Some Key Words (01/22/13-01/23/13)

Looking on (theoorousai [2334]):

To look purposefully, with interest, as observing the details. | from theaomai [2300]: to look closely at, perceive. To be a spectator of, discern. | To look at, view attentively. To perceive, find out.

Ministering (diakonousai [1247]):

To serve, wait upon. The term emphasizes the work done over the relationship. To do a service, care for a need. One may work and not help, but not as indicated by this term. “When diakoneo is used then helping someone directly is involved.” | from diakonos [1249]: from diako: to run errands; an attendant, waiter, teacher, pastor, deacon. To be an attendant. To wait on as host or friend. | To be a servant or attendant. To minister to, to serve. To supply food and other necessaries. To attend to. To serve or supply.

Less (mikrou [3398]):

| small. | small, little. May indicate size, space, or age (thus less by birth, or younger.)

Seeing (horoosai [3708]):

To see, behold, perceive, but with less attention than blepo [991] | to stare (as compared to optanomai [3700]: to gaze wide-eyed.) To discern clearly, and so to attend to. To experience (Hebraism). | to see with the eyes. To perceive, see with the mind. To look upon, observe, give attention to. To take heed of, beware.

Saw (idoon [1492]):

To perceive, see. | to see, thereby to know. | To see, perceive by the senses. To notice, discern, observe, experience.

Loved (eegapa [25]):

To love, direct one’s will towards, find one’s joy in. Differs from the contentedness of phileo [5368]. The love between God and man is agapao. Men are never spoken of as phileo towards God. Likewise, the love we are to have for our enemies is not phileo, but agapao. Love that expresses compassion. | to love in a social or moral sense. | to love, prefer, wish well, care about. To welcome with desire. To long for.

Woman (gunai [1135]):

| from ginomai [1096]: to be or become. A woman. In particular, a wife. | A woman of any age. As a form of address, this may express indignation or admiration. It may indicate favor or respect.

Son (huios [5207]):

A son as opposed to merely a child. Huios indicates relationship, where teknon indicates little beyond the fact of birth. Huios speaks of maturity, shared character, etc. | son. Kinship. | the male issue. A descendant, one’s posterity.

Mother (meeteer [3384]):

| a mother. | a mother (as molder or manager, perhaps), or that which is like a mother. Thus, a city may be spoken of as the mother of a particular type of people.

Paraphrase: (01/23/13)

Mt 27:55-56, Mk 15:40-41, Lk 23:49, Jn 19:25 All of Jesus’ acquaintances from Galilee were watching and observing events from a distance. Many in this group were women who had been following Him and seeing to His needs since the days of His Galilean ministry. Among these were Mary Magdalene, Mary who was mother to James (the younger one) and Joseph. Then, too, there was His mother, of course, and her sister. And Salome, mother of the Zebedees and wife of Clopas, she was there. Jn 19:26-27 Earlier, when Jesus had seen His mother and His beloved disciple nearby, He had spoken to His mother, saying, “Woman, there is your son!” And turning to that disciple, He had said, “Behold! She is your mother!” From that time on, that disciple took her into his own household to care for her.

Key Verse: (01/27/13)

Lk 23:49 – All His acquaintances, including those women who had come with Him from Galilee, were witness to these things.

Thematic Relevance: (01/23/13)	Even in the detail of seeing to His mother’s care, Jesus faithfully observes the Law right to the moment of death.
Doctrinal Relevance: (01/23/13)	Honoring parents includes seeing to their care. Again: Events are real and witnessed. Names are named. Facts can be checked.
Moral Relevance: (01/23/13)	While Luke is so kind as to note that “all His acquaintances” were there, it is telling, and rather disconcerting that it is the woman who are most to be observed. Other than brief mention by John of that one disciple who took on Mary’s care, the Apostles are not to be seen here. Perhaps they are present, perhaps not. What should be made of this? Perhaps little more than that having independent witnesses was more important to establishing the reality of what transpired. But, there is something in the compassion, the emotional connection of women that makes it entirely believable and particularly fitting to find them prominent here at the end. There is something, also, challenging for the man in this: That we, too, must know compassion, we too, must love to that extent. It cannot be missed that Jesus does so, even there in His dying moments. His compassion is a match for these women come to minister to Him in His agony as they did in His glory.
Doxology: (01/23/13)	Here, too, is cause for praise! This Jesus Whom we serve not only has compassion, He is Compassion! The depth of His loving care is to be seen in that final arrangement made for His mother. There is tenderness in the way He gently distances Himself from her in His choice of address. There is deepest love in His being concerned for her welfare even as His own death encroaches, even as pain wracks His body. And, this depth of love is not something He reserves for His mother only. It is this depth of love that He is then and there expressing for each one of us who have been made family to Him. Jesus cares! He cares that much! And, this is all our hope and joy.

Symbols: (01/24/13)

N/A

People, Places & Things Mentioned: (01/24/13-01/26/13)

Mary the mother of James & Joseph (01/24/13-01/26/13)

[ISBE] Assembles a list of 9 different people of that name in the NT, making a distinction between Mary the mother of James and Mary the mother of Joses, which seems odd. Yet, they accept that the other Mary mentioned later in Matthew 28:1 as being this Mary mother of Joses. [The wording here seems to indicate but one Mary as mother of the two. The distinction appears to be based on Mark not mentioning James again in Mk 15:40]. There follows a discussion of that Mary who is quite probably listed as the wife of Clopas, that Clopas and Alphaeus, father of James are the same individual, ergo the James of whom she is mother is the Apostle. OK. Later section restores the singularity of this Mary. It seems likely, based on Luke 8:2-3, that this Mary was, like others in this group of women, somebody whom Jesus had healed of some infirmity. That she was a persistent and devoted follower is certain. That her sons also were in the company of the disciples is likely, as is the proposition that James became an apostle. Here, she is in a situation not dissimilar to the mother of James and John, who also remained with the disciples, and whose sons both rose to be apostles. This ability to remain with the disciples suggests a certain sufficiency of wealth and position so as to allow the activity, and the support of Jesus and His company. In Luke 8:3, the group of ladies we have here is joined by Chuza’s wife, he being on Herod’s staff. This, too, accentuates the ‘unusual standing of this company of faithful women.’ While we are told so little about this woman, the bit we have paints the picture of a generous, faithful, loving and brave woman. She is amongst those privileged to have their grief turned to joy at the very tomb of Jesus. [Fausset’s] Author connects the Mary who is mother of James and Joses with Mary of Cleophas. He proceeds to say she is also Mary’s sister, apparently assuming no comma between “His mother’s sister” and “Mary of Cleophas”. She is assumed the older sister, and four sons are listed for her, James, Joses (alternately read as Joseph and occasionally as John), Jude the apostle, and Simon. Three daughters are also attributed to her. Somehow, we arrive at the implication that this Cleopas was dead before Jesus began His ministry, based on the fact that he is only mentioned as a means of demarking this Mary and her James. Then we jump to having the two sisters sharing a house in Nazareth, and the children of both viewing each other as brother and sister. OK. So, this would seem to be trying to attribute that entire scene from Luke 8 as involving not His mother, but this Mary. [Wow! This whole construct just appears extremely problematic. Cause for concern.] [Smith’s] Concurs with the identification of Clopas with Alphaeus, making Mary’s James the Apostle of that name. Interestingly, this scene at the cross is the first mention we have of her. Later, she will be seen again with Mary Magdalene outside the tomb, and at other points during the Resurrection. Here, too, she is assessed as having four named sons, and at least three daughters. It is noted that many suppose her to be Mary’s sister, but it is not presented as fact.

Mary Magdalene (01/24/13-01/26/13)

[ISBE] Mary comes to the ministry in Galilee, becoming prominent during this closing period. The location of this Magdala, or Magadan from which Mary came is uncertain, but one view sets it as the Palestinian town Mejdel about midway down the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. The common view connecting Mary with the sinful woman Luke speaks of in chapter 7 is mistaken. Her malady was not sin, but demon-possession, which Jesus clearly treats as indicating a victim of disease, not an accomplice to the devil. Had her past really been that of a career prostitute, the clear practice of the Evangelists would have prevailed, and her name been withheld. Some have attempted to discount Mary’s value by attributing paranoid tendencies to her, thereby assigning her witness to a habit of seeing things. But, this is clearly off the mark. To begin with, she was cured of whatever her malady was, that healing work of Jesus being as much a part of her name as ever the label of her village was. It is hardly to be supposed that so signal a healing by Jesus would leave her still plagued by paranoid delusions and hallucinations. It should be clear from the brief notices given of Mary that she was a devoted servant of the ministry from that first moment of healing right on through. Her courage in the face of danger outstrips that which we see in the Apostles during these dark hours, hardly in keeping with the neurotic depiction that has been painted. “The action of these women of whom Mary was one, in serving their Master’s need while in life, and in administering the last rites to His body in death, is characteristic of woman at her best.” [Fausset’s] Notes that Lightfoot equates Mary with “the woman a sinner” spoken of in Luke 7:37, yet lists her amongst those women of substance who ministered to Jesus. [Isn’t this somewhat problematic?] It is noteworthy that she is among the last to stand by Jesus at His cross, and is the first to seek out His grave. And yet, she is seemingly slow to accept His resurrected state, her love being too reliant upon His earthly presence. It is thus that Jesus insists she not touch Him, for she needs to rise higher, to the knowledge of His presence in Spirit. In this, she was not so different from Thomas. Now, comes this: “The seven demons that possessed here were her misfortune, not the proof that she had been in the common sense ‘a woman which was a sinner.’” It is then noted that the Mary of Jesus’ anointing in John 11-12 is sister to Martha and Lazarus, and it is she whom we should associate with the earlier anointing Luke covers. OK. I’m confused. The section closes with, “It does not mean that she had already anointed Him and was identical with the woman a sinner whose anointing of Him is recorded in Luke 7.” Well, then, how else was this to be interpreted? “The mention of the anointing in John 11:2 is evidently John’s anticipation of John 12:3, to inform his readers that the Mary in John 11 is the same as she whose anointing of the Lord they knew by common tradition.” [Smith’s] Mary’s introduction in Luke 8:2 sets her alongside women who were ministering to Jesus from their substance. (Lk 8:1-3 – He was traveling and preaching the kingdom with the twelve in company. Also, some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses were with Him. Among these were Mary Magdalene from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward, Chuza, Susanna, and many other who helped fund His ministry.) It appears that all those named were comparatively wealthy, giving from gratitude for the healing received. She was the first to see Jesus resurrected. While she is often held out as the very model of a penitent sinner, there is no authoritative connection between her and the woman of Luke 7 who anointed Jesus feet, nor can she be firmly identified with the sister of Lazarus. Indeed, the author concludes, “Neither of these theories has the slightest foundation in fact.”

James (01/26/13)

[ISBE] Anglicized form of Jacob. James was also one of the Apostles, being referred to as son of Alphaeus in the lists thereof. The lists in Matthew and Mark suggest some connection with Thaddaeus. Luke’s listings hint at connection with Simon the Zealot. Note that Matthew Levi is also spoken of as son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14), which would seem to imply that Matthew and James were brothers. James is traditionally supposed to be of the tribe of Gad. The linkage to James the Less, to being son of Mary wife of Clopas, and thereby, of Clopas being the same man as Alphaeus is noted. Her son Simon may also have been amongst the disciples (this based on apocryphal literature). Some conjecture is put forth that this might be Simon the Zealot, and thus account for their association in Luke’s list. Attempts have been made to identify James’ mother Mary as sister to the Virgin Mary. [M&S] Puts quotes around the son part. Also referred to as James the Less, whether due to comparative age with James of Zebedee, or because of height. Attempts have been made to mark him out as Jesus’ brother, but that is problematic. Here, the author supports the connecting of Mary of Clopas with sister of Mary based on grammatical considerations, specifically the absence of an ‘and’, such as is set between each other pair of names in the list of women. [I would note that this same alternating of having the and or excluding the and appears to hold in the lists of the Apostles, yet no one reduces their number on that basis.] The conclusion is drawn that they are spoken of as sisters solely because they are married to two brothers, namely Joseph and Clopas / Alphaeus, Joseph being the younger brother, and Clopas dying without issue, leading to a Levirate marriage. Over against this theory lies the statement of Scripture that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him (Jn 7:5), yet two of these sons are counted amongst the Apostles, possibly three. Also note Ac 1:13-14, which lists the Apostles, and then adds that Mary His mother was there along with His brothers. That would certainly seem to imply a distinction between James of Alphaeus and James brother of Jesus. [Nelson’s] keeps James son of Alphaeus separate from James the Less, and notes that for the latter, the Less may simply indicate he was less well known. [Fausset’s] Takes this James to be brother of Jude and of Jesus, and the author of the epistle. Here it is posited that Clopas having died after fathering these seven children, she then went to live with her sister, Mary mother of Jesus, and it was thus that her children came to be known as brothers and sisters to Jesus. Indeed, James and Joseph would have been His elders, explaining their attempt to restrain Him there in Capernaum. Some reasoning is presented noting that the likelihood of two separate sets of sons by two mothers so closely related both having the same set of names seems a bit unlikely. It is further pointed out that Luke only speaks of two Jameses in the course of his Gospel and the book of Acts, at least through to Acts 12:17. Therefore it is supposed that the James which is not John’s brother must be that James which is son of Alphaeus. Further, that this James came to preside in the Jerusalem church would seem to advocate for him being one of the Apostles, to have standing alongside Peter and John. Note also, how Acts 9:27 speaks of Paul going to meet the Apostles Peter, James and John.

Joseph/Joses (01/26/13)

[Fausset’s] One of Jesus’ cousins. [ISBE] Notes a Joses brother of Jesus, as well as another, potentially different one listed as son of this other Mary. Allows that they may indeed be identical. Revised edition seems to have removed this suggestion. [M&S] Equivalent to Joseph. Son of Mary and Cleopas, and consequently numbered amongst ‘the brethren’ of the Lord. The only one of that number not listed amongst the Apostles.

Salome, mother of Zebedee’s sons (01/26/13)

[ISBE] She is only mentioned by Mark, who lists her amongst those at the cross and the tomb. Comparison to the other accounts of these events strongly suggests that she is the mother of the James and John. Some suggest that she is the one mentioned as being Mary’s sister, which would make James and John cousins of Jesus, which might in turn explain why she thought she could request preferential treatment for them [which seems problematic if three other apostles were brothers]. [M&S] Wife of Zebedee, quite possibly sister of Mary, although that sister is more commonly held to be Mary wife of Cleopas. In support of Salome as Mary’s sister, it is noted that this nicely resolves the oddity of two sisters named Mary, and also fits with John’s habit of leaving his family unnamed in his account. [Fausset’s] Wife of Zebedee, and amongst those following Jesus to minister to Him. That she asked favor from Jesus upon her two sons is well known. She is then seen here at the cross, and then later at the tomb.

Clopas (01/26/13)

[ISBE] Husband of one of the women at the cross, sometimes identified with Alphaeus, and father of James the Less. Tradition views him as Joseph’s brother. [M&S] Mary’s husband (she who was sister to the Virgin Mary). Same as Alphaeus. [Fausset’s] Same as the disciple Cleopas on the Emmaus road. I.e. Cleopas == Clopas == Cleophas == Alphaeus. Well, now wait a minute… “Clopas was probably dead before Jesus’ ministry began; for his wife and children constantly appear with Joseph’s family in the time of our Lord’s ministry.” So apparently the article is not suggesting the Cleopas is the same person. Rather, it seems Cleopas is viewed as one man, and Clopas / Cleophas / Alphaeus as the other.

Mary, mother of Jesus (01/24/13-01/26/13)

[ISBE] Apart from the infancy narratives, Mary’s presence in Scripture is reported at the wedding in Cana, the attempt by His family to get Jesus to stop ministering out of concern for His health, this scene at the cross, and the gathering in the upper room noted in Acts 1:14. Both Matthew and Luke show a demonstrable interest in Mary as they relate the birth and infancy of Jesus, Luke stressing her inner thoughts and fears along with her loyalty and righteous outbursts of joy. Matthew presents the more public story, the suspicion and humiliation her pregnancy brought upon her, as well as her vindication. The two accounts clearly present the same Mary, even though it be in two lights, sufficient evidence that there was a real Mary, and that she was very clearly human. The episode in Cana also demonstrates this consistent character of Mary as quiet and yet forceful. She is not, in this instance, interfering with God’s plans in Jesus, but rather in harmony with them, as demonstrated by the fact that Jesus actually does answer her request to help. As to that apparent familial interference with His ministry, the authors here suggest that their concerns were due to the accusations coming from the Jerusalem scribes, claiming demonic control of Jesus. They were, after all, seeing both the unbridled enthusiasm of the crowds pushing Jesus and the antipathy of the Jerusalem hierarchy opposing Him, and neither group was being particularly rational. The family’s motive ought not be viewed as unbelief, but rather loving anxiety. It is not to be supposed that Jesus, even as He uses the image of family to describe His ministry, is simultaneously denouncing the value and importance of family. That His loving connection with His mother remained is clearly evident in the scene of this section. Had He not been fulfilling the role of eldest son all along, there would have been no need for these final arrangements. Had He truly dismissed His earthly family as of no account, there would have been no effort made here. It is clear from the scene that there was both love and understanding between the two. Further evidence that the family visit from early in the Gospels was not evidence of hostility to the ministry of Jesus is that this very family is found “at home in the midst of the Christian community, engaged with them in prayer.” Mary was ‘a typical Jewish believer of the best sort’, meditative, but traditional in her thinking. Though her Messianic expectations were no more accurate than the general populace, her heart remained true, and throughout, we see here pondering in her heart, seeking to understand, and persisting until understanding was reached. [There follows a goodly deal of material on Roman Catholic teaching on Mary which is of little to no interest to me at present.] [Fausset’s] Comment about her relation to Mary of Cleophas. Notes that Gabriel, when he visited Mary did not come in ‘overwhelming majesty’ but in human form. His greeting does not suggest some grace or favor that has Mary as its source, but is rather spoken in the passive voice, indicating that she has been “made the object of God’s grace.” Her blessing is not that she conceived the Christ, but that she believed the Christ. Mary’s hymn of praise when she met Elisabeth has its roots in Hannah’s hymn from 1Samuel 2:2, evidence of her devotion to Scripture. This also shows her humility, as she seeks to magnify God rather than self. Throughout, Mary is shown as reflective, thinking long upon events. She is also consistently devout. The scene at the wedding in Cana is taken as a warning set in place by the Holy Spirit to turn aside the Mariolatry that arises in Roman Catholicism. It is Christ alone who has our allegiance, not His mother. Again, I am confused by this article, having announced that it was her sister came to advise Jesus to stop His work, it is now placed firmly back with Mary herself. Here, again, the text is seen as denying any authority of earthly relatives, any privilege of relationship. Indeed, the author suggests that Jesus effectively put His human relationships in the background for the remainder of His ministry, only allowing her connection to the fore once again when there on the cross. The author continues to make much of Scripture’s relative silence about Mary. She is not noted at any of Jesus’ several Resurrection appearances, she is not spoken of in any of the Epistles. All is seen as the careful work of the Spirit to refuse any foundation to that Mariolatry. Rather, she is set as the “model of the holy women of old” (Lk 1:46), yielded to divine will, humble, thankful, energetic and reflective. [Smith’s] Mother of Jesus, and therefore subject of many legends even while her history is presented concisely by the Scriptures. As with Joseph her husband, she was of the tribe of Judah and of the line of David. She had a sister of the same name, and through her cousin Elisabeth she had connection to the tribe of Levi, the line of Aaron. After the narratives covering Jesus’ early years, Mary’s only other notices in Scripture are at the wedding in Cana, as taking up residence in Capernaum, where she and her relatives had come to check into stories they were hearing about Jesus, at the Cross, and in the upper room after the Ascension.

You Were There (01/27/13)

N/A

Some Parallel Verses (01/27/13)

Mt 27:55

Lk 8:2-3 – Some women were there who had been healed of evil spirits and disease: Mary Magdalene, from whom seven demons went out, Joanna, wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna. These and others were contributing from their funds to support the ministry.

56

Mt 28:1 – Towards dawn on the day after the Sabbath, the first of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to view the grave. Mk 15:47 – These two were looking to see where they laid Him. Mk 16:9 – After He had risen that day, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, she from whom seven demons had been cast out. Jn 20:1 – Mary came to the tomb while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away. Jn 20:18 – She went and told the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and reported what He had said to her. Mt 20:20 – The mother of the Zebedee boys came to Him with them in tow. She bowed before Him and then made her request. Ps 38:11 – My loved ones and my friends stand aloof from my plague. Even my kinfolk stay far away.

Mk 15:40

Lk 19:3 – Zaccheus, being of such small stature was unable to see Jesus for the crowd. Mk 16:1 – Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome bought spices with which to come and anoint Him.

41

Lk 2:4 – Joseph therefore went from Nazareth of Galilee down to Bethlehem of Judea, David’s city, because he was from the line of David.

Lk 23:49

Ps 88:8 – You have removed my friends far from me; made me an object of loathing in their sight. I am shut up. I cannot go out.

Jn 19:25

Mt 12:46 – While He was speaking, His mother and His brothers were outside, seeking to speak to Him.

26

Jn 13:23 – That beloved disciple was reclining on Jesus breast. Jn 2:4 – Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet.

27

Lk 18:28 – We left our homes and followed You! Jn 1:11 – He came to His own, and they did not receive Him. Jn 16:32 – The hour is coming, in fact is here already, when you will be scattered to your own homes, leaving Me alone. Yet, I am not alone, for the Father is with Me. Ac 21:6 – We took to the ship, and they returned home again.

New Thoughts (01/28/13-01/30/13)

Looking at the notes I have taken in preparation here, and at those things which I have considered for comment here, I find I must take care to heed my primary caution, “Don’t get caught up in technicalities.” If ever there were a few brief verses that led to all manner of valueless exploration of technicalities, these would seem to be the foremost! Of all the things to quibble about, surely the matter of clearly identifying which of these women are the same and so on ranks high on the list of valueless enterprises. Yet, the debate is extensive.

It shows up particularly in speculations as to who this sister of Mary’s is that John mentions. Is she to be recognized as that Mary who is wife of Clopas? Or, is she perhaps Salome, whom Mark mentions by name? Those four brothers who came with Mary to bring Him out of the danger zone in Capernaum, were they truly brothers, or are they sons of this sister? Would that make James the Less, and maybe Simon the Zealot half-brothers of Jesus? The debate is certainly good for feeding curiosity, but for what else? Indeed, it seems that in some cases, the commitment to a particular view is so great as to lead the proponents of that view to great leaps of illogic. I have to say that as much as I have typically appreciated Fausset’s Encyclopedia, it seems to have really gone off into the weeds in covering the several Marys, and this bias continues in the coverage of James and Clopas. I can’t say this has completely devalued Fausset’s work in my mind. He still provides some excellent insights. But, on this particular topic? Very hard to find cause for credence.

Now, they are not alone in finding this matter of Mary’s sister difficult to sort out (or making it more so). McClintock and Strong reach the conclusion that the vague use of relationship is not just in calling these men brothers of Jesus, but also in calling this other woman sister of Mary, suggesting that they are sisters only inasmuch as they married two brothers. Thus, they would posit that it was Joseph and Alphaeus who were actually in sibling relationship (Alphaeus being universally identified as one and the same person as Clopas. There is apparently solid linguistic cause for this conclusion.) However, they are good enough to note that there are problems with such a theory. Most notable amongst them, to my eye, is the point that when we come to Acts 1:13-14, there is a list of the Apostles, including this James the Less, son of Alphaeus and son of this other Mary. Yet, this is followed by pointing that Mary, mother of Jesus is there along with His brothers. That would certainly seem to suggest that this James is not brother James.

Other theories posit Salome as sister of Mary, and it is commonly held that she is to be identified as mother of James and John. That would in turn make James and John cousins of Jesus. But, this, too, comes down to speculation more than anything. Each such theory may make it easier to understand certain events elsewhere amongst the Gospels. Yet, each theory also makes other events more difficult to explain. The sum of the matter seems to be this: We don’t know. We cannot know. Those who first read these gospels probably did know. But, apart from pointing out the role of these women as witnesses to the ministry and death of Christ, I am inclined to ask what point there is in sorting things out any more thoroughly than has been done by the authors. Did Mary have a sister named Mary? Who cares, honestly? Did they both have broods with similar names? Maybe. Maybe not. Does it change anything either way?

What I arrive at is that, while the translators must, for example, reach a conclusion as to where a comma ought to be inserted and where not, the attempts to arrive at a concrete, incontrovertible determination as to which of these women are the same as which others is beyond us. That said, when some of the more relaxed translations seek to make a certain perspective seem so authoritative, they do us a disservice. Better to leave the ambiguity and pique some curiosity than to present as fact what is merely supposition.

That same applies, to a lesser extent to how James’ odd identifier is to be taken here. The NCV goes so far as to state “(James was her youngest son.)” Can we really state so conclusively that this was the cause for him being called ‘the Less’? Would it not be at least equally likely that the appellative was given to distinguish him from James, son of Zebedee, the more well-known? Could it not just as easily be that it had nothing at all to do with age, or even fame, such as it was? Perhaps he was merely shorter than either that other James, or his brother. Again, the evidence is insufficient to be so firm in our conclusions, indeed the evidence is hardly sufficient to even propose theories!

As to James, I noted earlier that there is some question as to his relationship to Jesus. Is this James the Less also James, brother of Jesus? Or, is he cousin to Jesus? Again, theories abound, but facts are few. What can be reasonably surmised is that the James who, together with John and Peter held the leadership role in the Jerusalem church was less likely to be a brother than an apostle. Early on, of course, the James we see is clearly the son of Zebedee. But, after his death, it would seem there remains a James in charge still in Jerusalem. His role would only grow as Peter and John went further afield. Is this, then, James the Less? It is reasonable to suppose so. Fausset’s certainly advocates this view. That said, I have to also accept that a brother of Jesus, having clearly established faith in the Christ, would also be likely to find himself vested with a certain inherent authority by those in the church. Yet, the established order we see in the New Testament sets the apostles at the head of the hierarchy, so yes, if there remained an Apostle James in the city we can expect that it was that James who headed the church.

There are some things that can be said about this group of women, and about those who are named amongst their numbers. Some of them, at least, were sufficiently well to do that they could not only accompany this ministry as it traveled Israel, but could even contribute to it, providing for the necessaries of life. Others are more likely to have had nothing to leave behind. I think particularly of Mary, mother of Jesus, her husband dead and her eldest the very one they are all following. Where else was she to be? In the social order of that time, He would be her primary support, so she would almost have to have been living on ministry proceeds as well.

Mary Magdalene? Hard to say. She is numbered with those who were providing from their substance, and it’s not unreasonable to suppose that she is in that number. Our first reaction to her has to do with the common misconception that she was a prostitute, but that is a false connection. Mrs. Zebedee? Well, her husband had a fishing fleet to attend to, but her boys were here and he could fend for himself well enough.

What is, I think, more telling is the statement that these women had been ministering to Jesus throughout most of His Galilean ministry, and stuck with Him right on through to this bitter end. Considering that choice of words, ministering, we are considering the basis for our modern concept of the deacon, diakoneo. Every time we go to a restaurant, we encounter a diakoneo. They take our orders, bring food and drink. We think of them as waiters. In the church, we generally have a somewhat higher conception of the role of deacon, but this is still at its base. From Acts we know that the first deacons were indeed appointed for the purpose of food distribution, and to free up the Apostles for more spiritual matters of prayer and teaching.

But, the role expands as does the definition. I was particularly taken with this point made by Zhodiates. “When diakoneo is used then helping someone directly is involved.” In other words, it’s not just the fact of working, nor even the nature of the work being done that distinguishes the service rendered by those who minister. It’s the goal and purpose of that work. They work with the direct intention of helping someone. They are seeing to another’s needs. It may require time. It may require finances. It may require just about anything, but in that it attends to another’s needs, it ministers. In that it requires us to focus on things beyond ourselves, to give of our own to assist another, it has that element of sacrifice to it. In that it helps that other, it expresses that same compassion that we have from our Lord and Savior.

With all that in mind, think once more of those women who followed Jesus. What they are doing here in these final moments is entirely of a piece with what they have been doing all along. They are ministering to the needs of the Savior. What comfort must He have drawn from their visible presence with Him! No, they could not ease His pain. No, they could not do the least thing about the sentence that was being carried out. They could not even do anything about the abuse that these crowds were heaping upon Him. But, they could remain true to Him. They could stand firm in their faith. They could inform Him by their presence that they had not forgotten His deeds, were not in the least moved by the arguments of the Pharisees, that His ministry had not been in vain.

And do not miss that to stand as they did, here in the very midst of His enemies was already an act of courage that far outstripped what we see of the Apostles during these closing moments. I cannot note that without also noting the honesty and humility of those same Apostles in that they neither hide their own dismay and disillusionment as Jesus was arrested, tried and executed, nor do they seek to diminish the countervailing example of these women. They praise what is praiseworthy, and they leave it clearly shown that they are men such as ourselves. Apostles and women both were chosen and therefore special, not special and therefore chosen.

This is something the mother of Jesus certainly understood. This is not to say she did not struggle with understanding from time to time. I’m sure she did, as would we all. But, at base, her response to news of being chosen to bear the Son of God demonstrates her recognition that she had not earned this starring role, but had been chosen for it nonetheless. There is more to this than simply the humility of self-assessment.

There is a deeper lesson we ought to draw from her example. To be sure, Mary’s blessing lay not in having conceived the Christ, but rather her blessing is that she believed the Christ. Having spent a little time looking at the gifts of the Spirit recently, it strikes me that this is much the same point Paul makes in regard to those gifts. They are not the blessing. Belief is the blessing. Faith, hope and love persist. They are those works which will not be burned up by the fires of judgment. All this other stuff? It’s impressive, yes, and even beneficial. But, it all has that potential to prove no more than a distraction. The most consistent wielder of these gifts may yet come before our Lord in that last day and hear, “I don’t know you.”

But, let us apply that to things less spectacular. Let us apply this same standard to the more mundane aspects of ministering, whether it be unto the Lord or unto His people, which are really but two aspects of the same thing. What motivates you to serve? What motivates you when you are maybe plowing the driveway, or picking up some trash left in the sanctuary? What motivates you to show up every Tuesday night? No, I don’t plow the driveway, but the questions may as well be asked of myself. Why do I do worship? Why do I keep going with teaching every Sunday after church? Why, for that matter, am I here this morning, looking at the message of these verses?

If it is just the pursuit of a necessary task, just drudge work or what have you, then it is not just valueless, it is downright deadly to the soul! Honestly, there are weeks when going off for Tuesday night prayer just really isn’t something I feel like doing. And it seems like those are the weeks (or used to be) when I would find myself all but required to go. Now it seems I have become leader by default and every week has that sense of necessity. I have to do it because there’s nobody else left to lead the effort. But, if there is no love in that leading, then I am just blowing wind and seeding my own destruction.

If study has become no more than habit, if church has reduced to appearances, then all the best deeds I might muster up, however impressive, however apparently Spirit-empowered, are set to naught. If I think they are expressions of my own prowess, they are set against me! And, yes, these are things I suffer from regularly. It’s so easy to become impressed with myself. But, it’s a trap for fools.

I am put to mind of the passage in Mark 9 that we studied in Sunday School this last week, and what a gut check that was! Why did the Apostles have no success casting the demon out of that man’s son? Because they’d fallen into thinking it was their own effort, their own specialness, that was going to do the trick. “These kind come out only by prayer.” What kind? Well, pretty much all of them! Prayer reminds us not only of who God Is, but also of who we are. What they learned about ministering I must relearn, it seems, every week! Without prayer, teaching is vanity. Without prayer, study is vanity. Without prayer, nothing that I consider ministry ministers to anybody. Without prayer, I cannot even maintain that compassion, that love that God seeks to express through my life.

The ISBE offers this summation of those women we have pointed out to us on this occasion. “The action of these women of whom Mary [Magdalene] was one, in serving their Master’s need while in life, and in administering the last rites to His body in death, is characteristic of woman at her best.” What is this characteristic? It’s compassion! It’s the very sort of active love that we are discussing! It is the expression of God’s image, the paying forward, if I use the current catch-phrase, of God’s glorious generosity towards us in a generous love towards others around us.

Listen! Jesus, ever the Leader by example, shows us the extent of compassion even in this very scene! There He is, in physical and spiritual agony. He is beaten, bleeding, dying more slowly than might be preferred. He is suffering loss of communion with Father and Spirit, a thing He has never known before, nor ever will again. The darkness in the heavens is as nothing to the darkness of soul within Him. And yet, seeing His mother there on the sidelines, His concern is not for Himself. He does not reach out looking to be somehow comforted by her sorrow. No! He ministers! He performs this last active work of love in seeing to it that her needs are met. He sets her under the care of that disciple He is most certain will take His dying command to heart. “There is your mother!” Do your duty by her. And, he did, as Jesus knew he would.

But, the lesson for me in this is the selfless, outward compassion that is modeled. It can be noted, as something of an aside, that His care for Mary on this occasion (of all occasions!) is pretty clear evidence to counter the theory that He had effectively denounced all familial obligations in preference for His ministry. Some read the events of Matthew 12:47 as indicating just such a disassociation from family responsibility. I may very well have done so when I was looking at that section. But, that’s wrong! No, as one of the articles pointed out, it should be unthinkable that Jesus would be belittling the very family connections He was simultaneously setting forth as the model for Christian community! Mother and brother and sister and particularly Father, are everywhere set forward in Scripture as relationships to be cherished and protected. How then, could we think our Leader, He Who ever leads by example, would be giving us an example of gross negligence in this regard?

Rather, even in these dying moments, our Leader by example provides an example of the compassion we are to not only experience from His hands, but also to express in our own actions. One might forgive a man in the midst of being executed by slow torture for being a bit self-centered. But, this is not how we find Jesus. He is still entirely focused on the needs of those around Him. He is still keenly aware of those responsibilities which have devolved to Him. On a human level, at least, the care of His mother was nothing He chose. It was not a duty He had volunteered for. It was simply a fact of life. Joseph was gone, and He was clearly the eldest child. Whether by law or by custom stronger than law, her care was His concern.

For all that He was about doing His Father’s business, that business most assuredly did not include permission to set aside the commandments. Think about it! We have in those most succinctly stated commandments of God’s Law the demand to honor our parents. It is upheld as the first such command to come with attached promise. Jesus, we are taught, upheld the Law perfectly. Indeed, He had even used that very command in demonstrating to what degree the Pharisees had corrupted the Law by their traditions. Is it even thinkable that He would have done this if He Himself was neglecting that specific requirement?

Above and beyond this, one might suppose that the dividing line of death might well mark the point at which this Law is no longer binding upon Him. After all, how can a dead man be held accountable for the Law of the living? But, He sees farther. He sees that the needs of His mother will outlive Him, as concerns this earthly existence, and so, He takes steps to see to her care in His absence. What moves Him to do so? It is no longer the Law, certainly not Law alone. To my thinking, it was never Law alone, for an obedience that was solely a matter of being careful to obey the Law might well be an obedience done out of fear, and that is insufficient. Brittle observance of the rules is not what God is after. Rather, it is the matter of the heart.

I go back again to Paul’s description from 1Corinthians 13. If I have not love, everything else, the best of obedience, the most flashy of charismatic exercises, the most eloquent speech, it’s all utterly worthless. If I have converted entire populations, but do so only out of a sense of duty and not out of love for them, there is absolutely no value to it. Oh, they may benefit. But, to the one whose Christian duty is nothing more than duty? Don’t think to be commended for your efforts when you come to heaven!

Jesus, here on the cross, is not just doing His duty. That is true of His careful arrangement for His mother’s care. It is also true of His being there in the first place. Yes, there is a primary motive to be found in doing the Father’s will, and that is absolutely commendable. But, behind the motive lies motivation. Why is He moved to do the Father’s will? Is it for fear of the consequences of failure? No. Is it because this is what’s expected of Him, and like it or not, He feels trapped by circumstance and must comply? No. Did He come down here to suffer such humiliation, frustration and torment for no further reason than that Father said to do so? No. John has summed it up as regards the Father: This is love: that He loved us and sent His Son the propitiation for our sins (1Jn 4:10). Or, that most known of passages, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (Jn 3:16). But, it was not Father alone whose love was so great. The Son, too, loved to so great an extent that He was willing to be sent, even desired to be sent knowing full well what was entailed.

If anybody knew what the propitiation for the sins of all mankind would require, it was Him! But, He was willingly obedient. He wanted to be obedient, wanted to satisfy every requirement to be that propitiation for you and for me. Why? Because He loves us! He has compassion for us. I love that which we read last night from Hebrews 2:17-18. He had to be made like us in all things so as to become a merciful and faithful high priest of God, so as to make propitiation for the sins of the people. He was tempted in what He suffered, so He is able to aid those who are tempted. This wasn’t just some holiday from heaven, and it wasn’t just a job He was required to do. It was the very expression of compassion.

For His disciples, for us, that life of compassion is our living model. We are called to care, and not just to care as an exercise in empathy, but to care enough to act. Why else the evangelistic effort? If we were to evangelize from a motivation that only took into account the command to do so, but without ‘a heart for the lost’, what result could we expect? If there were fruit of such a ‘ministry’ it could only be by the grace of God out of His compassion for those lost souls. But, if we have a heart after God, if we are there because like Him, we have compassion on those we try to reach? Listen! The hardest of souls can yet recognize the difference between dutiful obedience and real concern. Which would you be more inclined to respond to? And why would you suppose it different for others?

We must know compassion, we who claim to serve and love this God. We are made in His image and yet, I think particular those of us who are of the male image have so much trouble with this compassion thing. It’s to feminine. We expect it from the women, what with their mothering instincts and all. But, God expects it from us all. In Christ there is neither male nor female. Yes, I understand that I am lifting that point out of any context. But, it applies. As concerns our motivation, as concerns our true and very real attitudes of heart, compassion is to be our rule. We are not to be blinded by compassion. That isn’t the point at all, any more than our faith is expected to be a blind faith. No! But, a heartless, compassionless religion has nothing to do with this God Who came to rescue us. It is in no way representative of Him. He loved and therefore acted. He did not act and hope that maybe someday He could muster up some love for us. We, too, are called to love. I don’t know. Maybe we have to work at it, although I’m not clear how one works his way to loving another. Love is work, to be sure, but it cannot be worked up. That sort of worked up love is cheap emotionalism, no more real than the emotions of an actor on the screen. This love is deeper. This compassion is deeper.

I arrive at what should really be an obvious conclusion. This love, this compassion cannot be our reality except by God’s grace. It’s not even a guaranteed response to recognizing the love He has shown us. It requires His touch upon our hearts, His work within our soul, to bring such love and compassion to blossom. It requires His Holy Spirit, watering the grounds of His temple within us to make that love and compassion grow. For our part, there is prayer; prayer that we might know that very fruit, the chiefest of the gifts of the Spirit, growing and ripening within us, and that we might learn how not to cause that fruit to wither on the vine.

Jesus saves, it is true. Jesus saves, but greater still, Jesus loves.

Lord, let Your love abide in me, not as something to be horded and savored for personal pleasure, but as a gift to pour out. I know Your love abides upon me. I have known Your call, welcomed Your presence, felt Your touch. But, so often it feels to me as though I have stopped there. I like the taste of Your love, but having had benefit of it, I act as though this is sufficient. Where is that love that should be driving me to act on Your behalf? Where is that love for those around me who do not know You? When will this heart begin to beat with Your heart? I cannot make it so. It is not in me to do so. But, I can come to You, and this I do, asking Holy God of All, that You would create in me a heart after Your own, even if that means a heart that is forever breaking. I am Yours, of this I have no doubt. I am Yours, but I have so far to go to arrive at being an obedient and honorable son. Come will and work in me, oh God.