the cross and the Crucified, but the faithful place their trust in life and death in the Man of Sorrows.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

These words contain our Saviour’s affectionate recommendation of his distressed mother to the care of a dear disciple. It was an argument of Christ’s wonderful love to her, that when he was nailed to the cross, and ready to die, he was more concerned for his mother’s sorrows than for his own sufferings.

Now was Simeon’s prophecy fulfilled, A sword shall pass through thine own soul also. Luk 2:35 Her soul was pierced for him, both as his natural mother, and also as a mystical member of him her head; therefore Christ applies these comfortable words as a salve to her wounds, even whilst his own were bleeding unto death. Woman, behold thy son.

Where note, he calls her Woman, and not mother; he doth not say, Mother, behold thy Son; but, Woman, behold him. Not that Christ was ashamed of, or unwilling to own her as his mother; but either,

1. Fearing that calling her by that name should augment and increase her grief and trouble.

Or else, 2. To intimate his change of state and condition, that being ready to die and return to his Father in heaven, he was above all earthly relations, and knew no one after the flesh, no, not his very mother; yet, see at the same time, when he was above her, and about to leave her, how his care manifested itself for her, when his soul and body were full of anguish to the very brim; yet all this makes him not in the least unmindful of so dear a relation.

Thence learn, that Christ’s tender care of his mother, even in the time of his greatest distress, is an excellent pattern for all children to imitate and follow to the end of the world.

St. John here obeyed Christ’s command, and imitated his example: he took her to his own home; that is, he treated her with all that dutiful regard which a tender and indulgent mother challenges from a pious and obedient son.

No personal trial or trouble upon ourselves doth exempt us from the performance of our duty towards others, especially towards our near and dear relations; Christ, in the extremity of his sufferings, accounted it his duty to take care of and provide for his dear mother; teaching us by his example that children ought to evidence that they honour their parents, by taking care of them in their decayed and desolate condition.

Again, inasmuch as St. John took care of the holy mother after her dear son’s death; that disciple took her to his own home; we learn, that the Lord never removes one comfort, and takes away the means of subsistence from his people, but he raises up another in the room of it.

It is very probable that Joseph her husband was before this time dead, and Jesus her son was now dying; but still God provides; he raises up St. John to take care of her; he takes her to his own home, and looks upon her as one of his family.

But how comes St. John above the rest to have this honourable service put upon him, and this high trust reposed in him?

Answer, the text tells us he was the disciple whom Jesus loved; that is, in a more particular manner, treating him with greater freedom and familiarity than the rest; he also evidenced more love unto, and more courage and resolution for, Christ, than the rest of the disciples, he standing by the cross, when they got afar off, Mar 15:40.

Thence we learn, that such as are beloved of Christ, as do keep close unto him, and express most zeal and resolution for him, shall be peculiarly honoured by him, and be employed in the highest services for him.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

the disciple whom he loved

This is John, the writer of this Gospel.

Woman, see, your son

Here the word "son" is a metaphor. Jesus wants his disciple, John, to be like a son to his mother. AT: "Woman, here is the man who will act like a son to you" (See: Metaphor)

See, your mother

Here the word "mother" is a metaphor. Jesus wants his mother to be like a mother to his disciple, John. AT: "Think of this woman as if she were your own mother" (See: Metaphor)

From that hour

"From that very moment"

translationWords

Mary

Mary Magdalene

cross

disciple

hour, hours

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

25. εἱστηκ. δέ. But there were standing. The δέ answers to the previous μέν, and these two particles mark the contrast between the two groups. On the one hand, the four plundering soldiers with the centurion; on the other, the four ministering women with the beloved disciple. It is not improbable that the women had provided (Mat 27:55; Luk 8:2-3) the very clothing which the soldiers had taken away.

ἡ ἀδ. τ. μ. αὐ., Μ. ἡ. τ. Κ. We are left in doubt whether we here have two women or one, whether altogether there are four women or three. The former is much the more probable alternative. (1) It avoids the very improbable supposition of two sisters having the same name. (2) S. John is fond of parallel expressions; ‘His mother and His mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene’ are two pairs set one against the other. (3) S. Mark (Mar 15:40) mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less, and Salome. Mary Magdalene is common to both narratives, ‘Mary the mother of James the Less’ is the same as ‘Mary of Clopas:’ the natural inference is that Salome is the same as ‘His mother’s sister.’ If this is correct, (4) S. John’s silence about the name of ‘His mother’s sister’ is explained: she was his own mother, and he is habitually reserved about all closely connected with himself. We have seen already that he never mentions either his own name, or his brother’s, or the Virgin’s. (5) The very ancient Peshito or Syriac Version adopts this view by inserting ‘and’ before ‘Mary the (wife) of Clopas.’ Ἡ τοῦ Κλωπᾶ may mean the daughter, mother, or even sister of Clopas; but the wife is more probable: comp. ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου (Mat 1:6); τὴν Σμικυθίωνος (Arist. Eccles. 46); Verania Pisonis (Plin. Ep. II. 20). There is no reason for identifying Clopas here with Cleopas in Luk 24:18: Clopas is Aramaic, Cleopas is Greek. The spelling Cleophas is a mistake derived from Latin MSS. All Greek authorities have Cleopas. If ‘wife’ is rightly inserted, and she is the mother of James the Less, Clopas is the same as Alphaeus (Mat 10:3; comp. Mat 27:56). It is said that Clopas and Alphaeus may be different forms of the same Aramaic name. For Μαρία ἡ Μαγδ. see on Joh 6:67; Mat 27:56; Luk 8:2.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

25.] In Mat 27:55, 56 , we learn that two of these were looking on afar off, after Jesus had expired, with Salome. Considering then that John’s habit of not naming himself, might extend to his mother (he names his father, ch. 21:2), we may well believe that ἡ ἀδελφὴ τ. μητρὸς αὐτοῦ here represents Salome, and that four women are designated by this description. So Wieseler and Meyer, Luthardt opposing them. So also Ewald: and, which is no mean evidence, the Peschito, inserting a καί between αὐτοῦ and Μαρία.

ἡ τοῦ κλωπᾶ, wife of Klopas (Alphæus, see Mat 10:3, and Prolegg. to Ep. of James, § i. 4), the mother of James the Less and Joses: Matt., Mark.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

There stood. Imperfect tense, were standing.

Mary Magdalene. Strictly, the [η] Magdalene. She is introduced abruptly, as well known.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vv. 25-27. “Now there stood near the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26. Jesus, therefore, seeing his mother and beside her the disciple whom he loved, says to his mother, Woman, behold thy son. 27. Then he says to the disciple, Behold thy mother. And from that hour that disciple took her to his home.”

This incident has been preserved for us by John alone. Matthew and Mark say, indeed, that a certain number of Galilean women were present, but “beholding from afar.” It follows from John’s narrative either that some of them, particularly the mother of Jesus, were standing nearer the cross—this detail may easily have been omitted in the Synoptic tradition—or that, at the moment of Jesus’ death, they had withdrawn out of the way, in order to observe what was about to take place; for it is then only that the presence of these women is mentioned in the Synoptics.— Παρά does not mean at the foot, butbeside; the cross was not very high (Joh 19:29).

We have already stated, in the Introduction (Vol. I., pp. 29, 30), thatWieseler, holding to the reading of the Peshito (see critical note 1), finds in this verse the mention, not of threewomen, but of four. He thus escapes the difficulty that two sisters should bear the same name, Mary—the mother of Jesus and the wife of Clopas. The sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, according to him, is not named; and she is consequently no other than Salome, the mother of John, indicated by Mat 27:56 and Mar 15:40 as also present at the crucifixion. Wieseler’s opinion has been adopted by Meyer, Luthardt, Weiss, Westcott, etc. The incident here related becomes, it is said, much more intelligible; for if the mother of the apostle John was the sister of Mary, and this apostle the first cousin of Jesus, we can explain more easily how Jesus could entrust His mother to him, notwithstanding the presence of her sons. This interpretation seems to me inadmissible.

By omitting a καί, and, before the words: Mary, the wife of Clopas (at least, if the text of all our MSS. without exception is correct), the evangelist would have expressed himself in a quite equivocal way. And if this so close relationship between Jesus and the sons of Zebedee had existed, how should there not have been the slightest trace of it in the entire Gospel history? Is it not more simple to hold that John abstained from mentioning his mother, as he does in the rest of the Gospel? Undoubtedly it is scarcely possible that two sisters should bear the same name. But the Greek term γαλόως, which means sister-in-law, was so little used that John might prefer to avail himself of the simpler term ἀδελφή (sister) to express this idea. These words of Jesus, thus understood, contain nothing unkindly either to His own brothers, who did not even yet believe on Him, or to the mother of John himself, who was by no means separated thereby from her son. Hegesippus declares positively that Joseph’s brother, whom he also calls the uncle of Jesus (or of James), was named Clopas (Vol. I., p. 358f.). This name must in this case be regarded as the Greek form of the Aramaic חלפי, Alphaeus. Reuss sees herein “one of the grossest mistakes of modern exegesis,” and thinks that Clopas is a Jewish corruption of the Greek name Kleopatros. But in speaking thus Reuss himself confounds Clopas with Cleopas, a name which is also known in the New Testament (Luk 24:18).

Respecting Mary, the wife of Clopas, see Vol. I., p. 358f.—The Synoptics do not mention the presence of Jesus’ mother, perhaps because she left the cross immediately after the fact reported by John, and because they do not speak of the presence of the friends of Jesus and of the women except at the end of the whole story.

Stripped of everything, Jesus seemed to have nothing more to give. Nevertheless, from the midst of this deep poverty, He had already made precious gifts; to His executioners He had bequeathed the pardon of God, to His companion in punishment, Paradise. Could He find nothing to leave to His mother and His friend? These two beloved persons, who had been His most precious treasures on earth, He bequeathed to one another, giving thus at once a son to His mother, and a mother to His friend. This word full of tenderness must have completely broken Mary’s heart. Not being able to endure this sight, she undoubtedly at this moment left the sorrowful spot.— The wordto his home does not imply that John possessed a house in Jerusalem, but simply that he had a lodging there; comp. the same εἰς τὰ ἴδια applied to all the apostles, Joh 16:32. From this time, Mary lived with Salome and John, first at Jerusalem and then in Galilee (Introduction, Vol. I., p. 35). According to the historian Nicephorus Kallistus (died in 1350), she lived eleven years with John at Jerusalem, and died there at the age of fifty-nine. Her tomb is shown in a grotto a few paces from the garden of Gethsemane. According to others, she accompanied John to Asia Minor and died at Ephesus.

On the word: Woman, which has nothing but respect in it, see on Joh 2:4.

Keim, after the example of Baur, regards this incident as an invention of pseudo-John, intended to exalt the apostle whose name he assumes, and to make him the head of the Church, superior even to James and Peter.Renan attributes this same fiction to the school of John, which yielded to the desire of making its patron the vicar of Christ. For every one who has the sense of truth, this scene and these words do not admit of an explanation of this kind. Besides, is it not Peter whom our evangelist presents as the great and bold confessor of Jesus (Joh 6:68-69)? Is it not to the same apostle that the direction of the Church is ascribed in ch. 21 and this by a grand thrice repeated promise (Joh 19:15-17)? Finally, this supposition would imply that the mother of Jesus is here the type of the Church, a thing of which there is no trace either in this text or in the whole Gospel.

The death:

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.