THE KINDRED AND FRIENDS OF THE LORD, AND THE FIRST MIRACLE OF JESUS AT CANA, AS THE EARNEST OF THE GLORIFICATION OF THE WORLD, AND AS THE FIRST MANIFESTATION OF HIS GLORY. CHRIST TRANSFIGURING THE EARTHLY MARRIAGE FEAST INTO A SYMBOL OF THE HEAVENLY.
Joh_2:1-11
.
(Pericope for 2nd Sunday after Epiphany.)
1And the third day there was a marriage [a marriage feast was held] in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, [and Jesus also was invited and his disciples] to the marriage. 3And when they wanted wine [And wine having failed, or, when wine failed] the mother of 4Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim [top]. 8And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and 9bear unto the governor [ruler] of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made [had become, or, been made] wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants which drew [who had drawn] the water knew), the governor [ruler] of the feast called the bridegroom, 10And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, [setteth forth the good wine first]; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but 11[omit but] thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles [signs,
ôῶí óçìåßùí
] did [wrought] Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory [his transfiguring power,
ôὴí äüîáí áὑôïῦ
]; and his disciples believed [the more] on [in] him.
Å
XEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[Here we have the fulfilment of the promise made in the last verse of John 1., and a startling proof of the presence of supernatural powers in the person of the Son of Man. Christ significantly began His public ministry with a miracle of transformation: His whole mission was to convert sinners into saints, to turn grief into joy, to elevate earth to heaven. It was moreover a miracle of festive joy and gladness, and of more than royal munificence; showing—in striking contrast to the Mosaic law of condemnation and the ascetic austerity and water-baptism of John, and in the presence of his former pupils—that the gospel is life and peace, a religion of true happiness. Christ relieves not only the present need, but provides also an abundant supply for all the future, enough and to spare for every one that thirsteth. It is equally significant that this miracle was performed in the bosom of a, family: for the family is the first institution of God on earth, and the nursery of Church and State, where all moral reforms of society must begin. Christianity restored marriage and the family to their original purity, and elevated them to true dignity by abolishing polygamy, emancipating woman from slavish degradation, and by making the relation of husband and wife a type of the sacred union of Christ to His church.—The miracle of Cana, as it was the first in time, is also the greatest in character, next to the raising of Lazarus which was the last, and which exhibited Christ as the Conqueror of death and the Prince of life eternal. Both belong exclusively to the fourth Gospel, while the miraculous feeding of the multitude is reported by all. The change of water into wine was a proper transubstantiation or qualitative transmutation of an elementary substance. It is not a creative act in the strict sense of the term; for God made the world out of nothing, Christ always operated upon existing substances. But it involves the same creative power, and is strictly above nature and above reason (not against them), and therefore incomprehensible. Yet after all it is not more beyond our present comprehension than the change of the rain from heaven into the juice of the grape, the growth of plants by the transmutation of inorganic matter into organic, and all those miracles of nature, which by their daily occurrence appear to us natural and common.—Like many sayings of Christ, the miracle of Cana is a stumbling-block to the superficial reader, and seems to conflict with the ideal character of the Gospel of John. It is indeed a rebuke to a morbid asceticism and desponding legalism, to which even many good people are given. But it abounds in high moral significance and symbolic beauty. It is altogether unnecessary to resort to the modern figment of an essential difference of the wine of the Bible and usual wine. The wine which Christ made was no doubt pure, good wine, in the proper sense of the term. But to think it even possible that Christ might have encouraged immoderate use of wine or any kind of excess, proves a false posture of mind and utter disqualification to understand the miracle. The piety and sobriety of this God-fearing family, with the Son of God as their guest, was the basis of the miracle; in an intemperate circle it would never have been wrought at all. Procul abeste profani! To the pure all things are pure. See Doctr. and Eth.—P. S.]
Joh_2:1. And the third day,[
ôῇôñßôῃἡìÝñᾳ
].—Most probably identical [?] with the
ἐðáýñéïí
, Joh_1:43 (44). See the Exeg. ad loc. The marriage-feast had probably been nearly three days in progress, when Jesus, on His arrival, was invited to it. [The third day is probably to be reckoned from the last date mentioned, i.e., Nathanael’s calling, Joh_1:43 (44), not from the day of John’s testimony, Joh_1:29, as Dr. Lange takes it, still less from the day of Christ’s arrival in Cana (Ewald); for this was not yet spoken of. Bengel: Tertio die post promissum datum, 1:52. Nunc ostenditur specimen. The journey from Judæa to Galilee required two or three days, the distance in a direct line being over twenty hours.—P. S.]
In Cana of Galilee.—In the Galilean Cana; in distinction from another. (So Joh_2:11; Joh_4:46; Joh_21:2). [Or, rather, as the other Cana lies likewise in Galilee,
ôῆò Ãáëéëåßáò
is merely a local notice of John for foreign readers, comp. John 1:28; 44, and Hengstenberg in loc.—P. S.] Not Kef’rKenna, butKânael-Jelîl, according to Robinson, III., p. 443. [Am. ed. of 1858, vol. 2. pp. 346–,49.—P. S.] Galilee was originally only a district (
âָìִéì
) of Upper Galilee, which was divided from Lower Galilee by a line running from Tiberias to Zabulon. Hence in the time of John there was, no doubt, a Galilee in the stricter, ancient sense, to be distinguished from a Galilee in the wider sense. This distinction is important in Joh_4:45. The other Cana, from which ours is distinguished, has been sought now, according to Josephus (Vita xvii. 1) erroneously in Peræa, now in a Cana in the tribe of Asher (Jos_19:28), south-east of Type (Robinson III. 657), which, “though also to be counted in Galilee, lay so much in the vicinity of Phenicia, as to justify the designation of our Cana as K.
ôῆò Ãáëéëáßáò
,” (Meyer). But that northernmost Cana also belonged to Galilee. We can allow this distinction only on the supposition that the region of Cana of Galilee was a Galilee in the narrow sense, in the most provincial terms. As Kef’r Kenna, which tradition has fixed as the Galilean Cana, lies some distance to the south, it might fall in the province of Lower Galilee, and might well form the antithesis. Ewald has made a Kanath, east of Jordan, the other Cana; which is scarcely to be mentioned. Cana lay on a round hill.
[The location of Cana is still under dispute. Dr. Robinson’s view has been adopted by Ritter, Meyer, Alford, Trench, Lange, Renan. Trench (On the Miracles, p. 83) numbers this among “the most felicitous and most convincing of Robinson’s slighter rectifications of the geography of Palestine.” Kânael-Jelîl (i.e., Cana of Galilee) is a mere ruin about seven miles or nearly three hours N. ½ E. from Nazareth, and about three miles N. by E. of Sepphoris (Seffûrieh). Kef’r (i.e., village) Kenna, is a small village about 4½ miles north-east of Nazareth, where the monks locate Cana, and where the remains of a Greek church and the house of St. Bartholomew are pointed out. Robinson’s arguments in favor of Kânael-Jelîl are the identity of name, and a notice from Marinus Sanutus about A. D. 1321. But Hepworth Dixon (Holy Land, I865, I. 332) contends again for Kef’rKenna, as he and Thomson (The Land and the Book) contend for TellHûm, as the site of Capernaum, against Robinson’s conclusion in favor of KhanMinyeh. Hengstenberg and Godet likewise decide for Kef’r Kenna. Grove (in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible) and Hackett (in a supplementary note to the Am. ed.) leave the question of the situation of Cana doubtful. Although Cana has nearly disappeared, it will always be remembered in connection with the festivity of marriage and the happiness of the family.—P. S.]
And the mother of Jesus was there.—The mother of Jesus, John writes; not Mary. [John never names. Mary, as he does not name himself nor his brother James, perhaps on account of his intimate connection with her in virtue of the dying injunction of the Saviour, Joh_19:26-27. So Alford.—P. S.] Luthardt (with Hofmann and Lampe) holds (p. 420; comp. p. 116) that Jesus entirely dissolved the relation of son to Mary on the cross, with the word: “Woman, behold thy son!” John seems far from this, to speak mildly, rare exegesis. Jesus returned with His disciples to Galilee, their common home. They accompanied Him to Nazareth. But the mother of Jesus had gone to the wedding at Cana, which lay further north in the mountains. Probably they met in Nazareth with the invitation which occasioned their following the mother.
[The occasion was evidently a family gathering. Besides the mother of Jesus, His brothers were also present, Joh_2:12. It was a farewell (un adieu royal, as Godet says) to His earthly relations. He was now leaving the privacy and obscurity of family life to enter upon His public ministry, and marked the transition by an exhibition of His divine power which was well calculated to convince His brothers, sisters, and friends of His Messiahship, and to convert them into His spiritual relations.—P. S.]
Joh_2:2. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, [i.e., those five mentioned in John 1., Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and John. The evangelist was therefore an eye-witness of the scene, and probably a relative of Jesus.—P. S.] ̓
ÅêëÞèç
[is the historical past: was bidden, invited, and] cannot be taken as pluperfect. Where would the inviter have looked for the Lord on the Jordan? And there, too, He had as yet no disciples to be invited with Him. The invitation was rather an after-thought, and from this in part the lack of wine might be explained. Meyer supposes that the invitation was given in Cana itself. But people do not go in search of a member of a family at a feast; at all events this would amount to their inviting themselves. The fact that Nathanael was of Cana might increase the relations of the Lord to the house of friends with which His mother Mary seems to have been closely connected. It may certainly be inferred from this passage and Joh_2:12, that Joseph was no longer living. (Against Meyer, who unwarrantably cites Joh_6:42). Of a removal of Mary from Nazareth to Cana, Ewald speaks alone.—If we reckon for the return to Cana, including the stoppage at the calling of Philip and Nathanael, as a three days’ journey, Jesus, according to Origen’s computation of the third day (from the day of Joh_1:43), would have arrived with His disciples in the evening of the first day of the feast. As a wedding generally lasted seven days (among the poorer people, indeed, only three, or even one; comp. Gen_29:27; Jdg_14:14; Tob. 9:12), the supply of wine with but moderate care, would hardly have been exhausted so soon. We are forced to conclude, therefore, that the Lord came with His disciples on one of the later days of the feast; and this works backward to the supposition that the third day dates from the testimony of John, as the day when Jesus was publicly and theocratically accredited as the Messiah in Israel.
[The presence of Christ with His mother and disciples, at a wedding-feast, and His performing His first miracle there, is a silent condemnation of monkish asceticism, and a recognition of the marriage relation as honorable and holy. Christianity is no flight from the world, but a transformation of the world, no annihilation of the order of nature, but the sanctification of it, no moroseness of spirit, but joy and gladness. It is the leaven which is to leaven the whole lump of society. But by turning water into wine and revealing His glory at the wedding-feast, Christ gave us an example how to conduct ourselves in society, that is to introduce a higher, nobler element, and to change the water of trifling, frivolous talk into the wine of instructive, profitable conversation. Trench observes: “We need not wonder to find the Lord of life at that festival; for He came to sanctify all life—its times of joy, as its times of sorrow; and all experience tells us, that it is times of gladness, such as this was now, which especially need such a sanctifying power, such a presence of the Lord. In times of sorrow, the sense of God’s presence comes more naturally out: in these it is in danger to be forgotten. He was there, and by His presence there struck the keynote to the whole future tenor of His ministry.”—P. S.]
Joh_2:3. And when wine failed, [
Êáὶ ὑóôåñÞóáíôïò ïἴíïõ
], Gladly had the nuptial family, which undoubtedly belonged to the true waiting ones in Israel, improvised their invitation; but it seemed to fare ill for awhile, in having neglected the usual Jewish calculation. The less could their spirit turn to their mortification. Tholuck adduces the cheapness of wine in the East, to infer that the family was in limited circumstances. But even where wine is cheap, it is not always at hand in abundance, even for the wealthy. In any case the need here existing was not so much that of poverty as that of family honor, especially of festal feeling and joy. [It also reveals the temperance of the family.—P. S.]
They have no wine.—No more wine. According to Chrysostom and others, Mary speaks these words, because Jesus had already wrought miracles, and she expects one now. Contrary to Joh_2:11. According to Lücke, Jesus has already done extraordinary works in smaller circles, and so given rise to the expectation. According to Bengel and Paulus, Mary would suggest to Him to depart with His disciples; according to Meyer, to provide some remedy, “which in fact might have been done in the most natural way (by fetching more wine)”! Calvin thinks it a hush-word to the guests (perhaps a hint to go). Tholuck: “The object of Jesus’ journey could not have remained unknown to Mary; if, according to the popular faith, she was considering the miracle the test of the Messiah, she might now request even the first exercise of the divine power.” Nothing of all these intentions appears in the words. To tell the need is not necessarily to apply for help. So far as its form is concerned, the expression proves only, that the people let Mary know the lack, and that she told it to the Lord; rather giving up than asking help. Mary had probably a hundred times found in her family life, that the holy Child, during His growth, could tell what to do, when no one else could, though not exactly by miracle strictly so called. A confident expectation, however, must have been couched in her complaint; this is evident from the answer of the Lord. She certainly meant, in general: Tell us what to do; and, if any one please, more specifically, according to Bengel: Bring the feast to a close; though in some other way than by an embarrassed departure.
[I take the words of Mary to be an indirect prayer and a modest hint to relieve the difficulty, like the message of the sisters of Lazarus: “Lord, behold, he whom Thou lovest, is sick,” Joh_11:3. Mary had good reason to expect that her divine Son, now after His solemn inauguration by the baptism in Jordan, and the gathering of His first disciples, would signalize His entrance upon public life by a miraculous demonstration of His Messianic dignity, and she was not shaken in her expectation by His apparent refusal, as is evident from her words in Joh_2:5 (see my note, p. 106). The announcement of the angel, the supernatural conception, and the whole conduct of Jesus must have long before convinced her of His Messiahship. Lampe properly regards these words as a monument of the faith, humility and modesty of Mary. Yet there was a defect, an untimely haste and improper interference, though from the best motives, with the Messianic prerogative of her divine Son. This is manifest from the reply of Jesus.—P. S.]
Joh_2:4. Jesus saith unto her, etc.—The terms of Luther’s version [identical with those of the English]: Woman, what have I to do with thee? are much too strong. The phrase forms a scale, from the strongest rebuke to the gentlest refusal, according to the tone.
The address:
ãýíáé
, Woman, has no tinge of contempt. Augustus says to Cleopatra [the Queen of Egypt] in Dio:
èÜñóåé
,
ὦ ãýíáé
. So the address to Mary Magdalene, Joh_20:15,
ãýíáé
, is plainly an expression of compassion. And so, too, is Joh_19:26 to be taken.
[In English the term woman is frequently used in a solemn and honorable sense, as embracing the characteristic traits of the womanly ideal, when we speak of a good woman, a noble woman, a true woman, be a woman. Christ calls His mother woman when on the cross He commited her with tender affection to the charge of His bosom disciple. He does not call her mother, because this would not suit here in connection with
ôß ἐìïὶ êáὶ óïß
and because He had regard mainly to His Father, and subordinated all earthly relations to the heavenly and eternal. Comp. Mat_12:49-50; Luk_8:19; 2Co_5:16. The period of His subjection to her as His earthly mother had ceased. Even in His twelfth year He answered to her remark: “Thy father (Joseph) and I,” by “My Father” (in heaven), Luk_2:48-49. Calvin: Sic ergo matrem Christus alloquitur, ut perpetuam et communem seculis omnibus doctrinam tradat, ne immodicus matris honor divinam suam gloriam obscuret. Olshausen: “The Son had now become the Lord also of His mother, who could secure her own happiness only by believing obedience to Him.”—P. S.]
The phrase
ôß ἐìïὶ êáὶ óïß
What to me and to thee (in which
êïéíüí
or the like is to be supplied), has not among the Hebrews (
îַäÎìִּé åָìָêְ
), as in the classics, a repulsive, reprehensive sense, as Grotius shows, adMat_8:29. The expression is uttered in Jdg_11:12; 2Sa_16:10, in friendliness. It readily consists with this, that Jesus would assert the elevation of His divine calling above natural relationship, as in Mat_12:50 (Tholuck). Ebrard: That is my matter; leave that to me. Hengstenberg: “Was mir und dir, Weib?” Literally correct, but not good German.
[As the interpretation of this passage, which derives its true light from Mat_12:46-50, has a bearing on the subject of Mariology and Mariolatry, I shall quote passages from ancient and modern commentators, who agree (against the Romish) in finding here a slight reproof of Mary for a certain improper interference or impatient haste. Irenæus (Adv. hær. l. 3; c. 16, §7): “The, Lord, repelling Mary’s unseasonable urgency (Dominus, repellens ejus intempestivam festinationem), said: “What have I to do with thee,” etc. Chrysostom (Hom. XXI. al. XX. in Joh. Tom. VIII. p. 122): “She wished to gain glory through her child (
ἐâïýëåôï
….
ἑáõôὴí ëáìðñïôÝñáí ðïéῆóáé äéὰ ôïῦ ðáéäüò
)…therefore Christ answered her with severity (
óöïäñüôåñïí ἀðåêñßíáôï ëÝãùí
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
.).” He adds: “Mary had not yet the proper opinion of Christ
ïὐäÝðù ãὰñ ἣ ἐ÷ñῆí ðåñὶ áὐôïῦ äüîáí åῖ
̓
÷åí
), but because she bare Him, she thought that, after the manner of other mothers, she might in all things command Him whom she ought to have worshipped and adored as her Lord. For this reason He gave this answer.” Such passages are irreconcilable with the belief in the sinless-ness of Mary. As the veneration of the Virgin increased from the time of the Nestorian controversy and the universal adoption of the
èåïôüêïò
, such comments disappear. Even the Nestorianizing Theodoret, though quite full in his notes on the miracle of Cana, says not a word which might reflect in the least on Mary’s conduct. But the reformers and nearly all the Protestant interpreters take the same view of the passage as the fathers. Olshausen says that the words
ôß ἐìïß
etc, necessarily imply reproof, although the rebuke is but gentle. Meyer: “Christ, in the consciousness of His higher wonder-working power and will, as one without a mother (
ἀìÞôùñ
), repels the interference of womanly weakness, which here confronted Him, even in His mother.” Hengstenberg: “It lies in the nature of the case that the phrase always implies censure.” Godet agrees with Hengstenberg. Ewald: “He reproves her expectation with severe words.” Trench: “There is more or less of reproof and repulse in these words;” but he adds very properly that any harshness of the reply was mitigated by the manner in which the Lord suffered a near compliance with the request to shine through the apparent refusal. Alford: “The answer of our Lord is beyond question one of reproof, and disclaimer of participation in the grounds on which the request was made.” St. Bernard, Maldonatus and other Romanists try to escape the force of the usus loquendi by saying that Christ spoke those words not for Mary’s, but for our sakes, to teach us that He performed His miracles not from regard to human relationship, but from love and regard to God’s glory. Very true; but He taught Mary first, and taught us through her.—P. S.]
Mine hour is not yet come.—Euthym. Zigab.: The hour for working miracles. Ewald: Of my full sense of Messianic power. Lücke and others: For the revelation of my glory. Meyer: The juncture for help. [Trench: Till the wine is wholly exhausted. Flat.—P. S.]. According to Bruno Bauer, His hour must always mean the hour of His death.—According to Tholuck, it is the
ὤñá
for the manifestation of His
äüîá
, as determined by the object of the miracle and the circle of witnesses. In this regard this scene seemed not so suitable as Jerusalem, yet the affectionate Son would also fain please His mother. Hence
ïὔðù
refers to the precise moment. The right time of publicity, the right moment—two different ideas: His hour is His time for acting or suffering, as the Father appoints it to Him by the occasion and in His spirit, in distinction from the hour which is assigned Him by the opinion of men. Comp. Joh_7:6; Joh_8:20; Joh_13:1; Luk_22:53. The “not yet” opens the prospect of help to come at the right time.
Joh_2:5. Whatsoever he saith unto you.—Meyer thinks she means, He will require your service, perhaps in bringing wine. Meyer says: Whatsoever He saith unto you, without qualification; yet doubtless with the presentiment that He might say something very strange and striking, at which they were in danger of being startled.
[These words reveal the unbounded faith of Mary in her Son, whose gentle rebuke did not discourage her, and a confident expectation of some miraculous help at the proper time. She seems to have anticipated even the manner, viz., that it was to be brought about by the aid of the servants. She may have inferred from some previous hint of Christ not related here, or from the gentle manner with which He apparently refused her desire, with the qualifying
ïὔðù
(not yet), His disposition to grant it. Precisely the same words:
ὁ ἐὰí åἴðῃ ὑìῖí ðïéÞóáôå
(Gen_41:55, LXX.), Pharaoh, at the time of the famine, addressed to all Egypt with regard to Joseph. Hengstenberg thinks that this coincidence is scarcely accidental in view of the similarity of the occasion, and the typical character of Joseph.—P. S.]
Joh_2:6. There were set [
êåßìåòáé
, positæ] there six water-pots of stone [
ὑäñßáé ëßèéíáé
made of stone, stone-ware].—There; in the wedding-chamber, says Meyer. The washing of hands hardly took place in the wedding-chamber, rather in the court of the house. And the pots were too large for this, being doubtless not portable in the ordinary way: “large stone fonts” (Starke).—Six water-pots there were. Whether according to Jewish custom, can hardly be ascertained; at all events, the number, as symbolical, is the number of work, toil and need. See Joh_12:1 : six days before the passover Christ came to Bethany. Rev. John 4.: the opening of the first six seals. Joh_13:18 : the number of the beast, 666. Nork (Etymol. Symbol. Mythol. Real-Wörterbuch): “Six is threefold discord (Dyad), hence 666 is the number of Antichrist. On the evening of the sixth day of creation, according to the Rabbinical tradition, Satan was created at the same time with woman. The Cabbalistic book Sohar warns against the threefold six as the number of punishment. On its face this number bespeaks an accurate reporter.
After the manner of the purifying [
êáôὰ ôὸí êáèáñéóìὸí ôῶí Ἰïõäáßùí
]—The washing of hands and vessels before and after meals, Mat_15:2; Mar_7:3. Probably the supply of water in them was already mostly consumed; at all events, they were emptied for their new use.
Containing two or three firkins apiece [
÷ùñïῦóáé ἀíὰ
—not approximately, circiter, but in the distributive sense, singulæ, as in the E. V.—
ìåôñçôὰò äýï ἤ ôñåῖò
].—The Attic metretes was equal to the Hebrew
áַּú
(Joseph. Antiq. VIII. 2. 9), and twenty-one Würtemberg or thirty-three Berlin quarts [about nine gallons English; so that the word “firkin” in the E. V. is almost exact. Accordingly, if all the water was changed into wine (see below), the quantity of wine thus produced was 6 times 18 or 27 gallons, i., e., from 108 to 162 gallons.—P. S.] The Roman amphora was also called metretes, and was still smaller than the Attic; the Syrian Babylonian, on the contrary, was larger. “In view of this (total) quantity of from 252 to 273 quarts [over 100 gallons], the miracle is styled by De Wette [and Strauss] a ‘miracle for luxury’ [Luxuswunder), and found offensive. The circumstances already cited (abundant supply for a poor family; an expression of benevolence) remove this difficulty; in the miraculous feeding also the quantity exceeds the bare necessity.” Tholuck. The truth of the miracle, however, forbids us at the outset to trespass upon the ground of the miraculous. Hence also we raise no question whether the water was made wine after it was drawn out, or before, in the pots themselves (Meyer, Tholuck).
Joh_2:7. Fill the water-pots.—Not only is the water in the pots necessary, but also the obedience of faith. So also in the drawing. The pots being full, precludes all thoughts of the possibility of a natural process or a mixture. According to Meyer, this feature is intended to denote the abundance of the wine which Jesus produced; Gerlach [and Barnes] on the contrary: Only what was drawn became wine.
[The miracle took place between Joh_2:7-8, but its actual process lies wholly beyond the region of sense and imagination. The same may be said of the process of growth in nature; we see only the results. It is not stated whether the miracle took place in the water-pots or in the act of drawing, and whether the whole amount of water was turned into wine or only so much of it as was drawn by the servants. But the former view is much more probable, yea, almost certain. It seems to be implied in the exact statement of the number and size of the vessels, Joh_2:6, in the order to fill them with water, and in the strict compliance of the servants who “filled them up
ἔùò ἄíù
, to the brim,” Joh_2:7. This view agrees also best with the object of the miracle as a manifestation of Christ’s Divine glory, in imitation of the boundless munificence which God Himself displays from year to year in the plentiful harvests, that in the midst of plenty we should be temperate and grateful.—P. S.]
Joh_2:8. Draw out now, and bear.—Expressing full confidence that they would, in virtue of His word, draw wine and carry wine. Unto the ruler (master) of the feast [
ôῷἀñ÷éôñéêëßíῳ
, a word of late and rare occurrence, lit. the ruler of the triclinium or dining-room with three couches.—P. S.].—Not the superintendent of the guests,
óõìðïóßáñ÷ïò
[or
óõìðïóéÜñ÷çò
,
âáóéëåýò
, modimperator, magister, or rex convivii, arbiter bibendi], whom the guests chose as their president (Xenoph. Anab. VI. Joh_1:30), but the superintendent of the servants, who as such also tested the meats and drinks, as a taster. Tholuck distinguishes the warden of the drinking from the warden of the table, and remarks that the presence of the latter does not necessarily yield the inference of wealth. He may have been of the friends of the family. At all events, a number of servants were present.—And they bare it.—Meyer: “But knew not that what they carried was wine.” But they must have believed it to be; else we should be left to suppose a tone of mind in the people, which would ill correspond with the elevation of the miracle. The drawing and bearing by the servants was an act of faith, like the sitting down of the multitudes in the wilderness to receive the miraculous feeding.
Joh_2:9. [When the ruler…tasted (
ἐãåýóáôï
).—Here the Romish argument in favor of transubstantiation drawn from this miracle, breaks down. The water had been made wine in form as well as in substance; it looked like wine and tasted like the best of wine; but the pretended change of bread and wine in the Eucharist contradicts all the senses and is a complete delusion.—P. S.]
That had become wine.—Not: That it became (was made) wine. In the perfect [had been made, and consequently was now].
And knew not whence it was.—It at first seems to give a better sense, to make the parenthesis of the 9th verse, according to Meyer, begin not with these words, but with:
ïἱ äὲ äéÜêïíïé
, ending with
ὔäùñ
. Meyer observes that the construction continues with
ïὐê ᾔäåé
, and this supplies the motive of the consequent
öùíåῖ ôὸí íõìößïí
. But the ruler calls the bridegroom, not to ask whence he has the wine, but to remark to him that he has reversed the usual order of things with this supply of wine, which he seems to suppose the bridegroom has reserved. And John elsewhere begins a parenthesis with
êáß
, as in 1Jn_1:2. A decisive consideration might be this: If we put the
ðüèåí
before the parenthesis, it indicates in the ruler the impression of the natural origin of the wine; in the parenthesis it emphatically expresses the thought of the Evangelist, that he knew not the miraculous origin of the wine. The
ἐóôßí
, as in Joh_1:40, is the usual intermixing of direct description in dependent clauses (Winer, p. 239).
Called the bridegroom.—The wedding took place in the house of the bridegroom, and he gave the banquet. As to the custom here mentioned, there is little other evidence (see Lücke, p. 473). Wetstein: Pliny, H. N. XIV. 14. Cato, when he embarked for Spain, said of the rowers (remiges): Qui etiam convivis alia (referring to wine), quam sibimet ipsis ministrant [“who even give their guests other wine than they drink themselves, or bring it in as the banquet proceeds”]. Two other citations (from Martialis and Cassius) Lücke himself considers entirely unimportant. The passage, seems, however, to have some sense different from that commonly supposed, which gives a mild interpretation to
ìåèýóêåóèáé
, madere, “have drunk enough” (Tholuck, after De Wette and others); on the contrary Meyer: When they are intoxicated. The softening of the word gives the idea of a dishonorable custom: first to give good wine, then, at the height of the feast to give poor. The custom meant is probably that universally dictated by moral instinct, of at last pouring water into the wine for those who are intoxicated, or giving no more, or even, where courtesy requires the offer to be continued, giving poor wine. This custom the master of the feast applies to the case in hand, without expressing any judgment respecting the condition of the guests. His “until now” refers only to a later period of the feast.—There is likewise a question, whether we must take the word, with Meyer, as a pleasantry, or, with Tholuck, as a half-jocular reproof. Lücke’s hypothesis of an expression of surprise seems more fitting. Pleasantly as the words may have been spoken in the expression: “Thou hast kept the good wine until now,” the ruler in any case conveys great astonishment. And strongly as this, on the one hand, attests the objective fact of the miracle, it as strongly, on the other hand, shows a special quality in this wine. The wine seemed to the ruler the good, in contrast with what had been used.
Joh_2:11. This wrought Jesus as a beginning of the signs [
Ôáýôçí ἐðïßçóå ἀñ÷ὴíôῶí óçìåßùí Ἰçóïῦò
].—̓
Áñ÷Þ
without the article, hence: This sign wrought Jesus as His first in Cana of Galilee. [It was not only the first miracle wrought by Jesus in Cana—for no other is reported as having been wrought there—but the first of all His miracles. This is conclusive against all the reports of the apocryphal Gospels to the contrary.—P. S.]—Scholastic fancies respecting the bridegroom and the bride by Bonaventura, etc., see in Heubner, p. 235.
[The signs,
ôῶí óçìåßùí
. The N. T. employs three terms for the miracles or supernatural works of Christ,
óçìåῖïí
,
äýíáìéò
and
ôÝñáò
, sometimes also
ἔíäïîïí
,
ðáñÜäïîïí
,
èáõìÜóéïí
. The word
óçìåῖïí
, the Hebrew oth (
àåֹä
), signum, has reference to the moral aim of the miracle as intended to exhibit the presence of the divine power, and to produce faith in it; it is “a kind of finger-post of God,” as has been said. The term
ôÝñáò
, prodigium, wonder, which is often combined with
óçìåῖïí
(Joh_4:18), expresses the subjective effect, the emotion of astonishment and amazement which the miracle produces; and hence it is used also of strange and startling phenomena in heaven and on earth. All miracles are signs and wonders, but not all signs and wonders are miracles. The term
äõíÜìåéò
, virtutes, denotes the origin of miracles, as manifestations of divine power. The E. V. is by no means consistent in the translation of these words. Trench (Synonyms of the N. T., Second Part, p. 204, Am. ed.) says: “It is to be regretted that in our Version this word (
äõíÜìåéò
) is translated now ‘wonderful works’ (Mat_7:22); now ‘mighty works’ (Mat_11:20; Luk_10:13); and still more frequently ‘miracles’ (Act_2:22; 1Co_12:10; Gal_3:5); in this last case giving such tautologies as ‘miracles and wonders ’ (Act_2:22; Heb_2:4); and always causing something to be lost of the true energy of the word—pointing as it does to new forces, which have entered and are working in this world of ours. With this is closely connected the term
ìåãáëåῖá
=magnolia (Luk_1:49), in which in like manner the miracles are contemplated as outcomings of the greatness of God’s power.”—His glory. The
äüîá
of the incarnate Logos, Joh_1:14, by whom all things were made, and who transforms all things. The miracles of Christ are manifestations of His own glory, of His wonderful person, while the miracles performed by Moses and the prophets revealed not their glory, but the glory of Jehovah.—And his disciples believed on him,
ἐðßóôåõóáí
. This is a higher degree of faith than the one spoken of Joh_1:35-51, which was initial and introductory, while now they were strengthened in their belief by this startling evidence of His divine Messianic power and dignity. Faith is a continuous growth, and every increase of faith is a new beginning of faith.—P. S.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. John’s accounts of the miracles. We have already called attention to John’s putting strongly forward the miracles of knowledge together with those of act; that is, the insight of the perfect personality into the dark recesses of personal life and of nature, in keeping with the character of this Gospel. As in Joh_1:38; Joh_1:42-43; Joh_1:47 (comp. Joh_2:25); Joh_3:21; Joh_4:17; Joh_5:6; Joh_6:70; Joh_11:11; Joh_13:3; Joh_13:38; Joh_19:11; Joh_19:28; Joh_20:27; Joh_21:6; Joh_21:17-18; Joh_21:22. The miracles in the development of the life of Jesus Himself, John rather takes for granted, after his general testimony concerning the
äüîá
of Jesus; particularly the miraculous birth (which, however, follows from Joh_1:13); the transfiguration (to which, however, Joh_12:23 sqq.; 17 look back, and which the voice from heaven, Joh_12:28, in some measure repeats); and the ascension (which is announced in Joh_20:17). Even the miracle of the glorification of Jesus at the baptism is here only related incidentally by the Baptist, Joh_1:32; the walking of Jesus on the sea is but briefly touched, Joh_6:16; and the resurrection of the Lord the Evangelist presents mainly in its noblest bearings, as a victory over doubt, weak faith, and unbelief. On the other hand John intimates by the prominence he gives to the voice from heaven (Joh_12:28) in the temple, that Christ was always very near, and drawing nearer, His estate of glorification; and in the account of the flowing of water and blood from the side of Jesus’ body, he undoubtedly points to the mystery of the transformation in the body of Christ after His death (Joh_19:34; comp. Leben Jesu, II., 3, p. 1608).
Now as regards the miraculous works in the stricter sense, John entirely omits the expulsions of devils. According to Meyer he significantly relates seven miracles of Jesus, “mentioning one of each of the main kinds, viz., a transformation, Joh_2:1; a healing of a fever, Joh_4:47; a healing of a cripple, Joh_5:1; a feeding, Joh_6:4; a walking on the sea, Joh_6:16; a healing of the child, Joh_9:1; a raising of the dead, Joh_11:1.”
We distinguish, in the first place, these miracles in the stricter sense from miracles in a wider sense, among which we count the purification of the temple (John 2), the moral enchaining of the officers (Joh_7:45), and like things, especially the miracles of knowledge. Furthermore, we distinguish the miracles in Galilee and those in Judea, insomuch as the miracles of Jesus have opposite effects in the two different spheres. After the first miracle in Galilee, His disciples believed on Him, Joh_2:11; after the second He found faith in the imperial officer at Capernaum and in all his house, Joh_4:53; after the third (wrought indeed on the east side of the sea, yet no doubt mostly on Galilean people), the people proposed to make Him king, Joh_6:15; and the fourth could but enhance their reverence, Joh_6:25. After the first miracle in Judea, on the contrary, which Jesus performed at the feast of Purim, healing a cripple whom the Jewish supernatural fountain and the angel had not healed, process was at once begun by the Jews against Him for excommunication and death, Joh_5:16; comp. Joh_7:32. After the second, the healing of the blind man at the feast of tabernacles, in which He brought the temple-fountain and the pool of Siloam into service, to show that He was the God of the temple, the ban was pronounced on His followers, and therefore doubtless upon Him at least in so far as He acknowledged His Messianic dignity, Joh_9:22. Upon the third, the raising of Lazarus, the decree to put Him to death was passed by the Sanhedrin (Joh_11:47), the edict for His apprehension was issued to the people (John 2:57), even the death of Lazarus was consulted (Joh_12:10), and in the sequel, on the passover itself, Jesus was crucified. Thus Judaism celebrates its feasts, and opposes to the life-miracles of Christ plots of death, the sentence of death, and the death of the cross.
The miracles recorded by John we divide, according to their kinds into three miracles of healing: the healing of the man sick of a fever, of the cripple, of the blind man; three miracles of the mastery and glorification of nature: the miraculous supply of wine, the feeding, the miraculous draught of fishes, John 21 (Christ walking on the sea, related without the addition of Peter’s, belongs with the miracles of the unfolding of the life of Jesus Himself); finally three symbolical miracles of the judicial majesty of Christ: the purification of the temple (John 2), which in its first performance was much more wonderful than in its repetition at the close of the life of Jesus; the moral enchaining of the officers, who were sent to arrest the Lord (Joh_7:45; comp. Joh_8:59; Joh_10:39); and the striking down of the soldiers in Gethsemane with His word. The greatest of the miracles related by John is the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the premonition of the resurrection of Christ, the foretokening of the resurrection, the glorification, and the judgment of the whole world, the great development of miracle which begins with His resurrection.
2. The first miracle of Jesus. Not only in John, but in the Gospel history in general, the changing of the water into wine is the first miracle of Jesus. But as the first in John it has a peculiar significance. As the portal of the Gospel of the absolute transfiguration of the world by the glorious spiritual personality, and the redeeming operation of Christ, this miracle is the typical, symbolical token of the glorification of the world (see Leben Jesu, II., p. 479).
Explanations of this miracle:
(a) Natural [low rationalistic] explanations by Venturini, Paulus, Langsdorf, Gfrörer. Paulus: A wedding joke; Jesus had caused a quantity of wine to be brought into the house and to be put, mixed with water, into the pots at the table. Gfrörer: A wedding surprise-gift on the part of Mary (similarly Ammon).
(b) Mythical. [A religious poem or legend unconsciously produced and honestly believed by the primitive Christian community as if it had actually occurred.—P. S.] Strauss: Mythical basis: the changing of bitter water into sweet, in Exo_15:23 ff.; 2Ki_2:19. Weisse: A parable misunderstood.
(c) Symbolical [and fictitious, not historical]. Baur: A demonstration that the time had come when Jesus, the true Bridegroom, should lead off from the water of the provisional level of the Baptist to the wine of the higher Messianic glory.
(d) Historical. Various modifications.
(1) An absolute miracle of the [immediate] transformation of substance regardless of conditions; the older supernaturalism (Meyer even refuses to recognize any elevation of the spirit of the company).
(2) Historical in a still stricter sense, as a miracle admitting some conditions; change of substance under conditions; Augustine (ipse fecit vinum in nuptiis, qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus), Chrysostom, Olshausen: acceleration of a natural process (which, however, must have included an acceleration of an artificial process, and in this the main factor, the vine, was wanting. Objections of Strauss, Meyer).
(3) Change of accidents under conditions. Neander: instances of mineral springs which have the taste of broth, intoxicating wines, etc. (instances from the classics in Lampe and Neander). Meyer puts Tholuck also on this ground; but Tholuck at present says: “These are still no help towards understanding the miracle, inasmuch as the inorganic or hard matter of the mineral springs would only come in the place of the vegetable. (Yet Neander mentions those facts only as analogies, showing how water can be modified.) In that which gives the offence here—the change of substance—natural science, however, till very lately has believed, with its generatio equivoca (i.e., the change of substance by changes of form—erroneously), and now chemistry would see everywhere only change of form (but through change of substance—again erroneously).”
(4) Transfiguration of the substance in actu. [Lange.] Tholuck states with strange incorrectness: “J. P. Lange (Leben Jesu, II. 1, p. 307) falls back upon the view that the elevated frame of mind in the master of the feast and in the guests caused the water to taste like wine.” Meyer represents the thought more carefully, though he can make nothing of it. “In the element of an elevated frame of mind, to which the guests, like the disciples on the mount of the transfiguration, were raised, the transfiguration took place.” But I had even said: “Thus Christ transported to heaven a company of devout and submissive men, and gave them to drink from the mysterious fountain of His divine life-power” (Leben Jesu, II., p. 479). The operation of Christ, furthermore, I described as threefold: (a) The creative substitution of the wine, sympathetically communicated to the guests in their contemplation of Christ; (b) influence upon the drinkers through faith; (c) influence upon the element of the drink itself (p. 308). I cannot consider it an advance in exegesis, that Meyer comes to such an emphasizing of the change of substance as seems virtually to make the conditions of Augustine and others unsuitable; and that Tholuck appeals in fine to two systems of natural science which he himself considers false. As the abstract supernaturalism takes the simple, immediate change of substance for the gist of the miracle, I pointed to the central point of all miracles, and this among them, suggesting that all are rooted in the heavenly birth of Christ, and are conditioned upon the beginnings of regeneration, as the continuous development of the eternal central miracle, therefore also upon frames of the human heart. That such frames of heart existed here, is shown by the faith of the disciples, the confidence of Mary, the submissiveness of the drawers, the enthusiasm of the master of the feast. For this very reason, moreover, we have emphasized the act, in opposition to an abstract computation of the quantity of wine: as, for example, the Protestant orthodoxy emphasizes the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the substance of the act, in distinction from the magical representations of the body of Christ in the material substance (without deciding concerning the material left unemployed in the act; as Gerlach, for instance, see the exegesis on Joh_2:7). Then in the third place the analogy of similar instances of transfiguring mastery of nature was taken into account. Through the communion of the spirit of Christ the feedings become wonderful; through the communion of the spirit of Christ alone Peter walks on the water; in the hearts of the believing lay the conditions of the miracles of Christ throughout.
In thus tracing the miracle to its Christological centre, the principle of the glorification of the world, we suppose, however, that Christ here brought also a latent, mysterious susceptibility of the water to an instantaneous development, in which, with regard to the quantity, it must certainly be considered that the very filling of the water-pots was done at His word and in the obedience of faith. Thus the
äüîá
of Christ in His first self-manifestation is to us the main thing.
(e) The miracle HISTORICAL, and at the same time of TYPICAL, SYMBOLICAL import:
(1) Older expositors, Lampe, Baumgarten-Crusius, Luthardt: Exhibition of the contrast between the Old Testament and the New.
(2) Christ sets forth in the miracle at the same time the contrast of His new covenant with the severe ascetic spirit of the Baptist (Flatt, Olshausen).
(3) Prefiguration of the communion of the Lord with His people on the height of the glorified world (Leben Jesu, pp. 307, 479).
(4) Hofmann, Luthardt (with a simultaneous reference to the ancient covenant): Prefiguration of the heavenly marriage-supper, Rev_19:9 (translation of the ideal conception just given (3) into realistic terms).
(5) De Wette: The distribution of wine a counterpart of the distribution of bread, and both together analogies of the Holy Supper (of which again Meyer finds nothing in the record. Comp. Leben Jesu, p. 310. On Hilgenfeld’s explanation of it into a Gnostic element, comp. Meyer).
3. The symbolical import of the miracle. All the miracles of Jesus are to be considered as signs; that is, not merely facts, but also mirrors of the Christian idea, the Christian principle and its universal operation. But John has reason for marking this sign as the first which Jesus did, and as a manifestation of His glory. The description of it as a manifestation of His
äüîá
announces the wide symbolical significance of the miracle.
(a) The Old Testament pots of water, of purification, of statute, are changed into New Testament vessels of wine, vivification, free, festive life.
(b) The want, in which the feasts of the old, natural life end, is changed by the grace of Christ into the fountain of the higher joys of the kingdom of heaven.
(c) Mary, as the highest representative of the Old Testament faith, with the servants and the master of the feast, are changed into instruments of the manifestation of the New Testament glory of Christ.
(d) The earthly nuptials are changed into the basis of a higher festivity, the marriage of Christ with His own in their now established faith.
(e) The gift of the wine is made a token of the
äüîá
of Christ: which, as grace, converts all need into supply, and, as truth, gives every thing symbolical, even earthly wine, in heavenly reality (He Himself the real vine).
(f) The gift of wine a token of the Supper of Christ, as the constant type of the progressive glorification of life and its ultimate perfect glorification in the heavenly world.
[4. The miracle of Cana and the Temperance question. Albert Barnes (in loc.), in his zeal for total abstinence, labors to show, contrary to all exegetical tradition, that the wine which Jesus made and the wine generally used in Palestine was the unfermented juice of the grape, and hence without any alcoholic admixture, or intoxicating quality. Jacobus, in his Notes on John, takes the same view. The arguments on this side are collected in a tract by the Rev. W. M. Thayer: Communion Wine and Bible Temperance, published by the American National Temperance Society, New York, 1869. But they are not convincing. The wine of the Bible was no doubt pure and unadulterated, and so far unlike that poisonous article which is frequently sold as wine in our days, especially in Northern countries; but it was genuine and real wine, and, like all wine in wine-growing countries, exhilarating, and, if used to excess, intoxicating. The grape, says an Italian proverb, has three fruits, pleasure, intoxication, and grief. Pure water is no doubt the safest and most wholesome beverage.
Ἄñéóôïí ìὲí ὔäùñ
, says Pindar, in his first ode. We honor zeal against the fearful scourge of intemperance; bu
