Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What exactly does "took her into his home" mean in the following passage?

John 19:26-27 (NIV)
26  When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27  and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

If it means that Mary came to live with John, why would this be allowed? Since Mary is married to Joseph? Did Joseph die somewhere down the line? Wouldn't it be frowned upon that a woman lives with a man who is not her husband? Why isn't Joseph mentioned, at all?

share|improve this question
Why do you assume the beloved disciple is John? The gospel writer never identifies the disciple, nor do we know the name of the actual writer. – Schuh Jan 20 at 3:38
up vote 8 down vote accepted

This is supplemental to @LanceRobert's answer (if Joseph was not dead, these points do not avail much).

  1. Remember how much older than John Mary would have been. It has traditionally been held that John was a rather young disciple (note for example that he outruns flamboyant Peter; also a late date for the book of Revelation supports this idea if you subscribe to that). Jesus told him to take Mary in as his mother. Mary would have been in at least her mid forties at this time, but in my opinion at least fifty (33 years of Jesus' life + surely at least 12 years old when she conceived him—though I do not think there is warrant for believing she was that young.) Thus, I would expect that there would be less of a social stigma for her living with him, as it would have been fairly clear that she was not his girlfriend if she was at least twenty years older than him, and maybe more.
  2. Jesus' death was extremely high-profile. Thus it would be easy to make the connection to why she would have moved in with John: her husband and firstborn both gone.
share|improve this answer
Semitic cultures didn't (and don't) make as sharp a distinction between brother and cousin as we do. The difference is always there, but it is accentuated when the nuclear, rather than the extended, family becomes dominant in the modern period. And that comes to my point: if Jesus had brothers, i.e., if Mary had other sons or married daughters, then she would not have been Jesus' responsibility to delegate. That he delegates the responsibility indicates there was nobody else to whom it could naturally fall. She had no other sons or sons-in-law. – Ryan Haber Dec 25 '11 at 19:24
@Ryan, No, we know she had other sons (and daughters). If he was referring to cousins, he wouldn't have mentioned both brothers and sisters. Also, Galatians 1:19, "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Jesus delegating the responsibility shows us just how close John was to him. – Lance Roberts Dec 27 '11 at 4:22
@LanceRoberts et al., Jesus obeyed the Jewish law. There wouldn't have been even a question of whose responsibility Mary would be. It would have been a younger son if one had existed. "Cousin" is a neuter word in English, but in Semitic languages "cousin" (DVD or DVDVT) is either masculine or feminine, just as brother and sister are a matched set. This pattern exists in any number of modern languages as well. The word is used in Biblical Hebrew more or less interchangeably with brothers and sisters. That was my point. The use of the words "brothers" or "sisters" doesn't make a difference. – Ryan Haber Dec 30 '11 at 0:00
@Ryan, because it was a custom, and with his INFINITE wisdom, he decided that John should take care of her. – Lance Roberts Jan 2 '12 at 4:06
@Ryan, surely cousins would be closer relatives than John and hence would by default inherit the responsibility if Jesus had no brothers or brothers-in-law? So either way the delegation to John is unusual, and hence it lacks evidential value in interpreting Mk 6:3, etc. It's also worth noting that legal adoption would have been a familiar concept, at least from Roman practice, although I don't know whether we have any sources for the opinion of Palestinian Jews on the subject. – Peter Taylor Jan 4 '12 at 21:37

The last we hear of Joseph is in Luke 2 during the Jerusalem passover trip when Jesus was 12.

Luke 2:43  And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

The consensus is that Joseph was long since dead by the time of Jesus' ministry. It would have probably been a good time after the Jerusalem trip, because Jesus had a number of brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3). Though since he was twelve at this point, they all could have been born by then.

Mark 6:3  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Another verse that verifies Jesus had brothers Gal 1:19:

Galatians 1:19  But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

The fact that Mary was part of Jesus' retinue is a good indicator that Jesus was in the role of head of household and was taking care of her. This is also shown by his giving to John the responsibility to take care of the widow Mary (showing just how close John was to Jesus).

share|improve this answer
While the scriptural foundation is rather circumstantial, we have no record of Joseph beyond Jesus' childhood. Cana? (John 2:1-11) Mary was there, Joseph was not (or was not mentioned.) Nazareth, when Mary and Jesus' brothers were outside? (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:20-32) Joseph isn't mentioned. He never appears in context of Jesus' ministry, arrest, trial, or crucifixion. – GalacticCowboy Dec 20 '11 at 16:17

The text does not mention Joseph (his Father) because he was more than likely deceased. It should also be noted that since the only Male mentioned from Jesus' inner circle is the disciple Jesus loved (referred to as John in previous texts) was still around and at the cross -- James and the others abandoned Jesus.

share|improve this answer
In fact, James and his brothers at this point still probably to some extent thought he was nuts, as the text suggests. They responded more than likely to the Risen Christ. – Matt Apr 19 '14 at 12:23

Search on YouTube 'David Pawson John Part 1 (20min video)' and you will find the truth. In brief (forgive me I'm not an eloquent writer!) John was most loved by Jesus of all the disciples. He wrote the gospel of John but when you read that book he humbly omits his name because the focus is on Jesus' character. John was the only apostle who wasn't killed and died of old age, and Jesus/God kept him alive for a purpose. The purpose is that John was a close relative and highly trusted by Jesus, therefore Jesus trusted his mother to John's care to live with him. Like a family trustee. Peace to you all :)

share|improve this answer

We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.

I believe the question related to the marital status of Miriam (aka "Mary") and how it might raise questions of impropriety. How would you address that? – WoundedEgo Apr 22 at 3:14

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.