by Michel Gourgues, O. P.translated by Fr. Lanfranco M. Fedrigotti, S.D.B.
MARY, THE MOTHER OF OUR FAITH
PART ONE
MARY, THE "WOMAN" AND THE "MOTHER" IN JOHN
by Michel Gourgues, O. P. (1)
I. THE MOTHER OF JESUS IN JOHN
The mother of Jesus, whom the fourth Gospel never mentions by name, appears in this Gospel four times: 1. in the episode of Cana (2:1-11); 2. in the short summary that follows (2:12) "After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brethren and his disciples; and there they stayed for a few days"): 3. in a question concerning the origin of Jesus in 6:42 ("Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"); 4. finally, in the episode of the cross, in 19:25-27.
A. Designations in John 2:1-5 and 19:25-27
In the episode of Cana (vv. 1-5) and in the episode of the cross, the evangelist designates Mary in three ways: 1. three times as "his mother" (he meter autou, in 2:5 and twice in 19:25); 2. twice as "the mother" (ten metera. in 19:26a).
In each of these two pericopes (2:4 and 19:26b), the evangelist reports the unusual appellation by which Jesus addresses his mother: "woman" (gynai). In 19:27a, John reports Jesus' words to the beloved disciple present at the foot of the cross: "Behold, your mother!".
The meaning of this formula has been and still is very much discussed. Almost all the possibilities must have been envisaged. It is thus, for example, that Mary has been seen as the symbol of Israel's tradition and heritage transmitted to the Church and to the Christians represented by the beloved disciple. According to others. Mary is rather the symbol of the Christians of Jewish origin accepted by the Christians of Gentile origin, symbolised by the disciple. More popular and more ancient is the interpretation which sees Mary as the symbol of the Church, mother of the believers. Still another interpretation appeared more recently (11th century in the West) but became very influential later on: Mary is the mother of the believers not so much as a symbol of the Church as rather in her personal and individual capacity. Hence the idea of spiritual motherhood, sometimes associated with, and amplified by, that of co-redemption.
What we want to say here is that the content of Jn 2:1-5 is of primary importance for the interpretation of the formula of Jn 19:27a. At the same time, bringing these two pericopes face to face permits us to account for the meaning of the appellation "woman" which is present in both.
B. ''This, the first of his signs" (2:11) / "It is finished" (19:30)
Commentators have for long. had the habit of putting together the scene of the cross and that of Cana. The fact already noted that Jesus in both cases uses the same appellation to address his mother supports this combination. But there are additional supporting elements:
1. The time indication of Jn 2: 1-11 is the moment when the "hour has not yet come" (2:4) and we are made to assist at the inauguration of Jesus' mission. On the contrary, in 19:25-27, the hour has come: Jesus' death on the cross, the first stage in the process of exaltation-glorification, is now imminent. We have here. therefore, on the one hand the beginning of the mission, on the other hand the end of the mission, the account of the first and of the last "action" of Jesus.
2. The same actors appear in both accounts: Jesus, his mother and his disciples－the group in 2:1-11, a representative in 19:25-27. At the beginning of his mission, Jesus manifests his glory for the first time in the presence of his mother; the latter is still present when Jesus at the end of his mission has arrived at the hour of full glorification.
These similarities lead some to conclude that, in the intention of the evangelist, the scenes of Cana and of the cross must form something like a grand inclusion enclosing the whole of the Gospel witness. Perhaps this is to push things too far. However, it is difficult to think that the author did not set up any connection between two scenes that are so similar and correspond to the beginning and the end of Jesus' mission.
Let us then see first the data concerning the mother of Jesus in Jn 2:3-5, in order later to show how they can illumine those of Jn 19:25-27.
(1)Nouvelle Revue Theologique 108 (1986) 174-191. In my translation I omit all the rich bibliographical notes. Thess can be easily retraced by referring to the original article. I have transferred most of the other notes into the text of my translation. I have given indication of this transfer each time in the notes that follow.
II. AT CANA (2:3-5): FROM MOTHER TO WOMAN
Let us first of all give a look at the text. setting out it in three columns and pointing out the structural components which will be explained below.
Introduction
On the third day there was a marriage at Cana and in Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there;
2 Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.
A
B C
INITIAL SITUATION
(Need expressed) CHRISTOLOGICAL REVELATION REACTION
(the mother)
3 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine". 4 And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My Hour has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
A' B' C'
TRANSFORMED SITUATION
(Need satisfied)
CHRISTOLOGICAL REVELATION REACTION
(the disciples)
6 Now six stone jars were standing there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 11a This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; 11b And his disciples believed in him.
7 Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim.
8
He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." So they took it.
9 When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."
A. Components of 2:1-11
The account begins (w.l-2) with the indications of the circumstances of time ("the third day") and of place ("at Cana in Galilee") as well as with the mention of the actors on whom it will then focus attention. These actors are mentioned in the following order: the mother of Jesus (v.1b), Jesus himself (v.2a), then the disciples (v.2b).
It is in this same order that these "agents" intervene in the story. While vv.3-5 describe the initiative of Jesus' mother in approaching him, vv.6-11 describe at greater length the intervention of Jesus himself and its impact on the disciples.
To tell the truth, if the story narrated only the intervention of Jesus' mother and that of Jesus himself, it could limit itself to verse 3. Followed by verses 6-10, (4) In this case we would obtain a story still complete in itself, endowed with its own coherence and dynamism: the initial situation of lack and need, expressed through the intervention of the mother (v.3), is transformed by the intervention of Jesus (vv.6 10). In other words, the need pointed out by Mary is met by the change worked by Jesus of the water into wine. All the essential elements of the miracle are present.
However, note carefully: the presence of verses 4 5 and 11 shows that John is not so much interested in the miracle itself, with its marvelous character. Rather, he is interested in its meaning. The initial situation and its transformation are the occasion of a Christological revelation which provokes a reaction on the part of the privileged witnesses, the mother and the disciples of Jesus. On the one hand, the mother's request (2:3) induces Jesus to reveal something regarding himself and his mission (2:4). This revelation, in turn. entails a reaction on the part of Mary (2:5). On the other hand, the description of Jesus' intervention (2:6-10) is followed by the statement of its Christological meaning (it is a semeion by means of which Jesus manifests his glory [2:11 a] and by the mention of the disciples' faith reaction (2:11b).
The Cana story, therefore, presents a characteristic structure entailing the twofold repetition of three parallel terms, thus:
A
Initial Situation
(Impasse Expressed)
(2:3) A'
Transformed Situation
(Impasse Overcom)
(2:6-10)
B
Christological Revelation
(2:4) B'
Christological Revelation
(2:1 1a)
C
Reaction (of Jesus' mother)
(2:5)
C'
Reaction (of Jesus' disciples)
(2:11b)
It seems to me that the discovery of this structural parallelism will prove to be of primary importance for the interpretation of the main elements of the text.
Let us see now the content of verses 3-5, i.e. the sections of the text corresponding to the letters A (Initial Situation). B (Christological Revelation) and C (Reaction) in the diagram above.
B. Initial Situation (2, 3)
"They have no wine" (2:3b). How should we understand this remark made by the mother of Jesus?
Three main interpretations can possibly be envisaged.
1. Mary's remark does not entail any particular expectation; she is only taking stock of a pitiful and embarassing situation. Somehow this is the attitude of the paralytic of Bethzatha in chapter 5, who does not express any expectation with regard to Jesus, but only gives an account of his difficulties:
Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is troubled, and while I am goinganother steps down before me. (5:7)
2. The mother of Jesus expects that he will do something to solve the problem. Aware of the embarassing nature of the situation, she is thinking of some practical solution that is within the scope of man's mind and action. This is more or less the case in Jn 6:5. where, before a crowd that has nothing to eat. Jesus starts considering a solution of this kind: "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?". V.6 will tell us that he is actually putting Philip to the test,
3. The mother is expecting from her son a miracle that is going to transform the situation.
Sticking to the data of the text and trying to dovetail with the perspectives of John himself, it seems that we should reject the first and the last interpretation and that consequently the second is to be preferred.
a. Mary's reaction as expressed in v.5 ("Do whatever he tells you") shows that she expected something from Jesus at the very moment that he seemed to have expressed a refusal to intervene (v.4). A fortiori, Mary's first observation (v.3) must have given expression to an expectation.
b. Ought we, however, to see in it the expectation of a miraculous intervention? Not necessarily. Such an expectation would involve a "displacement" within the context of John's presentation of the event. That is, since Jesus has not yet performed any sign (cf. 2:11 a), it would be necessary to suppose that his mother knows already that he has a power he has not yet manifested, all the more so since he has not yet "manifested his glory" (2:1 la). As yet. it is not known who he truly is and, consequently, what he is able to do by reason of his identity.
c. It is a frequent fact in Jn that the expectations expressed with regard to Jesus are at first situated on a purely human level. Let us take some examples. Jesus tells Nicodemus that it is necessary to be born anothen (an adverb which can at the same time mean "from above" and "anew") in order to see the kingdom of God (3:3), Nicodemus, however, at first understand Jesus' words in a human and natural sense (3:4). Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman about the gift of living water (4:10), but also she (mis) understands in a purely material sense (4:15). In the same way, at first the official at Capernaum approaches Jesus as a mere healer or wonder-worker (4:47). In the same way, too, as we have already seen, when Jesus asks the paralytic whether he wants to be healed, the latter envisages only such a healing as can be obtained by a plunge into the pool (4:6-7). So also, when Jesus speaks to the Jews about the bread which he can give them (6:32-33), the Jews think about material bread and not about the bread of life who is Jesus. That they do not have in mind this higher meaning is shown by their reaction in 6:41. Finally. Martha, the sister of Lazarus, expresses the expectation that Jesus will do something (11:22). However, she does not expect the miracle of the resurrection, a miracle which Jesus is able to work (cf. 11:23-24).
In all these cases, the interlocutors of Jesus remain on a purely human level. The object of their requests or of their expectation does not transcend this level. Jesus, instead, places himself on a different level. Could it not be the same here?
d. Yes. Jesus' reply in verse 4 shows that there is a shortfall between the level of Mary's expectation and the level on which Jesus intends to place his intervention.
C. Christological Revelation (2:4)
"O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come". This is the way Jesus' reply (2:4) must be literally translated. Its interpretation has not yet ceased to embarass the commentators. Let us begin with the last part of the reply, which seems easier to clarify.
"My hour"
Which hour is it? The hour of undertaking his mission? The hour of "showing himself to the world", according to the formula of 7:4? The hour of working a miracle? All these suggestions contradict the meaning usually given by John to the "hour" of Jesus. In fact. the hour of Jesus is the hour of the glorification, which glorification is indissolubly linked with the death and resurrection of Jesus.
The "hour", therefore, is the hour of the death-resurrection, the hour when Jesus has "to depart out of this world to the Father" (13:1). Does this mean that the public ministry which precedes the death-resurrection is not important? Does it mean that Jesus essentially has come to die and to rise again? Rather than answer these questions straightaway, we should try to place ourselves within John's perspective. Within this perspective we see that the hour of the total glorification is the hour of the death-resurrection. This glorification, however, is anticipated through Jesus' carrying out of his ministry (cf. 12:28; 13:31-32; 17:10.22). In particular, it is anticipated through the "signs". This fact is expressed in different ways in at least three passages. The first passage is the conclusion of the Cana story:
This, the first of his signs. Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory (2: 11a)
In chapter 11 there is a twofold mention of God's glory and Jesus' glorification in connection with a "sign", the reanimation of Lazarus:
But when Jesus heard it he said,"This illness is not unto death;it is for the glory of God,so that the Son of God may be glorified by meansof it (hina doxasthei)" (11:4).
Jesus said, "Take away the stone".Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him."Lord, by this time there will be an odour,for he has heen dead four days".Jesus said to her.Did I not tell you that if you would believeyou would see the glory of God?" (11:39-40).
We can see, then. that in 2:4 Jesus is saying that the moment of manifesting his glory has not yet come. (Jesus thinks of the glory-manifesting sign because his mother's request has led him to do so). Jesus sees the situation as implying an anticipation of the hour of his total glorification. This interpretation is derived from the Johannine understanding of the "hour". It is confirmed by the parallelism that we have noticed between v.4 and V.11a: verse 11a, speaking of the manifestation of Jesus' glory, clarifies the meaning of the "hour" mentioned in 2:4b. In other words, the Christological revelation which follows upon Jesus' intervention (2:7-10) clarifies the Christological revelation which had followed upon Mary's request (2:3).
"What have you to do with me? "
The meaning of the first part of Jesus' reply－"what have you to do with me?"－is also clarified. As we have already seen, the mother of Jesus implicitly expressed her hope for an intervention by Jesus (v.3), who somehow is asked to solve an embarassing problem, but in a way, so to say. all too human and material. By evoking the prospect of his "hour", Jesus indicates that he situates himself on a higher level. He rejects the type of solution expected by his mother. Or better "it is not so much a refusal as a comment which opens up some of the deeper implications of the event" (B. Lindars) (2). Jesus accedes to his mother's request, but on another level: by accomplishing a "sign" that will reveal his glory. However, the hour of the glorification has not yet come.
The reply "what have you to do with me?" makes us recall the reply given by Jesus in Mt 20:22 to the mother of the sons of Zebedee:
"You do not know what you are asking"
Or, to remain within the confines of John, the reply made by Jesus to the Samaritan woman in 4:10:
"If you knew the gift of God "
It is as if Jesus were saying: You are asking me to do something, to find some solution on the level of human endeavours, but you do not suspect the depth of your request. If I must intervene it will not be in this way. And if I intervene in the way that I should (i.e. by accomplishing a sign), I would be going against the plan of God ("my hour has not yet come").
Without really intending it and realizing it, the mother of Jesus is taking the initiative in an order of realities which properly pertain only to God and his plan of salvation. Is not this the meaning of Jesus' response, indicating that his mother and himself are not on the same level? As in all the other passages mentioned above in B c, a "displacement" takes place in 2:4. From the context of material realities we are projected into the context of spiritual realities.
"Woman"
It is possible now also to understand the unusual way Jesus addresses his mother {gynai, "woman"). Mary is called to leave the human level on which, as mother, she can claim authority over her son. She is asked to place herself on the level of faith and of the salvific plan of God, where her influence and her privileged position are no longer decisive. On this level, Mary finds herself a "woman" like all others. It should be noticed that Jesus in the Gospel of John always addresses women in this way. Cf. 4:21; 8:10; 20:13,15. It is clear from the context that there is not the least hint of disrespect in this way of addressing women. All the same, it is striking that Jesus addresses thus his mother! Neither the Bible, nor Jewish literature, nor, apparently, Greek literature provide another example of a son thus addressing his mother. So at least say the scholars who have investigated this point. (3) This unusual way of addressing one's mother as "woman" should, therefore, be understood in a theological context. Other contexts, like psychology, rules of propriety or human customs, are incapable of explaining it. Now the theological meaning is this: from now on, Jesus says, the fundamental relationship is that of faith. In the order of God's design to be carried out (the "work" of which Jesus speaks in the Gospel of John), "flesh and blood" count for nothing. Not even Mary's motherly relation is an exception. It does not confer any privileged status. We are here in perfect harmony with the Synoptic data of Mk 3:35 and parallels: "Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." Also Lk 11:27-28: "A woman said to him, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it! '."(4) Once the hour of accomplishing God's plan has come (the hour that will culminate in the glorification), Mary the mother must somehow make place for Mary the woman called to faith.
D. Reaction (2:5)
Is it not precisely Mary's faith that finds expression in the command reported in 2:5: "His mother said to the servats, 'Do whatever he tells you'."? It seems to me that a good number of indications favour this interpretation.
1. In the first place, there is the immediate context. We have just seen that Jesus' response in v.4 denotes a "displacement", a leap from the human level－on which rests Mary's initial intervention－to the level of faith. Does not the fact that Mary persists in her expectation show that she has entered into the new perspective evoked by Jesus' response?
2. Given the fact that, as we have already seen, v.11 b illumines the sense of its parallel v.4, can we further infer that there is the same relation of parallelism and mutual illumination between v.11b and v.5? If so, Mary's reaction (2:5) must be inserted in the line of faith, like that of the disciples (2:11 b).
3. In 2:1 la the sign of Cana is explicitly related to those which will follow ("This [was] the first of the signs"). But in the accounts of the signs that follow John is interested in the reactions of the witnesses in so far as these have something to do with faith (or non-faith: cf. 5:36-40; 6:26; 9:37-41; 11:26-27.45; 12:11,18,37). (5) After all. it is just this link "signs-faith" that is underlined in the conclusion of the Gospel: "These [signs] are written that you may believe" (20:31). Now 2:5 speaks about the reaction of the mother of Jesus. Of itself this detail is not indispensable for the progress of the story. It means that it must be understood in relation to faith.
4. In 2:4 Jesus practically tells us that he has no intention of working a sign. But then he immediately does work a sign (2:6-10). There are other instances in the Gospel of John where Jesus at first refuses to act, then reverses his refusal or reluctance to act because he has been faced by a manifestation of faith. The best example of this is the second sign of Cana (cf. 4:47-50). Everything happens as if faith, which is "the work of God" (6:29), played the role of a "signal" which conveys in some way to Jesus the will of Him who sent him.
5. There are also in the Gospel of John instances in which, when a request is made to Jesus, Jesus himself so to say "increases the measure". Secondly, the one who has made the request opens himself up to this new perspective. Finally, Jesus intervenes in a way that surpasses the level of initial expectation. This is the case, for example, in the story of the reanimation of Lazarus, where the same elements as in 2:1-11 are recognizable:
A
Level of expected intervention 11:21-22 / 2:3
B
Superior level on which the should take place 11:23-26 / 2:4
C
Reaction of faith 11:17 / 2:5
D Intervention
11:39-44 / 2:7-10
All these indications lead us to see in the attitude reported in Jn 2:5 a reaction of faith. Without perceiving exactly Jesus' intentions, Mary has understood the "change of level" demanded by her son's response. She accepts to let herself be placed on this level from now on and professes her total trust in Jesus. V.5 bears witness to a "displacement" in the level of Mary's expectation and to a faith which entails an opening up to the unknown. When in Lk 1:38 Mary replies to God's messenger: "Let it be to me according to your word", she has some idea of what is going to happen (cf. 1:30-37). In Jn 2:5, instead, she has only a presentiment that something new is going to begin. In this new beginning all happens according to a plan beyond her comprehension. Mary professes her readiness to collaborate with this plan, even though she does not know clearly how it will be carried out in practice: "Do whatever he tells you". In short, in Jn 2:3 Mary had made her request as a mother: in 2:5 she reacts as a believer.
Notice here the affinity of the attitude of Jesus and Mary with their attitude in Lk 2:49-51: "And [Jesus] said to them [his parents], 'How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?' And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them[ ]; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.''(6)
If this interpretation is correct, it means that in the eyes of the evangelist the attitude expressed in 2:5 enjoys considerable importance. Somehow, it is Mary's faith that sets everything in motion. It is the presence of this faith that prompts Jesus to work the inaugural "sign". This sign will allow him to manifest his glory and to undertake the fulfilment of the work received from the Father. In some way, the faith of Mary is at the origin of the mission.
It is possible that , as some authors think. John places Mary's faith in relation with the faith of Israel. This relation comes to light if we approach the formulation of Jn 2:5 ("Do whatever he tells you") to that by which the people of old expressed his acceptance of the first covenant (Ex 19:8; 24:3-7: "All that the Lord has spoken we will do"). This aspect, however, is not essential for our purpose.(7)
(2)Ibidem, note 7.
(3)Ibidem, notes 8 and 9.
(4)Ibidem, note 10.
(5)Ibidem, note 12.
(6)Ibidem, note 13.
(7)Ibidem, note 14.
III. AT THE CROSS (19:25-27): FROM WOMAN TO MOTHER
Let us see now how the data we have gathered from the Cana event can shed light on the event of the cross.
Unlike Cana. the scene described in 19:25-27 is not completely peculiar to John. Like the two scenes that precede it in the Passion Narrative (19:19-22 and 19:23-24). it contains a core common also to the Synoptics. To this core peculiarly Johannine elements are attached:
Mt 27:55-56 Mk 15:40 Lk 23:49 Jn 19:25-27
55 40 49 25
There were also many women there, looking on from afar There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were And all his acquaintances and the women stood at a distanc But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
56 26
among whom were
Mary Magdatene, and Mary the mother of James and Josph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disci- ple whom he loved, standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
27
Then he said to the disciple. "Behold, your mother! " And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
The common core is admittedly very small: the moment Jesus dies, there are some women present, among them Mary Magdalene (also in Mt and Mk) and Mary the wife of Clopas, perhaps the same Mary that is also the mother of James and Joseph, mentioned in Mt and Mk. In the remainder there are only differences:
1. While in the Synoptics, the mention of the women follows upon the description of Jesus' death, in John it precedes it.
2. While in the Synoptics the women stand at a distance, in John they stand "by the cross".
3. The most important difference consists of course in the content of w.26-27. unknown to the Synoptics: on the one hand, the presence of the Beloved Disciple; on the other hand. the words of Jesus to this disciple (v.27) and to his own mother (v.26). It is our task now to examine these elements peculiar to John.
A. "Behold, your son!" (19:26)
The Crucified first of all addresses his mother: "Woman, behold your son!" (ide ho hyios sou).
A good number of modem exegetes, actually toeing the line of some Fathers of the first centuries, hold that John has merely reported a manifestation of provident attachment and a very natural demonstration of filial piety. At the moment of his death. Jesus entrusts his mother to the protection of a disciple of his. The latter will be able to take good care of her. when the death of her son will have left her by herself.
No quarrel about the fact that this is the primary sense of what is being related. But over and above this primary sense, does this account have also a symbolic meaning? Is it not necessary to look for a deeper theological meaning? There are at least two indications that we should do so.
1. The context
The majority of the events recounted in 19:16-37, besides a primary meaning, have also a symbolical import and a theological meaning. This is the case, for example, with the episode of the division of the garments (19:23-24) which comes immediately before our pericope. This episode reflects a custom of the times: the spoils of those condemned to death belonged by right to the soldiers or to those who fulfilled the function of executioners. John lingers over this apparently trivial event longer than the Synoptics (Mk 15:24 and parallels). If he does so. it is because he has his own purpose: he intends to affirm something with regard to Jesus' identity. Thus, applying to Jesus in v.24 the formula of Ps 22, the evangelist doubtless intends to show that in Jesus the figure of the "righteous persecuted" is perfectly realized. Ps 22 is the supplication of such a persecuted righteous one. The preceding episode (19:17-22) had presented Jesus as Messianic king. The divided clothes episode intends to show that this Messianic king has attained to the glory of royalty only by passing through the experience of rejection, persecution and death. So this episode further affirms a theological truth, that very same truth which Jesus had affirmed in 12:23-24:
"The hour has comefor the Son of man to be glorified.Truly, truly, I say to you,unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies,it remains alone;but if it dies,it bears much fruit."
Similarly, the following episode of Jesus' death (19:28-30) concludes with the remark: "When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished'; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." It is true that this last expression is equivalent to the simple" he breathed his last". However, John's manner of speaking shows that the evangelist certainly does not limit himself to this first meaning. Actually, the formula "gave up his spirit", on the one hand. makes use of the noun to pneuma, which can mean both the vital breath and the Holy Spirit; on the other hand, it uses the verb paradidomi, "to transmit". There is no doubt that this verb is more meaningful than the verbs "to expire" (ekpheo) and "to yield" (aphiemi) used in the same context by Mark (15:37) and Matthew (27:50). Moreover, there follows immediately the narration of the "pierced side", from which flow water and blood (19:31-34). This episode can be linked with the saying of 7:38 ("Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water"). In this saying the evangelist sees a prediction of the gift of the Spirit. This gift, according to the Fourth Gospel, is consequent upon Jesus' "glorification" (7:39). But, as we have seen. Jesus' glorification is connected with his death-resurrection. It follows that by writing paredoken to pneuma, John must mean that the gift of the Spirit was already anticipated through the death of Jesus.
Let us take another example. After saying that the soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus, the evangelist remarks: " these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, 'Not a bone of him shall be broken' " (19:36) This passage certainly preserves the memory of a historical fact. namely, the custom of breaking the legs of the crucified (19:33). This custom is attested also by other contemporary sources. Nevertheless, in the light of Scripture, the evangelist discovers the deep meaning and import of an apparently unimportant event. Without this deep insight this event probably would have passed unnoticed. The retelling of this event offers John the occasion of identifying Jesus no longer with the "righteous persecuted" (as in 19:24), but with the paschal lamb. This is all the more plausible since John sees Jesus as "the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (1:29). In addition, the evangelist takes pains to note in 19:14 that it was about the sixth hour when Jesus was handed over to be crucified. This was the very moment when there began in the Temple the immolation of the lambs to be used for the celebration of the paschal meal (cf. 18:28). In this implicit way, John proclaims a datum of faith: this crucified, whose legs the soldiers will not break is the true and definitive paschal lamb, whose death brings salvation to his people.
All this compels us to conclude that, if the scene of 19:25-27 has only a literal sense devoid of all symbolic import, this scene would be the only one in the context not to carry any symbolic meaning."'
2. The presence of the Beloved Disciple
The "beloved disciple" is the one whom Jesus indicates to Mary as her "son" in 19:26. This disciple is named as such ("beloved") five times in the last part of the Gospel (chs. 13-20) and in the appendix (ch. 21 ). These mentions appear in the account of the last supper (13:23), of the crucifixion (here in 19:26-27), of the coming to the tomb (20:2), finally in the second ending in 21:7 and 21 :20. Four times out of five－the only exception is found in our passage here in 19:26-27－the Beloved Disciple is together with Peter. There are three other passages, all subsequent to the ones just mentioned, where there is mention of "this disciple" (21:23,24) or of "he who saw it" (19:35). In six other passages there is question of "the other disciple" or "another disciple", also unnamed and always associated with Simon Peter. Such is the case in the Passion Narrative (18:15,16) when Jesus appears before Caiaphas, and in the Resurrection Narrative (20:2.3,4,8). In 20:2 this "other disciple" is identified with the disciple whom Jesus loved:
[Mary Magdalene] ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."
Note should be taken of the fact that in certain passages the person and the experience of this disciple possess, in the eyes of the evangelist, a symbolic value. John sees in him the representative and the model of the believers. This is suggested especially in 19:35:
He who saw it has borne witness－his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth－that you also may believe
" that you also (kai hymeis) may believe": this formula suggests that the situation and the attitude of the Beloved Disciple have a value of anticipation and of standard-setting with respect to all the believers. In like manner, the promptness with which the same disciple believes on Easter morning－"he saw and believed" (20:8)－and recognizes the Risen One (21:7), must also have exemplary value.
We have. therefore, every reason to see the symbol of the ideal believer in the disciple who in 19:25-27 accompanies the mother of Jesus to the foot of the cross.
B. "Behold, your mother!" (19:27)
What is then the meaning of the formula: "Behold, your mother!" in 19:27?
Adhering to the Gospel data, it seems to me that two explanations can be entertained.
1. There is a passage in John which reveals certain affinities both with the Cana episode and with that of the crucifixion. It is Jn 16:20-21 :
Truly, truly, I say to you,
you will weep and lament.but the world will rejoice;you will be sorrowful,but your sorrow wilt turn into joy.When a woman (he gyne) is in travail she has sorrow,
because her hour (he hora autes) has come (elthen);but when she is delivered of the child.she no longer remembers the anguish,for joy that a human being is born into the world.
As in Jn 2:4 a and 19:26b, there is question here of a gyne (woman). As in 2:4b and 19:27 the hour (hora) is mentioned. Of course, here the hour is that of the woman and not, as in the other two cases, that of Jesus. This notwithstanding, this hour of child-bearing appears to be the symbol of the hour of Jesus' death: the disciples will be afflicted by the departure of Jesus just as a woman is plunged into sorrow when the hour has come to give birth to her child. In other words, in Jn 16:20-21, Jesus foretells to his own that at the moment of his death they will be like a woman at the moment of child-bearing. So that we can say that this woman-in-child-bearing symbolically or allegoricaily stands for the community of the disciples.
Given the points of contact between Jn 16:21 and 2:1-11 and 19:26-27, could we not apply the same symbolism to the mother of Jesus? At Cana, where the "woman" Mary places herself in the midst of the disciples, the "hour" has not yet come; in 16:21 Jesus speaks to the disciples of an hour which is coming soon and which will be like the hour of the "woman" who has to bring her child to light; in 19:26 the "woman" hears Jesus telling her: "Behold, your son!", at the very moment when the "hour" has finally arrived. Possibly, these points of contact answer to an intention of the evangelist. In 19:26 he describes the situation of the mother of Jesus in terms that are reminiscent of the situation of the woman in 16:21: John possibly wants us to see in the mother of Jesus a symbol of the Church, i.e. the community of the disciples. The noun "mother" absolutely used (i.e. without modifiers) in 19:26 tells in favour of this interpretation. In fact. if we translate this verse literally, this is the result: "When Jesus saw the mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to the mother. 'Woman, behold, your son! '" Mary is no longer viewed as the mother of Jesus, but as the symbol of the ecclesial community, as "the mother" of the faithful.
2. the second explanation is simpler but, in my view. it is even better suited to John's perspective. This interpretation results from the juxtaposition of the crucifixion scene to that of Cana.
We have seen that in 2:5 the reaction of the mother of Jesus is to be understood as a faith reaction. Having heard her son's reply (2:4), Mary raises herself somehow to the higher level of faith and correspondingly transforms the nature of her expectation. Confronted with this act of faith. Jesus works his first sign (2:5), thus inaugurating his mission and giving rise to the faith of his disciples (2:11). Thus Mary is the one who was the first to believe (2:5), the one whose faith preceded the faith of the disciples (2:11). Is it not in relation to this fact that in Jn 19:27 she can be designated as the mother of the Beloved Disciple? The latter, as we have seen. is the symbol of the ideal believer. Mary has heen the first to believe. She has believed from the very start. She has believed to the end. In fact, she is still there, at the foot of the cross, at the moment when the mission of Jesus is accomplished. Is it not precisely in this way that she is the mother of the faithful represented by the Beloved Disciple? Mary is the mother in this sense, that she has been the first to believe, she has been the one whose faith has, so to say, launched the mission which now is being achieved at the cross.
＊＊＊＊＊＊
Cana is the moment when the hour has not yet come, the moment when the mission is going to begin. There Mary. the mother, must give place to Mary, the woman, called to the leap of faith. The cross is the moment when the hour has come. the moment when the mission comes to an end. Mary, the faithful "woman", becomes again mother, but this time in the order of faith, in which order she has accepted to situate herself from the start. At Cana, insofar as she is the human mother of Jesus, Mary somehow loses a son. At the cross, insofar as she is a believer, Mary finds a multitude of sons. She has followed Jesus faithfully from beginning to end, from the first foreboding of the hour to its final accomplishment. No wonder that she finds again multiplied "a hundredfold" that which she had accepted to renounce. But she finds again all this because she believes.
http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A011D2.htm
http://218.188.3.99/Archive/periodical/abstract/A011D3.htm