John 19:26

ὃν ἠγάπα. See on John 13:23 : it is no mere periphrasis to avoid naming him, still less a boastful insertion. It explains why Jesus committed him to His Mother and His Mother to him.

γύναι, ἴδε ὁ υἱὸς σου. See on John 2:4. The act is one of filial care for the soul-pierced Mother (Luke 2:35), who perhaps was thus spared the agony of seeing her Son die. If S. John took her home at once, this accounts for his omitting the third and fourth Words (Appendix C), which would be uttered during his absence. He who had just asked God’s forgiveness for His murderers and promised Paradise to His fellow-sufferer, now gives another son to His Mother, another mother to His friend. If S. John was the Virgin’s nephew, and if Christ’s ‘brethren’ were the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the fact that Christ committed His Mother to her nephew and His own beloved disciple rather than to her step-sons requires no explanation. Even if His ‘brethren’ were the sons of Joseph and Mary, their not believing on Him (John 7:5) would account for their being set aside; and we have no evidence that they believed till after the Resurrection (Acts 1:14).

εἰς τὰ ἴδια. see on John 1:11 and John 16:32. Although the commendation was double, each being given to the other, yet (as was natural) S. John assumes the care of Mary rather than she of him. This shews the untenability of the view that not only S. John, but in him all the Apostles, were committed by Christ to the guardianship of Mary. That S. John was known to the high-priest (John 18:15) and that his family had hired servants (Mark 1:20) would seem to imply that he was a man of some position and substance.