Joh_2:9-10. The parenthesis, usually made to begin with
κ
.
οὐκ
ᾔδει
, must be limited to
οἱ
δὲ
διάκονοι
ὕδωρ
, because not only does the construction run on with
καὶ
οὐκ
ᾔδει
, but a reason is also assigned for the
φωνεῖ
τὸν
νυμφίον
,
κ
.
τ
.
λ
., which follows; for had the man known whence the new wine had come, he would not in surprise have called the bridegroom, etc.
τὸ
ὕδωρ
οἶν
.
γεγεν
.] not the wine which had been water (Luther), but the water which had become wine (and now was wine). Observe the force of the perfect. If the
τό
had been repeated, this water, as that which had been made wine, would have been distinguished from other water (aquam, eam dico quae, etc.). See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 6. 1. The
τό
not being repeated, the
ὕδωρ
οἶν
.
γεγεν
. expresses one complete conception.
πόθεν
ἐστίν
] whence it comes, i.e. that it had been drawn out of the water-pitchers. This is evident from the following
οἱ
ἠνκληκότες
τὸ
ὕδωρ
. The table-master, therefore, cannot have been present at the drawing out of the water, Joh_2:8. Concerning the present
ἐστίν
, see Joh_1:40.
The insertion of the words
οἱ
δὲ
διάκονοι
,
κ
.
τ
.
λ
., serves to give prominence to the reality of the miracle.
ᾔδεισαν
] i.e.
πόθεν
ἐστίν
, but they did not know that it was wine which they brought.
φωνεῖ
] He called him to him (comp. Joh_1:49), and said to him. Whether the bridegroom was just outside at the time (as Nonnus represents), or was reclining at the table, or is to be supposed as employed in the chamber, does not appear.
ὁ
ἀρχιτρίκλ
.] a superfluous repetition, but suggested by the parenthesis, as is often the case in Greek.
πᾶς
ἄνθρωπος
,
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.] spoken under the impression that the bridegroom had kept the good wine in reserve, and had not allowed it to be put forth (
τίθησι
), but now was regaling them with it. We may suppose the words to have been spoken jocularly, in joyous surprise after tasting the wine. The general custom, however, to which the table-master refers, is not elsewhere with any certainty confirmed (the proof in Wetstein is doubtful); nor, indeed, considering the playful way in which it was spoken, does it need any voucher.
ὅταν
μεθυσθῶσι
] when they have become intoxicated, so that they can no longer appreciate the goodness of the wine. The word does not mean anything else; not when they have well drunk (Tholuck, De Wette, and several, e.g. Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, and others), because intoxication is the essential though relative conception (see also Gen_43:34; Hag_1:6; Rev_17:2). The man says only in joke, as if it were a general experience, what he certainly may often have observed, and no inference can therefore be drawn from his words that the guests at Cana were already intoxicated; especially as
ὥς
ἄρτι
simply means till now, after they had been drinking so long at the table, in antithesis with the
πρῶτον
.