Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 2:3 - 2:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_2:3. Ὑστερήσ . οἴνου ] because a scarcity of wine had occurred,—on what day of the marriage feast (it usually lasted seven, Gen_29:27; Jdg_14:14; Tob_9:1-2; Tob_10:1) we are not told.[134] The expression ὑστερεῖ τι , something fails or runs short, belongs to later Greek (Mar_10:21; Isa_51:14; Neh_9:21; Dios. v. 86).
οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσι ] they are short of wine, they, i.e. the family of the bridegroom, who provided the feast. They might be disgraced by the failure of the wine. The words, however, are not only an expression of interest, which was all the more reasonable, as the deficiency was accelerated by the invitation of her Son and His disciples; but they also contain, as Jesus Himself understood (Joh_2:4), an indirect appeal for help, as is confirmed by Joh_2:5, which was prompted by thoughtful consideration for the credit of the house providing the feast. Some find herein a call to work a miracle. But wrongly, because this would imply either that Mary had inferred from the conception, birth, etc., of her Son, His power of working miracles, which she now expected Him to display, or that Jesus had already, on some previous occasion, though in a narrower circle, done some wonderful works (the former hypothesis in Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Baumgarten, Maier, Godet, Hengstenberg, and many more; the latter in Lücke and others),—assumptions which are equally incapable of proof. Wrongly too, because the supply of this want of itself so little suggested the need of a miracle, that the thought of so disproportionate a means occurring to Mary’s mind without any adequate reason, even by the recollection of such traits as are related in Luk_2:49 ff. (Brückner), or by the miracle at His baptism, or by the call of the disciples, or by the declaration of Joh_1:51, of which she would be informed at the marriage (Godet), is quite inexplicable, even supposing that she had observed more clearly than any others the change which had taken place in her Son, and had therefore with fuller expectation looked up to Him as the Messiah (Ewald’s view, comp. Tho luck). Far rather did she wish to prompt Jesus in a general way to render help; and this she would suppose He would do in the most natural manner (by furnishing wine), which must have appeared as obvious a way as that of miracle was remote. But Jesus, in the feeling of His divine call (Joh_2:4), intended to render help in a special and miraculous manner; and accordingly, with this design of His own in view, returns the answer contained in Joh_2:4. In this way the obscurity of the words is removed (which Lampe and De Wette dwell upon), and at the same time the objection raised from Joh_2:11 (by Strauss, B. Bauer, Schweizer, Scholten) against the entire narrative, upon the assumption that Mary (from the Logos standing-point of the evangelist, it is supposed!) expected a miracle. Lastly, it is purely gratuitous to suppose that Mary wished to give a hint to Jesus and His disciples to go away (Bengel, Paulus); yet Ebrard (on Olshausen) has brought this view forward again, explaining afterwards “mine hour” of the time of His death, when Jesus would have to leave the marriage (the marriage figuratively representing the period of His earthly ministry). This is not profundity, but a mere playing with exegesis.
[134] The text does not say that it lasted only one day, as Hengstenberg finds expressed in ver. 1, where we are simply told that the marriage began on the third day,—which has nothing to do with its duration. Nor is there any hint in the text of “poor circumstances,” for it speaks of the master of the feast and of servants. Least of all does the inviting of Jesus’ disciples along with Himself imply poverty. This also in answer to Godet.