The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 2 — Section 418

Ver. 25.-But tbero were Btanding by the no.rmtive from l>egiuningto end is Illumined oroRe of J'e9'11s. MRtthew say& (xxvii. 55; by the fa.et that ,lohn wae tho near relRtive or Jlfn, k xv. 40, 41) t hRt many women stood JeBue. The B• i,-ydll'CI flRehee into light Rnd s(nr off heholding theBe things, and amongst juatifiration atonoo. Very much both in tho th<'m Jlfary MRgdRlene, Mary the mother of aynoptio l\nd Johannine 111\rrative:i, recei vee e. ,lRm<'s (thC' le!!e, i.~. the son of Alpbmue) and deeper mee.ning. The eal'ly friendahip the ,JOl.'08, and the mother of Zebedee'e ohildren, private ministry of our Lord, with Joi\n 1\8 <•xpro88ly idenl.ifletl here RB elsewhere with hie principal oompl\nion, the request of ~slome, " women who followed him from Salome, and the exquisite inoidont whioh GRlilee" (Luke xxiii. 5.5), and ministered now follows, all reooive a richer meaning unto him. '£he 1rarca of thie verse implies when it becomes clel\r the.t Balomo we.a tlmt. in the <'ourago of their love and tender- eo nearly related to Jesus. In this conolu- 11,•ss, the,· had drawn nea.rer to the oross led Bion Wieseler, LuthRrdt, Lange, Westcott, on as it ·would seem by hill mother her:ielf 80&re, Moulton, Schaff', e.nd others coincide, whom John \\ith fuller knowledge men~ though Meyer e.nd Heugstenberg te.ko the tious as the moet important member of one other view. Hengstcnberg thinks the tra- J!'roup. John adds, and the Bister of hia dition of three lllo.rys is enough to counler- mother, then (it must be admitted without balanoe whst he calls a learned device I ,rny conjunctive 1tal) he adds, Kary the Assmning, then, that John was so doRl' a (wife)ofClopaa, u.d Kary Magdalene. KA..,.. friend, so near a relative, we underste.nd ""' is by almost all admitted to be identi- better what follows. fiable with '!l7~ Alphmus, of Mn.tt. x. 8. Ver. 26.-J'esUB then, seeing the (his 1) Consequently, "the Mary (of Clopae)" is mother, and the disoiple whom he loved u<1nc otller than tile mother of Jamee the llt&uding neo.r, saith to the (his) mother, Jcss-lmown disciple, as well e.s of otbere, Woman, behold thy son I The term " Wo- AnJ thie second Mary is identically the man" was on his lips an honorifio title rather same ns the l\Ie.ry spoken of in Matthew than an expression of coldness. No a.tom and Mark by sligl..itly different pllraseology. of disrespect or failure of affection is evinced Tile quest.ion o.rises-Doee John here speak, nor can we conceive it poBSible the.t o~ then,orjourwomen? ordoee he say that this Lord was here separating himself in his Mary wns the sister of the Virgin Me.ry ? mediatorin.l character from e.ll relationship If •· Me.ry the wife of Clope.s " be the sister with the mother who bore him I This view, of the Virgin, then Jomes the Iese, Joses, ado_pted by Hengetenberg in pa.rt, by and others are cousins of our Lord. This Steinmeyer, LuLho.rdt, Alford, and originally hypothesis he.s been need by those who by Professor Hoffmann of Erle.ngen, seems identify these men with the "brethren of the utterly inconsistent with the spirit of Christ. Lord; " but it is rendered improbable by the Trne, he had wamed her not to intrude upon fact referred to twice over in the synoptists his modes of activity (eh. ii. 4), and had and John, that his" brethren did not believe ea.id that his disciples were his brothers, in him," and the growing certainty that sisters, mother; but the greatness of his "James the brother of our Lord" was not heart is hnmn.n to the last. No Monophy- "James the leas." Moreover, it is impro- site explanation of the Btatm majeataticua, bable that two sisters should have the same no Nestorian severance of the Divine and name. The other supposition is thnt the human Christ, is needed. Christ yearned third woma.n mentioned by the synoptists over tile mother whose heart was being (namely, Sal.ome, the mother of Zebedee's pierced by his agony, and with filial anxiety sous) was the mur of the mother of JeBU& entrusted her, not to those brothers of his Agn.inst thi.e is the non-appearance of the -whatever was the degree of their relation- Kcd between the seoond and third namea. ship to him-who, nevertheless, did not be- Thie absence may be simply dne to the fact lieve on him, bnt to the disciple whom he that John meution.s " two and two," singling loved. them out from "the many women," e.c.cord- Ver. 27.-(b) Filial lotle-" Behold thy ing to his wont. Against it, Goclet and mother I " and the iaaue. Then he se.ith to others llil.Ve urged that we have no other the disoiple, Behold thy mother! 'l'he very J,iu t of the relationship; but of many similar go.rments that covered him had been rudely facts throughout the Gospel we have only divided among the soldiers. He is there- tht slenderest indica.tion.s-take,fcr inst.a.nee, fore as a dead me.n, and yet he me.de the the icleutific11tion of Judas (noi Iscariot) most royal gifts and precioUB assignments ~it.h Ltbbmua and The.ddmus; Nathanael of that w hieh was nevertheless ine.lienable. with B:.rtiiolomew-.nd there ismueh which 1 The av"Toii of T.R. is omitted by Ti- ruo.kes the identification natnraL It is after Ow manner of John to omit the name of schendorf (8th edit.), R. T., Tregelles (Alford :-..Jome,as he e.lwe.ys does his own through- brackets it), on the authority of N, B, L, :X, out th1; Gospcle.nd Epistles. But the entire 1, 22. CJR, xrx. 1-42.J 'I'ITE GORPEL ACCORDTNG TO R'T'. ,JOHN.