John 2

CHAPTER II

The First Attestation of Jesus Himself, Continued, 2:1–11.—By the power of his personality and by his divine knowledge and words Jesus had attested himself as truly being the Messiah of whom the Baptist had testified, as the Son of God and the Son of man. To the attestation through the word is now added that of the deed, which was made evident in the first miracle.

John 2:1

1 And on the third day a wedding took place in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there. Now there was invited also Jesus and his disciples to the wedding. John counts from the day (1:43) when Philip and Nathanael became his disciples. The third day after that day means that two nights intervened. On this third day a wedding ἑγένετο, “took place.” While the verb does not mean “began” and mentions only the occurrence of the wedding, which usually consumed seven days, yet to say, “occurred on the third day,” must refer to the start of the wedding. This wedding must be thought of in the Jewish fashion.

In the betrothal bride and groom were pledged to each other in a way that truly made them man and wife, although the two did not at once live together following this ceremony. An interval, longer or shorter, followed, and then the γάμος or γάμοι took place. The groom with his companions brought the bride with her companions to the groom’s home, and there without any further pledge the celebration began, starting toward evening with a feast as grand as possible and continuing for a week, the couple now Jiving together.

John’s words have been scanned most carefully for all possible minor points. The fact that he writes “Cana of Galilee” is to inform his first readers in Asia Minor, where his Gospel was published, that the little town was located in the province of Galilee and not in order to distinguish it from some other Cana located elsewhere. For the Cana near Sidon did not belong to the Jewish land at this time. Names of provinces were also frequently attached to names of towns in cases where the towns were well known and were the only ones with that name. Even so we are unable at present to identify with certainty just what place John, refers to with the name Cana, whether it is Khirbet Kana, also called Kanat el-Dschelil, five hours’ walk from Nazareth, or Kephar Kenna, two hours away, or Ain Kana, a half hour away, a spring by this name near the village er-Reineh. The traditional site is the second place, to which the commentators incline, but too many traditional sites in Palestine are uncertain or openly spurious.

The fact that Jesus and his six companions could make the journey from Bethany beyond the Jordan to any one of the three places indicated as Cana in the time limit of three days is assured. Yet a number of questions are left open by the brevity of John’s narrative. Does he mean to say that the company arrived for the opening of the wedding feast on the evening of that third day, or that they arrived later during the progress of the wedding? Did the miracle occur on the evening of that third day or on a later day of the celebration? How and when did Jesus receive his invitation to attend the wedding with his disciples? The only clue we have is the fact that in the preceding paragraphs, 1:29, 35, and 43, the designations of time “on the morrow” fix each of the occurrences described in these paragraphs as taking place on the day indicated. The natural supposition, then, is that what is now recorded also took place “on the third day,” since this designation of time is placed at the head of this new paragraph exactly like the preceding datives “on the morrow.” We, therefore, take it that the miracle occurred “on the third day.”

John tells us that “the mother of Jesus was there” because the story turns on her action and also because this in a manner explains how Jesus came to be invited. John does not mention her name either here or elsewhere in his Gospel. He refrains from naming himself and all other relatives of his among whom we thus must include Mary, possibly the aunt of John, the sister of his mother Salome. On the question regarding this relationship compare the remarks on 19:25. The adverb “there” means at the wedding and not merely in the town, for we hear what Mary did at the wedding. The verb ἦν contrasts with ἐκλήθη used regarding Jesus and marks a difference, which is also borne out by what follows.

Mary was not present, like her son, as an invited guest but as a friend of the groom or of the bride or of both in order to aid in the feast. Perhaps she was related to one of the bridal couple. This would explain how she knew about the lack of wine and why she took steps in the matter.

John 2:2

2 Jesus was formally invited. The connective δέ adds this statement to the one regarding Mary and at the same time indicates that this is a little different. We have no connective with this delicate force in English. The point of difference lies in the verbs: Mary “was” there as a matter of course; Jesus “was invited” in a formal way. The tenses add to this, as well as the forward positions of the verbs, the one durative, ἦν, the other aorist to designate the one act of giving the invitation, the aorist also indicating that the invitation was effective—Jesus accepted. The verb is singular and thus lifts Jesus into prominence over his disciples: he was invited and they, too, but not on an equality—they only on account of Jesus.

The word μαθητής, as correlative to διδάσκαλος, means more than pupil or scholar, namely a follower and adherent, i.e., one who accepts the instruction given him and makes it his rule and norm. While used, as here, with reference to beginners, in its full sense μαθηταί are those who have truly imbibed the spirit of their master. The term thus came to mean the true believers. When these were invited, we are unable to say; the tense of the verb records nothing but the fact. As regards what follows we may also bear in mind that, while Jewish weddings usually were celebrated for a week, some even for two weeks, we cannot be sure that this wedding lasted that long. The impression left by the entire narrative is that the present wedding, perhaps because the couple was poor, lasted only the one evening and was celebrated only by one feast, made as fine as possible by the means of the groom.

John 2:3

3 With the situation thus briefly sketched, the real story begins with the simple connective “and.” As regards the variant readings, which leave the sense unchanged, we abide by the one that shows the greater textual authority. And when the wine began to fail, the mother of Jesus says to him, They have no wine. The aorist participle in the genitive absolute is best regarded as ingressive, “began to fail.” The decline of the wine would be discovered before the last of it was used. The usual explanation is that the sudden addition of seven guests caused this giving out of the wine. Yet this assumes that the invitation was given so late that additional provisions could not be secured. And why should only the wine fail and none of the food?

Had the amount of wine been calculated so closely that it would have just reached if these seven guests had not appeared? When explanations are too easy they are sometimes wrong. In Palestine a universal drink such as wine would be provided even by a poor groom in such abundance that, instead of running short, the supply would leave plenty over. John simply records the fact, the wine began to run short; let us stay with that. God’s providence thus provided “the hour” for Jesus. If we must have explanation, let it be that somebody had blundered by not obtaining enough wine—not enough for the company to be served counting also Jesus and his disciples.

Since Mary takes the matter in hand she must have been one of those who helped with the serving, in fact, the one who oversaw and managed affairs as also her word to the helpers indicates. It is she who thus turns to Jesus. Now here again some follow a course of explanation that is a little too obvious and easy. They think that by coming to her son she followed only the ordinary impulse of the long previous years when in any difficulty in her home life in Nazareth she turned to him. We are told positively that Mary never dreamed of a miracle when she came to her Son and said, “They have no wine,” i.e., they are running short of wine. But what did Mary expect?

Having just come from afar, in a village new to him, where he appears only as an honored guest, whence and how could Jesus at a moment’s notice supply more wine? The sensible thing for Mary would have been, since she had come early to help and to manage, that she should have used her own resources or should have called in the aid of other helpers who lived in Cana, some neighbor or some friend of the groom who had a supply of wine close by. No; she goes to her Son Jesus! The old commentators are right—here is more than an ordinary appeal for help.

Here are the items that count. Jesus had left his home to begin his career as the Messiah; he had been baptized by John and had returned with six disciples; the report of what had transpired right after his Baptism together with the testimonies of the Baptist, of the six disciples, and of Jesus himself, reached Mary’s ears first of all. These things brought back to her mind the great facts connected with her Son’s conception, birth, etc. We know this woman’s character, the depth of her nature, the clarity of her knowledge and intuition. She knew her son was the Messiah of whom wondrous things were to be expected. Like Mary of Bethany, who foresaw Jesus’ death by violence and grasped the moment at the feast made for him by his friends and anointed him for his burying, 12:1–8, so Jesus’ mother turns to her son at this critical moment during the wedding feast.

Just what she did expect of him—was it fully clear to her own mind? The answer: ordinary help, fails to meet the case entirely. The answer must be: extraordinary, wondrous help. This touch, too, is true regarding Mary—she asks nothing, not even, “Can or will you do something?” She simply states the difficulty and humbly leaves all else to Jesus. To offer the suggestion that, since Jesus brought six extra men and thus caused the shortage, he had best leave at once and thus induce others to leave also, resolves the predicament mentioned by Mary in a rather trivial manner.

John 2:4

4 The answer of Jesus to his mother creates surprise. And Jesus says to her, What is that to me and thee, woman? Mine hour has not yet come. The question: τίἐμοὶκαὶσοί; is idiomatic, compare Matt. 8:29; Luke 8:28; Mark 1:24; 5:7, a fixed formula, well rendered by Luther, “Was habe ich mit dir zu schaffen?” It is elliptical, indeed, but not in the sense, “What have we to do with that?” meaning colloquially, “Never mind!” (R. 539). The literal thought is, “What is there for me and thee?” i.e., in common for us in this matter. Yet not, “This is not my concern but thine”; but the opposite, “This is my affair not thine.” Thus already in this question a hidden promise is included.

The other thought is that Jesus thrusts his mother away—gently but firmly. She comes to him with the expectation that in the present difficulty he will show his Messianic powers by doing something very much out of the ordinary. This he does not refuse to do but he declares that it is his own affair entirely, and that even his own mother must leave it altogether to him. Having entered on his great office, the old relation obtaining at Nazareth when he obeyed all her wishes like any ordinary dutiful son, is forever at an end. He has assumed his higher position, and even his mother must recognize that fact. “Although there is no higher power on earth than father’s and mother’s power, even this is at an end when God’s word and work begin.” Luther. The address γύναι, “woman,” sounds harsher in translation than it is or was meant to be in the original.

It is of a piece with the question itself. To see and to feel that it contains no trace of disrespect recall 19:26, where Jesus uses the same word in committing his mother to John. He does not say “mother” but “woman,” for, while Mary will forever remain his mother, in his calling Jesus knows no mother or earthly relative, he is their Lord and Savior as well as of all men. The common earthly relation is swallowed up in the divine. Matt. 12:46–50.

What the question tells Mary the additional statement makes still clearer, “Mine hour has not yet come.” In ἡὥραμου the possessive must not be overlooked. This expression is not a mere reference to time, as though Jesus only bids Mary wait a little. Nor is it only like καιρός, the time proper for something, the season for it. We often meet the expression with reference to Christ, his death, his resurrection, etc. His enemies cannot triumph over him as long as his hour has not yet come; not until then will be their hour and the power of darkness, Luke 22:53. Note the similar expression ἡἡμέρατοῦΚυρίου.

Jesus’ hour is the one appointed for him by the Father; it may be the hour for this or for that in his Messianic work. When it comes, he acts, and not until it comes. So Jesus never hurries, nor lets others hurry him, he waits for his hour and then meets it. He is never uneasy or full of fear, for nothing can harm him until his hour comes; and when it comes, he gives his life into death. Here the hour is the one arranged for the first miraculous manifestation of his glory. In performing this miracle he will not be importuned even by his mother.

In “not yet come” lies the promise that his hour will, indeed, come. Mary also thought that οὕπω, “not yet,” intimated that the hour was close at hand. Compare the author’s His Footsteps, 100, etc.

John 2:5

5 If the coming of Mary to Jesus in the first place is extraordinary in its motivation and its purpose, and if the answer of Jesus is still more extraordinary in its signification and implication, both the coming and the answer are matched by the sequel: His mother says to the servants, Whatever he shall tell you, do! Mary’s mind responds fully to that of her great son. What his question, his form of address, the word about his hour, mean flashes instantaneously through her mind and heart. We need not suppose that John abbreviates the dialog, and that Jesus really said more than is recorded. Other women may have required more, may have answered back with some querulous question or remark—not this woman. It sounds almost humorous when a commentator remarks about her “genuinely feminine quickness,” with which she sizes up Jesus as following “a man’s way” of rebuffing a suggestion coming from a woman.

The idiosyncracies of sex play no part with the mother of Jesus whose clear spiritual insight here comes to view. Of a piece with the suggestions noted is the surmise that Mary’s direction to the servants means that she expects Jesus to order the servants to go out to get some wine from a place near by. Mary could have done that herself. How could Jesus do that as a guest? Whither would he send the servants in a place strange to him? And is this all that “his hour” means?

Mary speaks not to Jesus but to the διάκονοι. This means that she is wholly satisfied with her Son’s reply, which also is evidenced by what she tells “the servants.” These evidently had not heard her conversation with Jesus. The term διάκονοι is significant. They are not δοῦλοι, “slaves” or “servants” in the lowest sense of our English word, who just obey orders and no more. These are voluntary assistants, come in to help in a friendly way with the work at the wedding feast. They work for the help and the benefit their work brings to the young people and to their festive guests.

They lay hand to what is needed of their own accord or at the request of those who manage affairs. Now Jesus was a guest and had no hand in managing affairs; hence to receive orders from him would sound strange to these διάκονοι. On the other hand, Mary’s word to them shows her insight in expecting from Jesus an order that itself would sound extraordinary to persons bidden to carry it out. These voluntary assistants might thus hesitate and shake their wise heads, even smile and refuse to act. So as the one who manages the work and directs these assistants come to lend a helping hand Mary gives them positive directions.

These evidence her faith in her Son’s implied promise and meet the situation regarding the servants so exactly that Jesus, too, accepted her order to them on his part and used those servants when working his miracle. “Whatever he tells you,” is like the indefinite relative clause in 1:33, which see. The aorist imperative is peremptory, “Do at once! do without question!” However strange the act may seem to you, foolish even to your wise eyes, useless, trivial, whatever it proves to be—do it! If only more of us would obey Mary’s word, “Whatever he tells you, do!”

John 2:6

6 Here John inserts a necessary parenthetical remark, hence δέ. Now there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews’ manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece. These were stoneware jars, amphorae, such as are still used in Syria. We do not regard ἦσαν … κείμεναι either as a circumscribed imperfect or as “a past perfect in sense” (R. 906); B.-D. is right, in John the participle is nearly always independent, compare 1:9 and 28. This is especially true when the words are as widely separated as is the case here. John tells us that the waterpots “were there” and then adds how they came to be there, “having been set there in accord (κατά) with the Jews’ manner of purification” (κεῖμαι is generally used as the perfect passive of τίθημι).

Just where they stood no one can say, but it was certainly not where the feast was spread. From v. 9 we gather that they stood where the guests could not see them, and the entire action of filling up these pots was known at first only to Jesus himself and to the servants who did the work, probably also to watchful Mary and to a few others.

“In accord with the purification of the Jews” is added by John for the sake of his Greek readers. The old regulations for purification were greatly extended in unauthorized ways during the post-Babylonian period, so that also cups, pots, brazen vessels were washed (“baptized”) as a matter of ritual observance, Mark 7:4, and some texts add couches, those on which a person reclined when dining. The washing of hands, especially before eating, Mark 7:3, was done only in a formal way, merely by dipping the finger into water. John adds that the number of pots was six and tells us how much water each (ἀνά, distributive) could hold, namely two or three “firkins.” The Attic μετρητής is estimated at over 8½ gallons (Josephus) and answers in general to the Hebrew bath. The Rabbinists, however, make the bath equal to a little less than 4½ gallons. Which estimate John has in mind is hard to decide, see Smith, Bible Dictionary for all the available data.

The higher and more probable estimate reaches at least 110 gallons, the lower and less probable about 60 gallons. John is at pains in his brief narration to let us know about the great quantity of wine which Jesus created, giving the number of the vessels and what amount of water they held, χωροῦσαι, literally, “giving place to,” i.e., containing. But it has been asked, “Was so much water necessary for purification purposes on this occasion?” If we ourselves could have attended the wedding, counted the number of the guests, and watched just how the water was used, we could answer this question in detail. As it is, we can only say that, even if the young couple was poor, the company of guests seems to have been a considerable number. As far as the addition of seven more persons by the coming of Jesus and his disciples is concerned, this cut but a small figure in general and none at all in explaining the shortage of wine. The washings, too, which the Jews practiced seem to have included much more than is usually assumed.

The six pots of wine which Jesus created correspond in a striking way to the six disciples with whom he appeared at this wedding and recall the miracle of the loaves when twelve baskets of fragments were left over, one for each of the twelve disciples with Jesus, Matt. 14:15–21.

John 2:7

7 Now Jesus acts. Jesus says to them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them to the brim. Jesus’ hour had come. The supposition that Jesus waited until the wine provided for the wedding was actually used up, until the moment when it would have to be announced to all the guests that no more wine could be served, may be in accord with the facts, since the ingressive aorist in v. 3: ὑστερήσαντοςοἴνου, “wine having begun to give out,” points to a total lack that would presently set in. Jesus might have ignored Mary’s order to the helpers, but he uses it and thereby honors his mother.

The gender of αὑτοῖς, “them,” easily refers back to τοῖςδιακονίοις in v. 5. The aorist imperative γεμίσατε is strong like ποιήσατε in v. 5, a straight, authoritative order. Verbs of filling take the genitive, here ὕδατος, “with water.” If Jesus reclined at the feast with the other guests, we may assume that he quietly arose and went out to where the pots stoods and the helpers were busy. So Mary, too, when she first spoke to Jesus, may have beckoned him to come to her and then made known to him the impending lack of wine. Were the pots empty when Jesus gave his order? John skips such details.

But we may well assume that his order meant that the pots should be filled with entirely fresh water. The order is carried out by the helpers with alacrity, which implies that a well or spring was not far off. One wonders what the helpers thought while they were filling up those jars. John adds only the little touch ἕωςἄνω, “to the brim.” Did managing Mary insist on their obeying orders promptly and strictly? Well, they would! Did the helpers smile at each other when they carried all that water to the pots and crack jokes with each other about this Rabbi who would give the guests this precious water as a new kind of wine?

John 2:8

8 The job is done, the pots are full, the eye of Jesus watching until the last one was filled. Was Mary in the background also looking on? Now comes the second order, as astonishing at the first. And he says to them, Dip out now and go on bringing to the steward of the feast. And they brought. The miracle had been wrought, the water was now wine. Crashaw has the beautiful poetic line:

Lympha pudica Deum vidit et erubuit.

Note the tenses, first the aorist ἀντλήσατε, for a quantity is to be dipped out into some fair-sized vessel; then the durative present φέρετε, “go on bringing” as wine may be needed at the tables for the guests. R. 855 is correct when he says that in the midst of the aorists in v. 5–8 this present tense stands out; but when he explains it as being “probably a polite conative offer to the master of the feast,” he regards this tense as an aoristic present. The durative sense is far more natural in this connection. What Jesus ordered the helpers did. The ἀρχιτρίκλινος was the manager of the feast, whether he himself was one of the guests selected for the office by the groom or one who did not dine with the rest as a guest, is hard to say. One of his functions is incidentally mentioned, namely that of tasting food and drink before these were offered to the guests. He is named from the triclina, couches for three persons each, three of them usually placed on three sides of a low table, for the guests to recline on while dining.

John 2:9

9 John reports in detail what happened. Now when the steward of the feast tasted the water that had become wine and knew not whence it was (but the servants knew, who had dipped the water), the steward of the feast calls the bridegroom and says to him, Every man sets on first the good wine, and when they have drunk freely, the worst; thou hast kept the good wine until now. The first δέ continues the narrative, the second indicates the parenthesis. We must read as one concept to τὸὕδωροἶνονγεγενημένον, “the water having become wine,” οἶνον without the article being marked as the predicate of the participle. This perfect participle has its usual present implication: the water once turned into wine remained wine. The addition, “and knew not whence it was” (ᾕδει, see 1:31), explains the steward’s subsequent action.

Busy with his duties, he had not observed what had been going on elsewhere. We infer that if he, whose business it was to watch all the proceedings, did not know, then also none of the guests knew. But the διάκονοι “knew,” knew at firsthand, even also as John now adds the attributive participle, “who had dipped the water,” οἱἠντληκότες, not an aorist to indicate the one act, but the perfect tense, describing these servants as what they continued to be. It seems that at the moment they said nothing but allowed the triclinarch to proceed. It also took them a while to realize fully what had occurred under their very eyes and hands. When they awoke to the situation they surely talked volubly enough.

John 2:10

10 The moment the triclinarch tasted the wine, it flashed into his mind that someone had made a grand mistake in regard to the wine. He hastens to call the bridegroom, and John reports this detail first in order to indicate the actuality of the miracle: water turned into wine; and secondly, to indicate the quality of this wine. Note this: as Jesus made a great quantity of wine, so he also made this of the greatest excellence. The triclinarch points out the fact that the bridgroom has made a serious mistake. He has allowed the poor wine to be served first and kept this excellent (κολόν) wine until the last; whereas everybody, when he is compelled to use two such qualities of wine, does the reverse. The groom, of course, is even more astonished than his steward, for he knew of no such good wine. No doubt he, too, at once tasted it and thus saw the situation for himself.

In describing the usual custom the steward uses the clause: καὶὅτανμεθυσθῶσιν, aorist passive subjunctive to denote the definite future fact. Some are overanxious regarding the verb μεθύσκω, “to make drunk,” and the passive used in the same sense as the middle, “to become drunk,” as if this steward here implies that the wedding guests were really drunk, and this excellent wine was thus utterly wasted on them. The entire context and the entire situation obviate this anxiety. The context implies only that after some time of drinking the sense of taste is blunted and does not readily distinguish the exact quality of wine. The steward is stating a general rule followed at feasts; it would be wholly untrue for him to say, when stating this rule, that the participants at such feasts always became drunk and were then fooled by having cheap wine passed to them. The situation here, as far as any application of the steward’s rule to the guests at this wedding is concerned, on its very face bars out all excess.

The steward cannot mean that the guests are drunk, and therefore this excellent wine will be lost upon them. It is utterly impossible for us to imagine Jesus being present in a tipsy crowd, to say nothing of aiding such carousing by his first miracle. The very thought could be entertained only by those “eager to mar, if by any means they could, the image of a perfect Holiness, which offends and rebukes them,” Trench.

The word of the steward has frequently been allegorized. The wine that is worse is made to mean all that the world offers us, or again all that the false Judaism of the day offered; while the excellent wine which Jesus created is made to mean the gospel and its true riches and joys. The text itself contains no such thoughts. The word on which these thoughts are based is not even a word of Christ but of an ordinary Jew who voiced a common observation. Allegory, especially in preaching, easily misleads. It only super-imposes our own thoughts on words of Holy Writ. If it is used at all, it should be used with great care and always in such a way that our own thoughts remain clearly distinguished from what the written words actually state.

John’s account is criticized as being incomplete. Such incompleteness is charged against him in quite a number of cases. We are told that he only furnishes “sketches.” But this is a misconception of the evangelist’s chief purpose, which is never to tell all that is interesting and all that we might desire to know about this or that great event but simply to present the attestation which reveals the Savior as the God-man. Viewed from this point of the evangelist’s own purpose, the account of this miracle is perfect and complete.

John 2:11

11 John himself corroborates this when he closes his account as follows. This did Jesus as a beginning of the signs in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him. The account as written by John purposes to show this first miracle as a sign, i.e., as signaling or manifesting Jesus’ glory. Hence no name of bride and groom and no details about the minor persons, and no record as to what they thought or did during or after the wedding. All centers on Jesus and this “sign” and is used in the account only as helping to direct our attention to that center. We must read ταύτην by itself, namely as τοῦτο, which is attracted to the gender of the following ἀρχήν, “this … as a beginning of the signs,” etc.

Our versions translate as if the text were: ταύτηντὴνἀρχήν (at best an inferior variant), “this beginning,” etc. After telling us in v. 1 that this miracle was wrought in Cana of Galilee, it would be a lame repetition again to say this at the close of the account. What John in closing tells us is that this miracle which was the first of all the miracles was done in Cana of Galilee. John wants it impressed upon us—not in Judea but here in Galilee the signs began. This is again emphasized in 4:46 and 54.

To designate these deeds John uses σημεῖα (σημαίνω, to make known by a σῆμα), “signs,” deeds that indicate something, that convey a great meaning to the mind and to the heart. The translation “miracles,” deeds which produce wonder, is inadequate; for it loses the ethical force of “signs.” These point beyond themselves to something which they accredit and attest, first of all to the person who works these signs and to his significance; by that, however, also, in the case of Jesus most directly, to the new era he is ushering in. The ethical side, then, is that signs always require faith in what is signified, coupled with obedience on the part of those who see the signs. Unbelief and disobedience thus become the great crime against the signs. The term as well as its sense were well known to the Jews from the Old Testament, were constantly used in the apostolic church, and, doubtless, were used by Jesus himself to designate his own works. John’s Gospel naturally uses this term in the sense of the strongest and the most tangible testimony for Jesus’ divinity, always counting those guilty who meet the signs with unbelief.

A few days before the wedding Jesus had attested himself by his words to the men who then became his disciples; these attestations were the prelude to the sign now wrought, one of those deeds of which he himself afterward said that no other man before him had wrought such works, 15:24. We often find σημεῖα linked with τέρατα (τέρας), “wonders,” startling, amazing portents; but the latter is never used alone but always in conjunction with other terms that bring out their difference from the pagan portents. Frequent, too, is δυναμεῖς, indicative of the divine power in the deeds. Next ἔνδοξα (neuter plural) as revelations of the divine glory; παράδοξα, strange things, only Luke 5:26; θαυμάσια, provoking wonder, only Matt. 21:15, though we often have θαυμάζω as a result of miracles.

“And he manifested his glory,” is John’s own description of what Jesus really did in this sign at Cana. The δόξα is the sum of the divine attributes or any one of these, shining forth to the eyes and the hearts of men; compare 1:14.

To the inner significance John appends the effect, “and his disciples believed in him.” On the verb compare 1:12. The aorist states the fact: they rested their confidence in him as the Messiah and did this in consequence of the sign here wrought. Following their original acceptance and faith, as recounted in the previous chapter, ἐπίστευσαν here implies an increase of faith. It was, indeed, faith in the true sense of the word and yet it was only initial, needing more revelation and strength for its full development. On the term μαθηταί see v. 2.

This pericope opens up the entire question of miracles in the sense of the Scriptures, to which rationalism and a certain so-called “science” have always objected and will always object. The effort to believe the sacred record and at the same time to explain the accounts of the miracles so that they become only natural occurrences, must in the nature of the case always fail. The alternatives are exclusive, and only self-deception of a strong kind is able to hide that fact.

Minor thoughts are that by his first sign Jesus honors marriage and the family relation. By the great quantity of excellent wine he actually makes a valuable wedding present to the couple at Cana. The prohibition movement looks askance at Jesus who not only himself drank wine but presented such a quantity at Cana. The plea that, if Jesus had lived in our time, he would never have wrought this sign, virtually attacks the moral character of the Savior and of God who made wine to gladden the heart of man. The fact remains, the Scriptures nowhere condemn wine and its right use but only any and all forms of its abuse.

II

The Public Attestation Throughout the Holy Land, 2:12–4:54

The attestation by the Baptist and that by Jesus himself, as recorded hitherto, are preliminary. Even the first sign is wrought in a family circle. The evangelist now shows us the public ministry of Jesus in its full swing, grouping together a number of most notable attestations to his divine Sonship. First, The Cleansing of the Temple with its Further Effect, 2:12–25; secondly, The Conversation with Nicodemus, 3:1–21; thirdly, Jesus in Judea and the Last Testimony of the Baptist, 3:22–36; fourthly, Jesus in Samaria, 4:1–42; fifthly, Jesus in Galilee, 4:43–54.

The Cleansing of the Temple with its Further Effects, 2:12–25.—Quite simply the events are connected: after the miracle at Cana Jesus moves his home to Capernaum and from there he attends the festival at Jerusalem. After this there went down to Capernaum he himself and his mother and the brothers and his disciples; and they remained not many days. In John’s Gospel the singular μετὰτοῦτο connects quite closely in point of time, while μετὰταῦτα bridges a longer interval. The verb is singular to match the first subject, which is, therefore, also expressed by αὑτός and is followed by the other subjects. The force is: “He went down to Capernaum, and when I say ‘he’ (Jesus), this means he with the family and with the disciples.” So the family changed its residence from Nazareth to Capernaum. Since the fact is known to John’s readers from the other Gospels, he does not need to say that after the wedding all went back to Nazareth, packed up, and moved.

Whether “the brothers” were at the wedding is not indicated; if they were, John finds no occasion to mention this fact. Yet we see that the disciples remained with Jesus. There is no discrepancy with Matt. 4:13, for Matthew omits what lies between the temptation in the wilderness and Christ’s return from Jerusalem to Capernaum, hence he reports only that Jesus made his home at Capernaum on his return from Jerusalem. John supplements this by stating just how early the transfer was made.

It remains an unsettled question as to who the ἀδελφοί were, whether they were sons of Joseph and Mary born to them after Jesus; or sons of Joseph by a former marriage; or only cousins of Jesus through Clopas, the brother of Joseph. Each supposition has some proof but also some undeniable disproof. This, of course, is true also regarding the sisters, who are not mentioned here, since in all probability they remained in Nazareth, being held there by their marital ties. Capernaum on the shores of the Sea of Galilee was a populous place, through which passed the caravan trade route from Damascus to the Mediterranean. Here John and James had their home with Zebedee and Salome, their parents; and Peter lived here with his mother-in-law, Mark 1:29, etc. Just why Jesus made the transfer is hard to say, except that it was possible for his disciples to be near him without all of them forsaking their homes, and for the future it offered a field that was better suited for Jesus’ labors than the small and retired Nazareth in the hills.

When John adds that “here they remained not many days,” he includes all the persons mentioned and implies in the sequel that at the end of these days all of them went to attend the Passover at Jerusalem. In v. 13 John reports this regarding Jesus, but in v. 17 we see that the disciples were with him at the festival. It is entirely in order to think that Mary and the brothers were also there. During this first brief stay in Capernaum Jesus lived quietly in contact with his disciples, away from the excitement his miracle had caused in Cana. Even now Jesus knows how to wait.

John 2:13

13 And the Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. The approach of the Passover marks not only the time but indicates also the motive for the journey. This is the first Passover since Jesus assumed his ministry. The festival lasted seven days. Its crowning glory was the eating of the roasted lamb by a party numerous enough to consume it together with the bitter herbs. Every man of the Jews from twelve years up was supposed to attend this festival at Jerusalem, which overflowed the city with pilgrims.

The addition “of the Jews” shows that John is writing for general readers. On the use of this term by John see 1:19. Invariably the Jews “went up to Jerusalem,” no matter how elevated the locality from which they started. The verb, often enough true physically, (the Lake of Galilee lies 600 feet below sea level), is really meant ethically and spiritually. The hour has come for Jesus to step forth publicly before his nation. His first great public act would take place in the capital, yea, in the Temple itself.

The great Paschal Lamb, of whom the Baptist had testified to his disciples, attends the great Paschal Feast and there foretells his own death and sacrifice.

John 2:14

14 Without a single further word the evangelist presents the account which he wants his readers to have. And he found in the Temple those that were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers sitting. The verb merely states the fact, not—as has been said—an occasion God offered for his Son’s work. The condition of the Temple at this time was the work of men; it was what they had made of the Temple that Jesus “found.” The part of the Temple here referred to is the court of the Gentiles, the ἱερόν. About the sanctuary proper (ναός) were four courts, that of the priests surrounding the building, that of the men toward the east, that of the women likewise, beyond that of the men. Around these three was an extensive court, called that of the Gentiles, since Gentiles were permitted to enter it.

The outer side consisted of magnificent colonnades. “There, in the actual court of the Gentiles steaming with heat in the burning April day, and filling the Temple with stench and filth, were penned whole flocks of sheep and oxen, while the drovers and pilgrims stood bartering and bargaining around them. There were the men with the wicker cages filled with doves, and under the shadows of the arcade, formed by quadruple rows of Corinthian columns, sat the money-changers, with their tables covered with piles of various small coins, while, as they reckoned and wrangled in the most dishonest of trades, their greedy eyes twinkled with the lust of gain. And this was the entrance-court of the Most High! The court which was a witness that that house should be a House of Prayer for all nations had been degraded into a place which for foulness was more like shambles and for bustling commerce more like a densely crowded bazaar; while the lowing of oxen, the bleating of sheep, the babel of many languages, the huckstering and wrangling, the clinking of money and of balances (perhaps not always just) might be heard in the adjoining courts, disturbing the chant of the Levites and the prayers of the priests!” Farrar, The Life of Christ, 455, etc.

The cattle and the doves were a necessity for the prescribed sacrifices, but to make of the great court a stockyard was the height of abuse. The little banks were also necessary, for a tax was taken from every Israelite who was twenty years old, Exod. 30, 11–16. This tax was collected during the month preceding the Passover and was either sent in by those at a distance or paid in person by those attending, who then, however, had to have Jewish coin, compelling all who came from foreign parts to have their money changed. For this a small rate was charged. A κερματιστής (from κέρμα, that which is cut off, i.e., a small coin) is one who deals in coins; and καθημένους describes these bankers “sitting” crosslegged behind low stool-like τράπεζαι on which their stacks of coins were ranged—open for business.

John 2:15

15 Jesus makes short work of this abuse. And having made a scourge of cords, he cast all out of the Temple, also the sheep and the oxen, and he scattered the coins of the money-changers and upset their tables; and to those selling doves he said, Take these things hence! Stop making my Father’s house a house of merchandise. The public ministry of Jesus begins with an act of holy wrath and indignation. The Son cleans his Father’s house with the lash of the scourge. No halfway measures, no gradual and gentle correction will do in a matter as flagrant as this. Here at the very start is the stern and implacable Christ. The aorists of the narrative are impressive; they state what was done, done in short order, done decisively and completely, begun and finished then and there.

Without speaking a word Jesus picks up a few pieces of rope, such as were ready at hand where so many cattle were tied. The aorist participle ποιήσας marks this as the preparatory action. He twists these into a scourge. Tender souls have imagined that Jesus only menaced with the scourge, at least that he struck only the animals. They are answered by πάνταςἐξέβαλεν, and πάντας is masculine, its antecedent being τοὺςπωλοῦντας and τοὺςκερματιστάς the men who were selling and the money-changers. With fiery indignation Jesus applied the scourge right and left to these men.

Then also to the sheep and the oxen. John never uses τε … καί in the sense of “both … and,” so that here we might read: he drove out “all, both the sheep and the oxen.” This is shut out also by John’s reversing the order, now placing the neuter πρόβατα first, whereas in v. 14 he has this word second. We must translate: he drove out “all” (the men), “also the sheep and the oxen.” The verb ἐξέβαλεν refers to the three objects alike, and the participle ποιήσας which is to be construed with this verb explains that he drove all these men and these beasts out by means of the scourge he had made. Ethically nothing is gained for Jesus by making him only threaten to strike either the men and the beasts or only the men; for ethically, to threaten is equal to carrying out the threat. The scourge was no mere sham.

The same summary proceeding drove out the money-changers. The κόλλυβος is the small coin paid for exchange, hence κολλυβιστής is the banker who makes the exchange. Jesus “poured out” or “scattered” their κέρματα or “coins,” perhaps with a flip of the scourge. But he also upset their τράπεζαι, the low little tables behind which they squatted. This reads as if he kicked them over. Short work, thorough and complete, a general scatterment and stampede.

John 2:16

16 Fancy has stepped in to say that Jesus dealt more leniently with the doves and their sellers, either because the doves were gentler (forgetting the gentle lambs), or because the doves were the offering of the poor (forgetting that the poor paid also the half shekel Temple tax), or—more strangely still—because the dove is the symbol of the Holy Ghost (forgetting that the lamb certainly symbolized Christ himself). The doves were in closed crates. To get rid of these crates they had to be carried away; hence the peremptory aorist, “Take these things hence!” with the derogatory ταῦτα referring to the crates and their contents, which have no business to be here. It is invention to say that when Jesus came to the doves he suddenly regained his self-control. During the entire proceeding Jesus never lost his self-control; if he had, he would have sinned. The stern and holy Christ, the indignant, mighty Messiah, the Messenger of the Covenant of whom it is written: “He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering of righteousness,” is not agreeable to those who want only a soft and sweet Christ. But John’s record here, and that of the second cleansing of the Temple (Matt. 21:12, etc., and the parallels), portray the fiery zeal of Jesus which came with such sudden and tremendous effectiveness that before this unknown man, who had no further authority than his own person and word, this crowd of traders and changers, who thought they were fully within their rights when conducting their business in the Temple court, fled pell-mell like a lot of naughty boys.

In peremptory fashion, without a connective, comes the second command, “Stop making my Father’s house a house of merchandise!” The present imperative in negative commands often means that an action already begun is to stop; so here, R. 861, etc. While this follows the command to the sellers of doves, it is evidently intended for all the traffickers. This is not the voice of a zealot vindicating the holiness of the Temple, nor of a prophet speaking in the name or Israel’s God; this is the voice of the Son of God himself to whom the Temple was “my Father’s house.” As God’s Son, who has the Son’s right in this house and the Son’s power over this house, Jesus uses his right and his power. And the Father supports his Son by lending his act power to drive these Temple desecrators out through the Temple gates in wild flight. By this word, “my Father’s house,” Jesus attests both his Sonship and his Messiahship. “And the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his Temple, even the Messenger of the Covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts,” Mal. 3:1. Thus Jesus again attests himself, and this time publicly.

There is strong contrast between “my Father’s house” and “a house of merchandise.” This Father and any house of his have to do with prayer, worship, true religion. What a desecration to make his house deal with ἐμπορία, trading, gain-getting, which is so much mixed with unjust dealing and at best is only secular, even if it is here conducted on the plea of providing things that were necessary for worship. Have we not enough places for buying and selling—“emporiums” as our time loves to call them—without invading the place that should be sacred because it is dedicated to God?

But why did these men not resist since they were conscious of their vested rights, having paid the Temple authorities for their concessions? Why, if at first they were startled, did they not presently recover but actually allow themselves to be driven out? Jesus was lone handed, they were many. Not even a show of resistance was offered. The answer is not to be found in their moral cowardice, in the inherent weakness of a sinful course, and on Jesus’ part in the conviction of the righteousness of his cause. Sin is not always cowardly but is often bold and presumptuous.

When money is at stake, wrong is often arrogant. Besides, this case is wholly extraordinary, beyond the usual clash of sin and righteousness. One explanation alone is adequate to account for this: the Son of man wielded his divine authority. Another question is: “Of what good was this outward cleansing as long as the hearts were not cleansed ? Of what good was it to shake off a few rotten fruits while the tree itself remained corrupt?” If the object of Jesus’ zeal was only these merchants and these bankers, Jesus would sink to the level of our modern reformers who try to mend the leaking ship by repairing the rigging. This question, contrasting the inward with the outward, is not correctly stated.

The Temple was the very heart of the Jewish people. Luther is right when he here sees Jesus doing a part of Moses’ work. The law must be applied, especially in flagrant cases, on the basis of the light and the knowledge which people have at the time. This Jesus does with his word, “Stop making my Father’s house a house of merchandise.” On the score of the law alone he corrects the open abuse, so that the gospel with its loftier motive may follow.

John 2:17

17 We now learn, incidentally, that the disciples were with Jesus and witnessed his astounding act although themselves taking no part in it. His disciples remembered that it had been written, The zeal of thine house shall eat me up. The aorist “remembered” is like those that precede and those that follow and tells what happened at the time: they remembered this word of Scripture when they beheld what Jesus did. In v. 22 the temporal clause records that, when Christ had risen from the dead, they re membered his word about destroying and rebuilding the Temple. The Greek retains the present perfect “has been written” after the aorist “remembered,” whereas the English would use the pluperfect “had been written,” or the past tense “was written” (our versions); γεγραμμένονἐστίν is the circumscribed perfect to designate the completed act that stands as such.

Ps. 69, repeatedly quoted as being typical of Christ, expresses what David was made to suffer in his zeal for the Lord. Thus in v. 9, “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up,” is explained by the next line, “And the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” His zeal netted him reproach, hatred, and persecution. The fear comes into the heart of Jesus’ disciples that the same thing will happen to Jesus. They thus apply Ps. 69:9 to Jesus, the application appearing in the change of the tense of the verb. In the Hebrew, David has the perfect tense which is rightly rendered with the aorist by the LXX, for David spoke of his past experience. The disciples think of what the zeal of Jesus will lead to for him in the future, hence they use καταφάγεται, “will eat up.” The very word of Jesus about “my Father’s house” involuntarily recalled the Psalm passage to the disciples’ mind.

They did not think of an inward consuming that uses up one’s strength and vitality, which is suggested neither by the Psalm nor by the act of Jesus, but of a consuming that is due to opposition and harm inflicted by others. Here appears the limitation of the faith of the disciples. Though they believed Jesus to be the Son of God, having beheld his glory (v. 11), and though they again heard the attestation of his Sonship in “my Father’s house,” they were yet afraid that Jesus might come to harm and his work to a stop through human opposition. That is why John puts into his record this remark, as if he would say, “And we foolish disciples became frightened for Jesus, remembering what once happened to David.” We need not assume that they at once thought of a violent death for Jesus; their thoughts did not go that far. The fact that Jesus had no illusions on this point, v. 19 reveals. The genitive zeal “of thine house” is objective and thus may be rendered “for thy house”; the object of the zeal is God’s house.

We need hardly say that we hold, with the best commentators over against the critical schools, that Christ cleansed the Temple twice, once at the beginning and once at the close of his public ministry. The first has been termed an act of grace, the second an act of judgment; but both are manifestations of grace, judgment descending on the wicked nation and its Temple at a far later time. Christ’s act is often viewed as being symbolic: as he here purified the outward Temple, so his mission was to purify it inwardly, hence not to purify the Temple alone but also the hearts of the nation. This is quite legitimate, and it opens up a wide range of application for all time.

John 2:18

18 The commotion caused by Jesus and the quick report of his unheard of procedure brought the authorities down upon him. John is not concerned with the dramatic story as a story, hence he abbreviates this so as to bring correctly only the great testimony elicited from Jesus. The Jews, accordingly, answered and said unto him, What sign showest thou to us, since thou doest these things? The fact that ἀπεκρίθησαν is used to “answer” situations as well as questions, and that doubling the two finite verbs “answered and said” (instead of making one a participle) is more formal and adds more weight, has been shown in 1:48. John conveys the thought that the demand of the Jews was formal and serious. John likes the resumptive οὗν, “accordingly,” which, after the remark in v. 17, reverts to the situation as it was left in v. 16: “accordingly,” after the sellers and the truck had been removed, these official interrogators appear.

John merely calls them “the Jews” as though he cared to give them no higher title; see 1:19, where the term is explained and where its first use by John already has an unpleasant sound. Here the hostile attitude is quite marked. We infer from their formality and from their words as also from the character of Jesus’ reply that these were Sanhedrists who were accompanied by some of the Temple police. They speak as men who have full authority and demand that Jesus show his credentials to them, ἡμῖν emphatically at the end. The question put to Jesus is based on the assumption that he has no official authority to proceed as a public reformer of the established Jewish customs. An unknown layman and mere visitor cannot be allowed to take matters into his own hands.

A second thought behind the question put to Jesus, one that may in some part also help us to understand why Jesus met no resistance from the traders and the money-changers, is the general Jewish expectation of a “reliable prophet” who, when he would come, would either confirm their cultus arrangements or appoint better ones. For this reason also many of the rabbis attached to their decisions the formula, “until Elias comes.” The same thought lies behind 1:21. These authorities, therefore, are quite careful in their proceeding against Jesus. They demand his credentials and take it that these must consist in some “sign” of a nature to vindicate his right to interfere in the Temple arrangements. We may read “what sign” or “what as a sign”; and ὅτι, “since,” may be called elliptical: this we ask since, etc. Also “these things” implies that Jesus may attempt to go farther and to upset more of the Temple arrangements.

On σημεῖον see 2:11.

John 2:19

19 The simple, quiet Jesus who had spent his days in little Nazareth is not in the least flustered by this clash with the supreme authorities of the nation—he meets them as their superior. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up. John retains “answered and said” when introducing the reply of Jesus, thus marking its great weight. This reply is a flat refusal to furnish the kind of a sign demanded by these Jews. The explanation that, instead of considering the inner justification for the act of Jesus, these Jews ask for outward credentials, is insufficient. The same is true regarding the observation that an unspiritual outward miracle is demanded for a deed that appealed inwardly to the conscience, and that such a course could keep on with its demands for a sign and would never be content. More must be said, much more.

This is unbelief that demands a sign. Whenever unbelief asks a sign to convince itself, it does so only in order to reject every sign that could be given it, save one. So whenever unbelief made its demand for a sign on Jesus, he did the only thing possible, he pointed to that one sign which even unbelief will have to accept: the sign of the judgment. Jesus did signs enough, signs of grace, but these leaders, even while they admitted their occurrence (11:47), accepted none of them. Only when at last the Temple would fall about their ears, and the wrath of God visibly descend upon their guilty heads, then, too late, they would have their convincing sign and would by that sign know that Jesus was the Messiah indeed. And this explains another point that all the commentators whom the author has examined overlook: why Jesus answered by a veiled reference to the judgment.

The unbelief that rejects the proffered grace and its signs is bound to stay in the dark, God intends to leave it there. So, indeed, it is pointed to the sign that shall crush it at last but never as though that sign could or should change such unbelief into faith. When that sign comes, it will be too late for faith. Even the premonitions of the sign of final judgment, which faith is only too glad to heed, unbelief scorns as it does all the signs of present grace as not being sufficient to meet its exacting demands.

The reply of Jesus, therefore, fits the men who make the demand. They want a convincing sign, one that will convince them. Well, Jesus has one, of course, only one. They cannot have that now, but in due time they shall have it. What that sign is they are told in a way that piques their curiosity. If it were told outright, they would only resent the telling; but since it is told in the way in which Jesus tells it, his words will stick in their minds and secretly haunt them with their mysterious, threatening meaning.

Jesus could the more easily do this since the Semitic mind loves mysteries and often uses enigmatical words which require either that the hearer have the secret key or go in search for it and find it. These Jews could have found the key to the enigma given them here if they had allowed the grace of Jesus to enlighten their hearts during their day of grace. The disciples found that key as v. 22 shows, but the Jews, because their unbelief grew only more intense, never found it (Matt. 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:57; 15:29).

Like a flash of lightning the answer of Jesus illumined an awful abyss and cast a glare into regions which still lay in darkness for every mind except his own. The word about destroying the Temple reveals the inner character of the whole Jewish treatment of Jesus; and the following word about the raising up of that Temple unveils in all its greatness the work Jesus had now begun. The form of statement is the mashal, a Hebrew term that is similar to the German Sinnspruch, a veiled and pointed saying, which is sometimes equal to a chidah or riddle. The history which follows shows that this first word of Jesus to the Jews did its work, sticking to their minds to the last and plainly causing them no small discomfort despite all their violent unbelief. “Destroy this Sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up”—that is the one sign for them. The aorist imperative to express the one decisive act is followed by the future indicative which is also punctiliar, the second action being contingent on the first. The word ναός refers to the Sanctuary proper, comprising the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, as distinct from ἱερόν which included the entire Temple area with its various extensive courts and structures.

What follows shows that “this Sanctuary” could not have been spoken by Jesus accompanied by a gesture pointing to his own body. Jesus speaks of the Sanctuary before the eyes of all, the material building with its white marble walls and its gilded roof and pinnacles sparkling in the sun.

John 2:20

20 The Jews, accordingly, said, Forty and six years was this Sanctuary built, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But he was speaking of the Sanctuary of his body. The connective οὗν joins this reply with Jesus’ word of mystery. The temporal dative “forty and six years” views the entire time as a unit, R. 527, which corresponds with the constative aorist “was built,” the entire extended work being summarized as one past act, R. 833. In the phrase “in three days” the preposition lays stress on the length of the time, here, of course, by comparison so brief a length. The imperfect ἔλεγε in v. 21, “he was’ speaking,” dwells on what Jesus was saying, as one turns over in his mind the meaning of what one is uttering, for the hearers to do the same thing.

The Jewish Temple was originally built by Solomon and was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. It was rebuilt on the ruined site by Nehemiah and Ezra. While it was not again destroyed, its inferior condition led to a gradual rebuilding from the foundations up, on a grander and more elaborate scale, under Herod (hence it was also called Herod’s Temple). About 2 years, beginning 20 or 19 B. C., were spent in preparation, 1½ in building the Porch and the Sanctuary with its Holy of Holies (16 B. C.); 8 years later the court and the cloisters were finished (9 B.

C.); other repairs followed until the time of the present visit of Jesus. The whole work was not considered as completed until A. D. 64. The 46 years=20 until the Christian era (when Jesus was 4 years old), plus 27 until the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, thus making 46 to 47 in all. The questions of chronology that are involved are more or less intricate. Compare Josephus, Ant. 15; 20, 9, 7, where we are told that in the final stages more than 18, 000 workmen were employed.

The Jews, of course, did not grasp what Jesus meant, but their misunderstanding did not lie in applying his words to the Sanctuary, as though Jesus had not referred to that building. Their error lay in applying Jesus’ words to this building exclusively. Their unbelief saw only this building and nothing of its true significance and higher connection. The unbelief of modern critical minds which rejects “the two nature theory” regarding Christ’s person fares no better with regard to this word of Jesus than these Jews. Now the Sanctuary, the house in which God dwelt among Israel, was the type of the body of Jesus in which the Godhead dwelt and tented among men, 1:14. The Sanctuary and Jesus thus belong insolubly together, the one is the shadow of the other. This is what the key to the mashal conveys, “But he was speaking of the Sanctuary, of his body.”

The command to destroy the Sanctuary sounded blasphemous to Jewish ears, for what Jew would think of such a thing, especially now, when so many years had already been spent in the rebuilding? Mark that Jesus does not say that he will destroy it, nor that he wants the Jews to do this terrible thing. His words imply the very opposite, namely that he is trying to restrain the Jews from doing this frightful thing but that for some reason and in some way they are bent on doing it in spite of him. He also implies that he knows what secret force impels them to the desperate act: their unbelief and their opposition to the true Messiah, the divine reality for which the Sanctuary stood, without whom it would be an empty, useless shell. Thus the command of Jesus signifies: “Go on in your evil course, since nothing will deter you, and you will have the sign for which you call, the sign that will really convince you!” The imperative is not merely concessive: If you destroy. It reckons with the unbelief of the Jews as a deplorable fact that cannot be changed, just as Jesus reckoned also with the treachery of Judas when he gave the command, “That thou doest, do quickly,” 13:27.

We have a third command of this kind, “Fill ye up the measure of your fathers,” i.e., since you are determined to do so, Matt. 24:31. This monstrous deed of destroying their own Sanctuary the Jews will perform by rejecting and killing him who was the divine reality for which the Sanctuary stood, whom it was to serve with all its services.

John 2:21

21 By means of “his body” Jesus dwelt among men. Because of his human nature God’s Son became one with us and our Savior. “His body” is thus the “Sanctuary” in and by which we have this Savior. That body of Jesus was prefigured by the material Sanctuary of the Jews. It was a kind of substitute for it until the fulness of time should come. It was a promise of the true and everlasting connection which our Savior-God would make with us sinners by means of a more sacred Sanctuary or dwelling place, namely our own human nature which was assumed even in a material body but in altogether sinless form when he became man for our sake. At this time when Jesus had cleansed the Temple and was confronted by the guardians of the Temple, there stood side by side the beautiful type and the heavenly antitype: the earthly Sanctuary and the Son of God in his human body.

The promise had been replaced at last by the fulfillment. But instead of being impressed by the Savior whom their own Sanctuary had pictured to them for so long a time, they met him in the courts of that Sanctuary with an incipient hostility which would grow into violent rejection. Can they have the type when they reject the antitype? Can they keep the promise when they spurn the fulfillment? What is the use of a beautiful photograph of father or mother when the moment the person himself appears he is thrown out with abuse? By killing the body of Jesus the Jews would pull down their own Sanctuary.

It was impossible for the Sanctuary to go on pointing to the human body of the divine Savior when that Savior had come and had been finally rejected. The rejection of the Savior involved judgment (Matt. 26:67) and thus also the taking away of the Sanctuary.

This also explains the promise, “and in three days I will raise it up.” The manner of the rebuilding must match the manner of the destruction. If, then, the Sanctuary is destroyed by the killing of the person of the Messiah, it must also again be erected in the resurrection of the Messiah. As his body is killed, so his body will be raised up. And Jesus himself will effect this raising up. The Scriptures use both expressions when speaking of this opus ad extra. God raises him up; Jesus himself rises.

Thus the sign the Jews demanded will be theirs indeed: a sign of infinite grace for all believers but a sign of final judgment for these enemies. All the Jewish efforts to maintain their Sanctuary and Temple in opposition to all for which it stood would be in vain. To this day it has not been rebuilt. The Mohammedan Dome of the Rock occupies the ancient site. The Temple of the Jews served its last purpose with its destruction. It is still the sign that answers unbelief once for all, the type of the judgment to come.

The resurrection of Jesus wrought the new spiritual temple of God’s people with a new cultus in spirit and in truth (4:21–24), it needed no more types and symbols since in Christ we have the promised substance itself. Zech. 6:12, 13; Heb. 3:3.

John 2:22

22 The Jews not only did not understand what the mashal of Jesus meant, they did not want to understand. They wholly ignored its first half and fastened only on the second half, that Jesus would in three days erect a building that it had taken forty-six years to erect. Later, at the trial of Jesus, they boldly falsified that troublesome first half, making Jesus say, “I am able to destroy the Sanctuary of God” (Matt. 26:61), or, “I will destroy this Sanctuary” (Mark 14:58). From the start the Jews must thus have felt the sting in that command, “Destroy it by your evil, vicious practices!” So also the second half, the Jews could tell themselves, did not mean and could not mean that Jesus would erect this great complex of a stone structure “in three days.” Though they clung to this even at the trial of Jesus, Mark’s rendering, “and in three days I will build another made without hands,” indicates that they had an inkling that the Sanctuary Jesus intended to build was something other than another structure of stone. The one point, however, that mystified the Jews completely and was intended by Jesus to do so was the phrase “in three days.” This reference to the resurrection of Jesus was absolutely beyond the Jewish unbelief.

This phrase exceeded also the faith of Jesus’ own disciples. Whatever they made of the destruction and of the raising up of the Sanctuary, the “three days” were beyond them. They, to be sure, kept their Master’s saying inviolate and in their thoughts neither ignored its first half nor falsified it as the Jews did. But John tells us that they did not understand it until Jesus was actually raised from the dead. When, therefore, he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he was saying this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus spoke. Not until that time did John discover the key and realize that Jesus was speaking of his own body, v. 21.

Especially also the “three days” were solved when Jesus died on Friday and arose on Sunday. What kept Jesus’ word dark for them was their unwillingness to believe that Jesus would actually die as he kept telling them he would, i.e., that by killing him the Jews would wreck their Sanctuary. Thus they also never caught what Jesus said of his resurrection even when he added that this would occur on the third day after his death. But they remembered at last when the risen Savior stood before them. After the active “I will raise up” John now has the passive “he was raised up.” Both are true and both are freely used, one indicating Christ’s agency, the other that of his Father. The phrase ἐκνεκρῶν denotes separation and nothing more, R. 598.

The absence of the article points to the quality of being dead not to so many dead individuals that are left behind; and the sense of the phrase is, “from death.” In the interest of the doctrine of a double resurrection the effort has been made to establish the meaning, “out from among the dead.” Linguistically and doctrinally this is untenable. When it is applied to the unique resurrection of Jesus, this is at once apparent; the idea is not that he left the other dead behind but that he passed “from death” to a glorious life. No wonder ἐκνεκρῶν is never used with reference to the ungodly. The phrase is used 35 times with reference to Christ, a few times with reference to other individuals in a figurative way, and twice with reference to the resurrection of many, Luke 20:35; Mark 12:25, where the phrase cannot have a meaning different from that which it has in the other passages.

John has the imperfect ἔλεγε, “he was saying this,” as in v. 21, and here it is set in contrast with the aorist εἶπεν, “which Jesus did say,” noting only the past fact as such. Then at last, when Jesus had risen from death, the disciples properly connected the word of Jesus that had stuck in their minds all this time with the Scripture, ἡγραφή, namely with passages like Ps. 16:9–11; Isa. 53; the type Jonah; etc.; compare Luke 24:25, etc.; John 20:9; Acts 2:24–32; 1 Cor. 15:4. Thus at last with full understanding the disciples “did believe the Scripture and the word which Jesus (once) spoke.” The thought is not that they had disbelieved or doubted either of the two before but that now their implicit faith became explicit faith. A statement like v. 22 which gives us a glimpse into the inner biography of John and of his fellow-disciples bears the stamp of historical reality in a manner so inimitable that only the strongest preconceptions can ignore its implications. No pseudo-John living in the second century could invent this ignorance of the apostle regarding a saying of Jesus that he himself had invented. The critics who make such a claim, as Godet well says, dash themselves against a sheer moral impossibility.

John 2:23

23 The brief glimpse of the effect of the first public activity of Jesus presented in v. 23–25 rounds out the preceding account of the cleansing of the Temple and forms a transition to the conversation with Nicodemus, furnishing us with the historical background and the general attitude of Jesus. Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover during the feast many believed in his name, seeing his signs which he was doing. Jesus on his part, however, was not entrusting himself to them on account of knowing them all, also because he was not in need that anyone should bear witness concerning this or that man, since he was aware what was in the man.

We hear nothing more about the authorities who challenged Jesus to produce his credentials. They had received their answer, and as far as John is concerned are thus dismissed. The two modifiers “at the Passover” and “during the festival” are not tautological, for the Passover was observed on the fourteenth of Nisan, and the festival lasted the whole week following. Jesus remained for the entire time. What he did John records only incidentally, for his purpose is to inform us that at this first public appearance of his he gathered no close disciples as he did down at Bethany beyond Jordan after his Baptism, and we also learn the reason why. The fact that by his attendance Jesus meant to step out into public view and to begin his public Messianic work right here in the capital of Judaism and right at this greatest festival of Judaism, should not be denied by making his cleansing of the Temple the sudden impulse of the moment, and his further activity during the week only incidental to his presence here at the time. The great hour for his public labors had come.

While the authorities from the first met him with unbelief and a show of hostility, this was not the case with “many” of the pilgrims who had assembled for the festival. They “believed in his name,” i.e., received the revelation he made of himself with faith and trust; compare the remarks on τὸὄνομααὑτοῦ in 1:12. John, however, prevents us from regarding this definite statement with its historical aorist as meaning that thus quickly Jesus gained many true disciples who were like the six that believed on him beyond the Jordan. He does this by describing the nature of their faith, “seeing his signs which he was doing.” This was the only basis of their faith, not the attestation in the words of Jesus which had kindled the faith of those first six disciples and which was then confirmed by the first miracle of Jesus at Cana. Yet we must not regard this remark about the character of the faith of these many believers as implying that the signs Jesus wrought were not intended to produce faith, which would conflict with their character as “signs” and with passages like 5:36; 10:37, 38; and 14:11. Faith may well begin by first trusting in the signs.

But the signs and the Word belong together like a document and the seals attached to it, as the passages just mentioned show. The seals alone eventually amount to nothing. Some advanced from the signs to the Word and thus, believing both, attained abiding faith. Others saw the signs just as clearly but refused the Word and remained in unbelief. When some today would take the Word and yet discard the signs, they invalidate the Word itself, a vital part of which the signs remain, and also fail in faith. The signs so establish the Word that all who began and who now begin with the Word and then accept the signs attain true and abiding faith.

The “many” in Jerusalem still hung in the balance with such inadequate faith as they had.

While the incidental object “his signs” only intimates that during this week Jesus wrought such signs for the public, the added relative clause with its imperfect tense ἐποίει, “which he was doing” or “kept doing,” declares positively that Jesus wrought a goodly number of such signs. Yet John relates none of them; in his Gospel he records only certain select miracles, such as most clearly and directly serve his purpose. We have seen one of these, that at Cana. By telling us that the “many” in Jerusalem rested their faith only on the signs which Jesus kept doing John does not need to add that during this week Jesus added to the signs by also testifying by his teaching. This the “many” passed by, giving it little, too little, attention.

John 2:24

24 The addition of αὑτός to ὁἸησοῦς intensifies the subject; yet it does not mean “Jesus himself,” which would wrongly contrast him with others, but means “Jesus on his part,” contrasting his action with the other action just reported, with adversative δέ, “however,” pointing this out. The contrast lies between ἐπίστευσαν in v. 23 and οὑκἐπίστευεναὑτόν (some prefer αὑτόν, R. 688): they “trusted,” he “was not entrusting himself.” Πιστεύω with the accusative means “to entrust,” R. 476. This contrast extends to the tenses: the first is an aorist to indicate the closed act, “trusted,” which trust, however, rested only on the signs; the second is an imperfect, leaving the eventual outcome open, “was not entrusting himself,” i.e., waiting to see what the faith of the “many” would prove to be. To the six disciples Jesus fully entrusted himself; from the many at the festival he held aloof, formed no closer union with them as being people who were really committed to him.

This was wholly an act on the part of Jesus and in no way dependent on information he received about these people from either his six disciples or from other sources. In this connection John informs us about the power of Jesus to read the very hearts of men. We must know about it; Jesus had already used it in the most astonishing way in the case of Peter and of Nathanael (1:42 and 47, 48), and he constantly used it, notably also in his dealings with his foes. These are never able to deceive him; all their cunning schemes lie open before his eyes. Thus here, too, Jesus holds aloof from the “many,” whereas an ordinary man would have been deceived by their first flash of faith and would have wrecked himself by injudiciously relying upon it. John has διά with the articular infinitive (this infinitive is rare in John’s writings, R. 756), “on account of knowing (them) all.” Since πάντας refers specifically to πολλοί in v. 23, it refers to all of these “many” not to “all men” in the world.

During his humiliation Jesus used his supernatural knowledge when and where it served the purpose of his saving work and not beyond that. Note the present tense in τὸγινώσκειν, not an aorist: he was intimately acquainted with them all, and this continued in the case of not only the new additions as the number grew from one day to another but also in the case of each individual and of any change that developed in his heart. This is a sad word—“all,” for it means that among the “many” Jesus found not one with whom it would have been safe to form closer contact.

John 2:25

25 The διά phrase includes only the “many.” From this we ourselves might generalize, that as Jesus knew these so he would know others also. John does this for us, because he wants it kept in mind as we read on, for instance immediately in the story of Nicodemus and that of the Samaritan woman. So John coordinates (καί) the second reason, which also helps to elucidate the first, “also because,” etc. The durative imperfect εἶχεν says that this was always the case with Jesus, “he was not in need (at any time) that anyone should witness concerning this or that man,” as we so often are when we do not know what to make of a man and feel that we must ask for the judgment of someone who knows him more intimately. Here ἵνα with the subjunctive crowds out the classical infinitive, a construction found frequently in John and in the Koine, and, as here, with impersonal expressions, B.-D. 393, 5. The article in the phrase περὶτοῦἀνθρώπου is scarcely generic but rather specific, “this or that man,” anyone who approaches Jesus with a confession of his name, with hostility, or in any other way.

The reason Jesus needed no testimony from others is added in order to make the information complete, “for he was aware what was in the man,” i.e., the one in question, the article taking up the one found in the περί phrase. The imperfect ἐγίνωσκε states that Jesus always knew, in every single case. What he knew was “what was in the man,” in his very heart and mind, better even than he himself knew. Here ἦν is accomodated to the tense of ἐγίνωσκε, which is sometimes done in the Koine after a secondary tense (always in English), although ἐστί would suffice, R. 1029, 1043. The glorified Christ sees to the bottom of every heart, detects every superficial confession, every trace of indifference or hostility.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.