John 2 commentary

JOH 2 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Jesus Changes Water Into Wine
1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana
in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there,
BAR ES, "And the third day - On the third day after his conversation with
Nathanael.
Cana - This was a small town about 15 miles northwest of Tiberias and 6 miles
northeast of Nazareth. It is now called Kerr Kenna, is under the government of a Turkish
officer, and contains perhaps 300 inhabitants, chiefly Catholics. The natives still pretend
to show the place where the water was turned into wine, and even one of the large stone
water-pots. “A Greek church,” says Professor Hackett (‘Illustrations of Scripture,’ p.
322), “stands at the entrance of the town, deriving its special sanctity, as I understood,
from its being supposed to occupy the site of the house in which the marriage was
celebrated to which Jesus and his friends were invited. A priest to whom we were
referred as the custodian soon arrived, in obedience to our call, and unlocked the doors
of the church. It is a low stone building, pair.” “The houses,” says Dr. Thomson (‘The
Land and the Book,’ vol. ii. p. 126), “were built of limestone, cut and laid up after the
fashion still common in this region, and some of them may have been inhabited within
the last fifty years. There are many ancient cisterns about it, and fragments of water-jars
in abundance, and both reminded us of the ‘beginning of miracles.’ Some of my
companions gathered bits of these water-jars as mementoes witnesses they could hardly
be, for those of the narrative were of ‘stone,’ while these were baked earth.” The place is
now quite deserted. Dr. Thomson says: “There is not now a habitable house in the
humble village where our blessed Lord sanctioned, by his presence and miraculous
assistance, the all-important and world-wide institution of marriage.” It was called
“Cana of Galilee” to distinguish it from another Cana in the tribe of Ephraim, Jos_16:9.
This was the native place of Nathanael, Joh_21:2.
The mother of Jesus - Mary. It is not improbable that she was a relative of the
family where the marriage took place.
CLARKE, "Cana of Galilee - This was a small city in the tribe of Asher, Jos_19:28,
and by saying this was Cana of Galilee, the evangelist distinguishes it from another Cana,
which was in the tribe of Ephraim, in the Samaritan country. See Jos_16:8; Jos_17:9.
Some suppose that the third day, mentioned here, refers to the third day of the
marriage feast: such feasts lasting among the Jews seven days. See Jdg_14:12, Jdg_

14:17, Jdg_14:18, and Bishop Pearce.
The mother of Jesus was there - Some of the ancients have thought that this was
the marriage of John the evangelist, who is supposed to have been a near relative of our
Lord. See the sketch of his life prefixed to these notes.
GILL, "And the third day there was a marriage,.... Either from the second
testimony bore by John the Baptist concerning Christ, and from the call of Simon Peter,
which seem to be of the same date; see Joh_1:35, or from Christ's coming into Galilee; or
from the conversation he had with Nathanael; from either of which the date is taken, it
matters not; the first is as agreeable and plain, as any. There is much dispute, and many
rules with the Jews about the times, and days of marriage:
"a virgin, (they say (z),) marries on the fourth day (of the week), and a widow on the
fifth, because the sanhedrim sit in the cities twice in the week, on the second, and on the
fifth days; so that if there is any dispute about virginity, he (the husband) may come
betimes to the sanhedrim.''
This was a law that obtained since the times of Ezra; for it is said (a),
"before the order of Ezra, a woman might be married on any day;''
but in after times, feast days, and sabbath days, were particularly excepted. One of their
canons is (b).
"they do not marry women on a feast day, neither virgins, nor widows:''
The reason of it was, that they might not mix one joy with another; and lest a man
should leave the joy of the feast, for the joy of his wife. The account Maimonides (c) gives
of these several things is this;
"it is lawful to espouse on any common day, even on the ninth of Ab, whether in the day,
or in the night; but they do not marry wives neither on the evening of the sabbath, nor
on the first of the week: the decree is, lest the sabbath should be profaned by preparing
the feast; for the bridegroom is employed about the feast: and there is no need to say,
that it is unlawful to marry a wife on the sabbath day; and even on the common day of a
feast they do not marry wives, as we have explained; because they do not mix one joy
with another, as it is said in Gen_29:27, "fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also":
but on the rest of the days it is lawful to marry a wife, any day a man pleases; for he must
be employed in the marriage feast three days before the marriage. A place in which the
sanhedrim do not sit, but on the second and fifth days only, a virgin is married on the
fourth day; that if there is any objection to her virginity, he (her husband) may come
betimes to the sanhedrim: and it is a custom of the wise men, that he that marries one
that has been married, he may marry her on the fifth day, that so he may rejoice with her
on the fifth day, and on the evening of the sabbath, (i.e. the sixth,) and on the sabbath
day, and may go forth to his work on the first day.''
But elsewhere it is said (d), that
"now they are used to marry on the "sixth day of the week".''

Yea (e), that
"it is lawful to marry, and to make the feast on the sabbath day.''
But whether this marriage was of a virgin, or a widow, cannot be known; nor with
certainty can it be said on what day of the week it was: if that day was a sabbath day on
which the disciples abode with Christ, as Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, then it must be on
the first day that Christ went into Galilee, and found Philip, and conversed with
Nathanael; and if this third day is reckoned from John's second testimony, it must be on
a Tuesday, the third day of the week; but if from Christ's going into Galilee, then it must
be on a Wednesday, the fourth day of the week, the day fixed by the Jewish canon for the
marriage of a virgin. This marriage was
in Cana of Galilee. The Syriac and Persic versions, read, in "Kotne, a city of Galilee";
and which, in the Jewish map, is called ‫בגליל‬ ‫,קטנא‬ "Katna" in "Galilee", and is placed in
the tribe of Zebulun, which was in Galilee, and not far from Nazareth; and bids fair to be
the same place with this; though it is more generally thought (f), that Cana, in the tribe
of Asher, mentioned in Jos_19:28, which was also in Galilee, is here meant; and is so
called to distinguish it from another Kanah, in the tribe of Ephraim, Jos_16:8. Josephus
(g) speaks of a town, or village, of Galilee, called Cana, which was a day's march from it
to Tiberias, and seems to be the same place: and another Jewish writer (h) says,
"to me it appears that Cepher Chanania, is Copher Cana; or the village of Cans, as is clear
in Misna Sheviith, c. 9. sect. 1. for there is the beginning of lower, Galilee,''
which also accords with this. Now in the case of marriage, there was some difference
between Judea and Galilee, and certain rules were laid down relating thereunto: and it is
said (i),
"there are three countries, for the celebration of marriages; Judea, the country beyond
Jordan, and Galilee;''
that is, that were obliged to marry among themselves; so that if any one married a wife
out of any of these countries, she was not obliged to go along with him from one country
to another (k): hence it follows,
"they do not bring them out from city to city, (i.e. oblige them to go with them from city
to city,) nor from town to town; but in the same country they bring them out from city to
city, and from town to town.''
And it is elsewhere observed (l), that
"in Judea, at first, they joined the bridegroom and bride together an hour before they
went into the bride chamber, that so his heart might be lifted up in her; but in Galilee
they did not do so: in Judea, at first, they appointed for them two companions, one for
him, and another for her, that they might minister to, or wait on the bridegroom, and
bride, when they went into the bride chamber; but in Galilee they did not do so: in
Judea, at first, the companions slept in the house where the bridegroom and bride slept;
but in Galilee they did not do so.''

Next we have an account of the persons that were present at this marriage:
and the mother of Jesus was there; who seems to have been a principal person at
this wedding, and was very officious; when wine was wanted, she signified it to her son,
and ordered the servants to do whatever he bid them: and since she, and Jesus, and his
brethren, were all here, it looks as if it was a relation of hers that was now married: and
since these brethren were the kinsmen of Christ, Simon, Judas, and Joses, the sons of
Cleophas or Alphaeus, whose wife was sister to the mother of our Lord; and since one of
them, to distinguish him from Simon Peter, is called Simon the Canaanite, or an
inhabitant of Cana, as some have thought; hence it is conjectured by Dr. Lightfoot, that
Alphaeus had an house in Cana, and that his family dwelt there, and that it was for one
of his family that this marriage feast was made; see Joh_2:2. Joseph, the husband of
Mary, perhaps, was now dead, since no mention is made of him here, nor any where else,
as alive, after Christ had entered on his public ministry.
HE RY, "We have here the story of Christ's miraculous conversion of water into
wine at a marriage in Cana of Galilee. There were some few so well disposed as to believe
in Christ, and to follow him, when he did no miracle; yet it was not likely that many
should be wrought upon till he had something wherewith to answer those that asked,
What sign showest thou? He could have wrought miracles before, could have made them
the common actions of his life and the common entertainments of his friends; but,
miracles being designed for the sacred and solemn seals of his doctrine, he began not to
work any till he began to preach his doctrine. Now observe,
I. The occasion of this miracle. Maimonides observes it to be to the honour of Moses
that all the signs he did in the wilderness he did upon necessity; we needed food, he
brought us manna, and so did Christ. Observe,
1. The time: the third day after he came into Galilee. The evangelist keeps a journal of
occurrences, for no day passed without something extraordinary done or said. Our
Master filled up his time better than his servants do, and never lay down at night
complaining, as the Roman emperor did, that he had lost a day.
2. The place: it was at Cana in Galilee, in the tribe of Asher (Jos_19:28), of which,
before, it was said that he shall yield royal dainties, Gen_49:20. Christ began to work
miracles in an obscure corner of the country, remote from Jerusalem, which was the
public scene of action, to show that he sought not honour from men (Joh_5:41), but
would put honour upon the lowly. His doctrine and miracles would not be so much
opposed by the plain and honest Galileans as they would be by the proud and prejudiced
rabbies, politicians, and grandees, at Jerusalem.
3. The occasion itself was a marriage; probably one or both of the parties were akin to
our Lord Jesus. The mother of Jesus is said to be there, and not to be called, as Jesus
and his disciples were, which intimates that she was there as one at home. Observe the
honour which Christ hereby put upon the ordinance of marriage, that he graced the
solemnity of it, not only with his presence, but with his first miracle; because it was
instituted and blessed in innocency, because by it he would still seek a godly seed,
because it resembles the mystical union between him and his church, and because he
foresaw that in the papal kingdom, while the marriage ceremony would be unduly
dignified and advanced into a sacrament, the married state would be unduly vilified, as
inconsistent with any sacred function. There was a marriage - gamos, a marriage-feast,

to grace the solemnity. Marriages were usually celebrated with festivals (Gen_29:22;
Jdg_14:10), in token of joy and friendly respect, and for the confirming of love.
4. Christ and his mother and disciples were principal guests at this entertainment. The
mother of Jesus (that was her most honourable title) was there; no mention being made
of Joseph, we conclude him dead before this. Jesus was called, and he came, accepted
the invitation, and feasted with them, to teach us to be respectful to our relations, and
sociable with them, though they be mean. Christ was to come in a way different from
that of John Baptist, who came neither eating nor drinking, Mat_11:18, Mat_11:19. It is
the wisdom of the prudent to study how to improve conversation rather than how to
decline it.
(1.) There was a marriage, and Jesus was called. Note, [1.] It is very desirable, when
there is a marriage, to have Jesus Christ present at it; to have his spiritual gracious
presence, to have the marriage owned and blessed by him: the marriage is then
honourable indeed; and they that marry in the Lord (1Co_7:39) do not marry without
him. [2.] They that would have Christ with them at their marriage must invite him by
prayer; that is the messenger that must be sent to heaven for him; and he will come:
Thou shalt call, and I will answer. And he will turn the water into wine.
JAMIESO , "Joh_2:1-12. First miracle, water made wine - Brief visit to
Capernaum.
third day — He would take two days to reach Galilee, and this was the third.
mother there — it being probably some relative’s marriage. John never names her
[Bengel].
BURKITT, "Verse 1
The former part of this chapter acquaints us with the first miracle which our Saviour
wrought, in turning water into wine; the occasion of it was, his being invited to a
marriage-feast.
Here note, 1. That whenever our Saviour was invited to a public entertainment, he never
refused the invitation, but constantly went; not so much for the pleasure of eating, as for
the opportunity of conversing and doing good, which was meat and drink unto him.
Note, 2. What honour Christ put upon the ordinance of marrige; he honours it with his
presence and first miracle. Some think it was St. John that was now the bridegroom;
others, that it was some near relation of the virgin mother's; but whoever it might be,
doubtless Christ's design was rather to put honour upon the ordinance than upon the
person. How bold is the church of Rome in spitting upon the face of this ordinance, by
denying its lawfulness to the ministers of religion! When the apostle affirms that
marriage is honourable among all. Hebrews 13:4. Neither the prophets of the Old
Testament, nor the apostles of the New, (St. Peter himself not excepted,) did abhor the
marriage-bed, or judge themselves too pure for an institution of their Maker.
Note, 3. That it is an ancient and laudable institution, that the rites of marriage should
not want a solemn celebration. Feasting with friends upon such an occasion is both
lawful and commendable, provided the rules of sobriety and charity, modesty and
decency, be observed, and no sinful liberty assumed. But it must be said, that feasting in

general, and marriage-feasts in particular, are some of those lawful things which are
difficultly managed without sin.
Note, 4. That our Saviour's working a miracle when he was at the marriage-feast, should
teach us, by his example, that in our cheerful and free times, when we indulge a little
more than ordinary to mirth amongst our friends, we should still be mindful of God's
honour and glory, and lay hold upon an occasion of doing all the good we can.
Note lastly, As Christ was personally invited to, and bodily present at this marriage-feast
when here on earth; so he will not refuse now in heaven to be spiritually present at his
people's marriages. They want his presence with them upon that great occasion, they
desire and seek it; he is acquainted with it, and invited to it, whoever is neglected; and
where Christ is made acquainted with the match, he will certainly make one at the
marriage. Happy is that wedding where Christ and his friends (as here) are the invited,
expected, and enjoyed guests.
COFFMAN, "Beginning here and continuing through chapter 12 (John 2-12) is the first
main section of this Gospel, in which seven great signs pointing to the deity of Christ are
recounted. The word "sign," used seventeen times in this Gospel, is the term John used
for "miracle." The seven signs are:
1. Changing the water into wine (John 2).
2. Healing the officer's son (John 4).
3. Healing the cripple (John 5).
4. Feeding the 5,000 (John 6).
5. Walking on Lake Galilee (John 6).
6. Healing the man who was born blind (John 9).
7. Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11).
Of these, Numbers 2,4, and 5 are also found in the synoptics.
The choice of these particular wonders for inclusion in John evidently was made with
regard to the absolute authority by which each was performed, and also with
consideration for the deeply spiritual overtones in each. The latter fact may not be made
the occasion for denying the true character of these signs as actual miracles, marvelous
occurrences of historical events, in which the most circumstantial details are related, the
names and identity of participants and witnesses provided, and the circumstances so
carefully narrated, that the unbiased reader will invariably receive them, not as mere
dramatic illustrations, but as FACTS. The flood of literature stressing the spiritual

implications of these wonders to the point of denying the factual events upon which the
spiritual teaching is founded is unconvincing and unreasonable.
THE FIRST OF THE SEVEN SIGNS
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was
there. (John 2:1)
No parable or drama, ever started like this. Cana is distinguished from another village of
the same name in the tribe of Ephraim (Joshua 16:9), and Mary, the mother of Jesus,
was one of the guests.
The third day ... is the third day after Nathaniel became a follower of Jesus; and, in this
implied connection with Nathaniel, there is the probable explanation of how Jesus and
his disciples came to be invited. Nathaniel was a native of Cana (John 21:2); and the
small size of the village makes it quite easy to suppose that he was certainly acquainted
with the bridegroom, or even a relative. Also, Cana was only eight or ten miles northeast
of Nazareth.
COKE, "John 2:1. And the third day there was a marriage— On the third day after Jesus
and his disciples arrived in Galilee, they went to a marriage feast (see on Matthew 22:1-
2.) in Cana; which is mentioned, Joshua 19:28, as situated in the possession of the tribe
of Asher not far from thecity of Sidon, and by consequence in the most northern part of
Galilee. Hence it was called Cana of Galilee, to distinguish it from another Cana in the
tribe of Ephraim, mentioned Joshua 16:8; Joshua 17:9. This latter Cana therefore was at
no great distance from Jerusalem. Here Jesus furnished wine by miracle for the
entertainment, at the desire of his mother, who was also bidden. Dr. Clarke thinks, that
our Lord, in the course of his private life, had sometimes exerted his divine power for the
relief of his friends; and that his mother, having seen and heard of those miracles, knew
the greatness of his power, and so applied to him on this occasion. Or we may suppose
that she had heard him speak of the miracles he was to perform, for the confirmation of
his mission, and the benefit of mankind, and begged him to favour his friends with one
in the present necessity. Probably Mary interested herself in this matter, because she
was a relation, or an intimate acquaintance of the new-married couple, and had the
management of the entertainment committed to her care. Some have supposed that this
marriage was celebrated at the house of Cleophas or Alpheus, whose wife was sister to
the mother of our Lord, (Ch. John 19:25.) and one of whose sons was Simon the
Canaanite, whom some have thought to have been so called from being an inhabitant of
this Cana, Mark 3:18 and this may be considered the more probable, as Mary was not
only present at the feast, but was there—as a person concerned, and was solicitous about
supplying them with wine, which, mixed with water, was the common beverage of the
country: and when the feast was over, we are told, John 2:12 that Jesus was attended, on
his leaving Cana, not only by his disciples, but by his brethren, or nearest kinsmen, who
most likely came thither, as relations, to be present at the marriage. As Mary here is
spoken of alone, it may be reasonable to conclude, that Joseph was now dead, and that
he lived not to the time when Jesus entered on his public ministry; especially as he is
nowhere mentioned in the gospel afterwards.

HAWKER 1-11, "And the third day there was marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother
of Jesus was there. (2) And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. (3)
And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. (4)
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
(5) His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.(6) And
there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the
Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. (7) Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-
pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. (8) And he saith unto them, Draw
out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. (9) When the ruler of
the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was; but the
servants which drew the water knew; the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
(10) And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine. And
when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine
until now. (11) This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested
forth his glory: and his disciples believed on him.
The circumstances of this marriage feast, and the miracle Jesus then wrought, are so
beautifully expressed, in the plain and artless language of the Evangelist, as to need no
comment. I only take occasion therefore to observe, how many sweet instructions the
subject ministers to us, in the contemplation of Jesus, and his disciples.
We are told, that this was the beginning of miracles, and most probably the first, the
Lord Jesus wrought, upon his entrance on his public ministry. And certain it is, that it is
the first, and among the highest miracles the Son of God ever wrought in his own
marriage with our nature. Then Jesus indeed turned our water into wine, for everything
then became blessings in Christ. And certainly there was somewhat of significancy in
this miracle. For it is remarkable, that Moses, commissioned by the Lord, turned the
water of Egypt into blood. Our Almighty Moses, whom Jehovah hath sent into the Egypt
of our world, hath turned both our common mercies and our gospel mercies into wine.
Exo_7:19. The miracle of Moses the servant, was for destruction! The miracle of Moses’
Lord was, and is for life everlasting. Sweetly the Church sings to this: Son_1:2; Isa_27:2-
3.
I cannot dismiss the view of this marriage in Cana of Galilee, which the Lord and his
disciples graced with their presence, without observing how much Jesus hath sanctioned
the holy and honorable estate of marriage, by this act. Surely as the Apostle hath said,
Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled. Heb_13:4. And methinks, I would
take occasion there from, to enforce the same plan the Jewish bridal feast set forth, of
inviting Jesus and his disciples to every godly marriage union. If the Ho 1 y order be
founded in Christ, and each party becomes a true yoke-fellow in the Lord; what a
pleasing prospect it affords of promoting, under his blessing, the truest happiness of the
life that now is, and of that which is to come. And to the wants of this world, where Jesus
dwells, every supply necessary may be hoped for. He that turned water into wine to
answer the momentary feast, can soon convert everything even of evil into good; and
rather than that his redeemed shall want anything needful, will bring resourses from
their enemies’ table. All things shall work together for good to them that love God: to
them that are called according to his purpose. Rom_8:28.
MACLAREN, "And the third day there was marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother

3.

3.
And the third day there was marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was
there. (2) And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. (3) And when
they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. (4) Jesus
saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. (5) His
mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.(6) And there were
set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews,
containing two or three firkins apiece. (7) Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with
water. And they filled them up to the brim. (8) And he saith unto them, Draw out now,
and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. (9) When the ruler of the feast
had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was; but the servants
which drew the water knew; the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, (10) And
saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine. And when men
have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
(11) This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his
glory: and his disciples believed on him.

3.

3.
3.

MACLAREN, "JESUS THE JOY-BRINGER
The exact dating of this first miracle indicates an eye-witness. As Nazareth was some
thirty miles distant from the place where John was baptizing, and Cana about four miles
from Nazareth, the ‘third day’ is probably reckoned from the day of the calling of Philip.
Jesus and His disciples seem to have been invited to the marriage feast later than the
other guests, as Mary was already there. She appears to have been closely connected
with the family celebrating the feast, as appears from her knowledge of the deficiency in
the wine, and her direction to the servants.
The first point, which John makes all but as emphatic as the miracle itself, is the new
relation between Mary and Jesus, the lesson she had to learn, and her sweet triumphant
trust. Now that she sees her Son surrounded by His disciples, the secret hope which she
had nourished silently for so long bursts into flame, and she turns to Him with beautiful
faith in His power to help, even in the small present need. What an example her first
word to Him sets us all! Like the two sad sisters at Bethany, she is sure that to tell Him
of trouble is enough, for that His own heart will impel Him to share, and perchance to
relieve it. Let us tell Jesus our wants and leave Him to deal with them as He knows how.
Of course, His addressing her as ‘Woman’ has not the meaning which it would have with
us, for the term is one of respect and courtesy, but there is a plain intimation of a new
distance in it, which is strengthened by the question, ‘What is there in common between
us?’ What in common between a mother and her son! Yes, but she has to learn that the
assumption of the position of Messiah in which her mother’s pride so rejoiced, carried
necessarily a consequence, the first of the swords which were to pierce that mother’s
heart of hers. That her Son should no more call her ‘mother,’ but ‘woman,’ told her that
the old days of being subject to her were past for ever, and that the old relation was
merged in the new one of Messiah and disciple-a bitter thought, which many a parent
has to taste the bitterness of still, when wider outlooks and new sense of a vocation come
to their children. Few mothers are able to accept the inevitable as Mary did, Jesus’ ‘hour’
is not to be prescribed to Him, but His own consciousness of the fit time must determine
His action. What gave Him the signal that the hour was struck is not told us, nor how
soon after that moment it came. But the saying gently but decisively declares His
freedom, His infallible accuracy, and certain intervention at the right time. We may
think that He delays, but He always helps, ‘and that right early.’
Mary’s sweet humility and strong trust come out wonderfully in her direction to the
servants, which is the exact opposite of what might have been expected after the cold
douche administered to her eagerness to prompt Jesus. Her faith had laid hold of the

little spark of promise in that ‘not yet,’ and had fanned it into a flame. ‘Then He will
intervene, and I can leave Him to settle when.’ How firm, though ignorant, must have
been the faith which did not falter even at the bitter lesson and the apparent repulse, and
how it puts to shame our feebler confidence in our better known Lord, if ever He delays
our requests! Mary left all to Jesus; His commands were to be implicitly obeyed. Do we
submit to Him in that absolute fashion both as to the time and the manner of His
responses to our petitions?
The next point is the actual miracle. It is told with remarkable vividness and equally
remarkable reserve. We do not even learn in what precisely it consisted. Was all the
water in the vessels turned into wine? Did the change affect only what was drawn out?
No answer is possible to these questions. Jesus spoke no word of power, nor put forth
His hand. His will silently effected the change on matter. So He manifested forth His
glory as Creator and Sustainer, as wielding the divine prerogative of affecting material
things by His bare volition.
The reality of the miracle is certified by the jovial remark of the ‘ruler of the feast.’ As
Bengel says: ‘The ignorance of the ruler proves the goodness of the wine; the knowledge
of the servants, the reality of the miracle.’ His palate, at any rate, was not so dulled as to
be unable to tell a good ‘brand’ when he tasted it, nor is there any reason to suppose that
Jesus was supplying more wine to a company that had already had more than enough.
The ruler’s words are not meant to apply to the guests at that feast, but are quite general.
But this Evangelist is fond of quoting words which have deeper meanings than the
speakers dreamed, and with his mystically contemplative eye he sees hints and symbols
of the spiritual in very common things. So we are not forcing higher meanings into the
ruler’s jest, but catching one intention of John’s quotation of it, when we see in it an
unconscious utterance of the great truth that Jesus keeps His best wine till the last. How
many poor deluded souls are ever finding that the world does the very opposite, luring
men on to be its slaves and victims by brilliant promises and shortlived delights, which
sooner or later lose their deceitful lustre and become stale, and often positively bitter!
‘The end of that mirth is heaviness.’ The dreariest thing in all the world is a godless old
age, and one of the most beautiful things in all the world is the calm sunset which so
often glorifies a godly life that has been full of effort for Jesus, and of sorrows patiently
borne as being sent by Him.
‘Full often clad in radiant vest
Deceitfully goes forth the morn,’
but Christ more than keeps His morning’s promises, and Christian experience is steadily
progressive, if Christians cling close to Him, and Heaven will supply the transcendent
confirmation of the blessed truth that was spoken unawares by the ‘ruler’ at that humble
feast.
What effect the miracle produced on others is not told; probably the guests shared the
ruler’s ignorance, but its effect on the disciples is that they ‘believed on Him.’ They had
‘believed’ already, or they would not have been disciples (Joh_1:50), but their faith was
deepened as well as called forth afresh. Our faith ought to be continuously and
increasingly responsive to His continuous manifestations of Himself which we can all
find in our own experience.
Jesus ‘manifested His glory’ in this first sign. What were the rays of that mild radiance?
Surely the chief of them, in addition to the revelation of His sovereignty over matter, to
which we have already referred, is that therein He hallowed the sweet sacred joys of

marriage and family life, that therein He revealed Himself as looking with sympathetic
eye on the ties that bind us together, and on the gladness of our common humanity, that
therein He reveals Himself as able and glad to sanctify and elevate our joys and infuse
into them a strange new fragrance and power. The ‘water’ of our ordinary lives is
changed into ‘wine.’ Jesus became ‘acquainted with grief’ in order that He might impart
to every believing and willing soul His own joy, and that by its remaining in us, our joy
might be full.
CALVI , "1.There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee. As this narrative contains
the first miracle which Christ performed, it would be proper for us, were it on this
ground alone, to consider the narrative attentively; though — as we shall afterwards
see — there are other reasons which recommend it to our notice. But while we
proceed, the various advantages arising from it will be more clearly seen. The
Evangelist first mentions Cana of Galilee, not that which was situated towards Zare-
phath (1 Kings 17:9; Obadiah 1:20; Luke 4:26) or Sarepta, between Tyre and Sidon,
and was called the greater in comparison of this latter Cana, which is placed by
some in the tribe of Zebulun, and by others in the tribe of Asher. For Jerome too
assures us that, even in his time, there existed a small town which bore that name.
There is reason to believe that it was near the city of azareth, since the mother of
Christ came there to attend the marriage. From the fourth chapter of this book it
will be seen that it was not more than one day’s journey distant from Capernaum.
That it lay not far from the city of Bethsaida may also be inferred from the
circumstance, that three days after Christ had been in those territories, the
marriage was celebrated — the Evangelist tells us — in Cana of Galilee. There may
have been also a third Cana, not far from Jerusalem, and yet out of Galilee; but I
leave this undetermined, because I am unacquainted with it.
And the mother of Jesus was there. It was probably one of Christ’s near relations
who married a wife; for Jesus is mentioned as having accompanied his mother.
From the fact that the disciples also are invited, we may infer how plain and frugal
was his way of living; for he lived in common with them. It may be thought strange,
however, that a man who has no great wealth or abundance (as will be made evident
from the scarcity of the wine) invites four or five other persons, on Christ’s account.
But the poor are readier and more frank in their invitations; because they are not,
like the rich, afraid of being disgraced, if they do not treat their guests with great
costliness and splendor; for the poor adhere more zealously to the ancient custom of
having an extended acquaintance.
Again, it may be supposed to show a want of courtesy, that the bridegroom allows
his guests, in the middle of the entertainment, to be in want of wine; for it looks like
a man of little thoughtfulness not to have a sufficiency of wine for his guests. I reply,
nothing is here related which does not frequently happen, especially when people
are not accustomed to the daily use of wine. Besides, the context shows, that it was
towards the conclusion of the banquet thatthe wine fell short, when, according to
custom, it might be supposed that they had already drunk enough; for the master of
the feast thus speaks, Other men place worse wine before those who have drunk
enough, but thou hast kept the best till now. Besides, I have no doubt that all this

was regulated by the Providence of God, that there might be room for the miracle.
BARCLAY, "THE EW EXHILARATIO (John 2:1-11)
2:1-11 Two days after this there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee; and Jesus'
mother was there. And Jesus was invited to the wedding and so were his disciples.
When the wine had run short, Jesus' mother said to him: "They have no wine."
Jesus said to her: "Lady, let me handle this in my own way. My hour has not yet
come." His mother said to the servants: "Do whatever he tens you to do." There
were six stone waterpots standing there--they were needed for the Jewish purifying
customs--and each of them held about twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them:
"Fill the waterpots with water." They filled them up to the very brim. He said to
them: "Draw from them now, and take what you draw to the steward in charge."
They did so. When the steward had tasted the water which had become wine--he did
not know where it came from, but the servants who had drawn the water knew--the
steward called the bridegroom and said to him: "Everyone first sets before the
guests the good wine, and then, when they have drunk their fill, he sets before them
the inferior wine. You have kept the good wine until now."
Jesus did the first of his signs in Cana of Galilee, and displayed his glory; and his
disciples believed on him.
The very richness of the Fourth Gospel presents those who would study it and him
who would expound it with a problem. Always there are two things. There is a
simple surface story that anyone can understand and re-tell; but there is also a
wealth of deeper meaning for him who has the eagerness to search and the eye to see
and the mind to understand. There is so much in a passage like this that we must
take three days to study it. We shall look at it first of all quite simply to set it within
its background and to see it come alive. We shall then look at certain of the things it
tells us about Jesus and his work. And finally we shall look at the permanent truth
which John is seeking to tell us in it.
Cana of Galilee is so called to distinguish it from Cana in Coelo-Syria. It was a
village quite near to azareth. Jerome, who stayed in Palestine, says that he saw it
from azareth. In Cana there was a wedding feast to which Mary went and at
which she held a special place. She had something to do with the arrangements, for
she was worried when the wine ran done; and she had authority enough to order the
servants to do whatever Jesus told them to do. Some of the later gospels which never
got into the ew Testament add certain details to this story. One of the Coptic
gospels tells us that Mary was a sister of the bridegroom's mother. There is an early
set of Prefaces to the books of the ew Testament caged the Monarchian Prefaces
which tell us that the bridegroom was no other than John himself, and that his
mother was Salome, the sister of Mary. We do not know whether these extra details
are true or not, but the story is so vividly told that it is clearly an eye-witness
account.
There is no mention of Joseph. The explanation most probably is that by this time

Joseph was dead. It would seem that Joseph died quite soon, and that the reason
why Jesus spent eighteen long years in azareth was that he had to take upon
himself the support of his mother and his family. It was only when his younger
brothers and sisters were able to look after themselves that he left home.
The scene is a village wedding feast. In Palestine a wedding was a really notable
occasion. It was the Jewish law that the wedding of a virgin should take place on a
Wednesday. This is interesting because it gives us a date from which to work back;
and if this wedding took place on a Wednesday it must have been the Sabbath day
when Jesus first met Andrew and John and they stayed the whole day with him. The
wedding festivities lasted far more than one day. The wedding ceremony itself took
place late in the evening, after a feast. After the ceremony the young couple were
conducted to their new home. By that time it was dark and they were conducted
through the village streets by the light of flaming torches and with a canopy over
their heads. They were taken by as long a route as possible so that as many people
as possible would have the opportunity to wish them well. But a newly married
couple did not go away for their honeymoon; they stayed at home; and for a week
they kept open house. They wore crowns and dressed in their bridal robes. They
were treated like a king and queen, were actually addressed as king and queen, and
their word was law. In a life where there was much poverty and constant hard
work, this week of festivity and joy was one of the supreme occasions.
It was in a happy time like this that Jesus gladly shared. But something went wrong.
It is likely that the coming of Jesus caused something of a problem. He had been
invited to the feast, but he had arrived not alone but with five disciples. Five extra
people may well have caused complications. Five unexpected guests might provide
any festival with a problem, and the wine went done.
For a Jewish feast wine was essential. "Without wine," said the Rabbis, "there is no
joy." It was not that people were drunken, but in the East wine was an essential.
Drunkenness was in fact a great disgrace, and they actually drank their wine in a
mixture composed of two parts of wine to three parts of water. At any time the
failure of provisions would have been a problem, for hospitality in the East is a
sacred duty; but for the provisions to fail at a wedding would be a terrible
humiliation for the bride and the bridegroom.
So Mary came to Jesus to tell him that it was so. The King James Version
translation of Jesus' reply makes it sound very discourteous. It makes him say:
"Woman, what have I to do with thee?" That is indeed a translation of the words,
but it does not in any way give the tone.
The phrase, "What have I to do with thee?" was a common conversational phrase.
When it was uttered angrily and sharply it did indicate complete disagreement and
reproach, but when it was spoken gently it indicated not so much reproach but
misunderstanding. It means: "Don't worry; you don't quite understand what is
going on; leave things to me, and I will settle them in my own way." Jesus was
simply telling Mary to leave things to him, that he would have his own way of

dealing with the situation.
The word woman (gunai, Greek #1135) is also misleading. It sounds to us very
rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address
Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which
Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus,
the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatra, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from
being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no
way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it
Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it.
However Jesus spoke, Mary was confident of him. She told the servants to do as
Jesus told them to do. At the door there were six great water jars. The word that the
King James Version translates "firkin" (metretes, Greek #3355) represents the
Hebrew measure called the bath (Hebrew #1324) which was a measure equivalent to
between eight and nine gallons. The jars were very large; they would hold about
twenty gallons of water apiece.
John was writing his gospel for Greeks and so he explains that these jars were there
to provide water for the purifying ceremonies of the Jews. Water was required for
two purposes. First, it was required for cleansing the feet on entry to the house. The
roads were not surfaced. Sandals were merely a sole attached to the foot by straps.
On a dry day the feet were covered by dust and on a wet day they were soiled with
mud; and the water was used for cleansing them. Second, it was required for the
handwashing. Strict Jews washed the hands before a meal and between each course.
First the hand was held upright and the water was poured over it in such away that
it ran right to the wrist; then the hand was held pointing down and the water was
poured in such a way that it ran from the wrist to the finger-tips. This was done
with each hand in turn; and then each palm was cleansed by rubbing it with the fist
of the other hand. The Jewish ceremonial law insisted that this should be done not
only at the beginning of a meal but also between courses. If it was not done the
hands were technically unclean. It was for this footwashing and handwashing that
these great stone jars of water stood there.
John commanded that the jars should be filled to the brim. John mentions that
point to make it clear that nothing else but water was put into them. He then told
them to draw out the water and to take it to the architriklinos (Greek #755), the
steward in charge. At their banquets the Romans had a toast-master called the
arbiter bibendi, the arranger of the drinking. Sometimes one of the guests acted as a
kind of master of ceremonies at a Jewish wedding. But our equivalent of the
architriklinos (Greek #755) is really the head-waiter. He was responsible for the
seating of the guests and the correct running of the feast. When he tasted the water
which had become wine he was astonished. He called the bridegroom--it was the
bridegroom's parents who were responsible for the feast--and spoke jestingly.
"Most people," he said, "serve the good wine first; and then, when the guests have
drunk a good deal, and their palates are dulled and they are not in much of a
condition to appreciate what they are drinking, they serve the inferior wine, but you

have kept the best until now."
So it was at a village girl's wedding in a Galilaean village that Jesus first showed his
glory; and it was there that his disciples caught another dazzling glimpse of what he
was.
THE EW EXHILARATIO (John 2:1-11 continued)
We note three general things about this wonderful deed which Jesus did.
(i) We note when it happened. It happened at a wedding feast. Jesus was perfectly at
home at such an occasion. He was no severe, austere killjoy. He loved to share in the
happy rejoicing of a wedding feast.
There are certain religious people who shed a gloom wherever they go. They are
suspicious of all joy and happiness. To them religion is a thing of black clothes, the
lowered voice, the expulsion of social fellowship. It was said of Alice Freeman
Palmer by one of her scholars: "She made me feel as if I was bathed in sunshine."
Jesus was like that. C. H. Spurgeon in his book, Lectures to My Students, has some
wise, if caustic, advice. "Sepulchral tones may fit a man to be an undertaker, but
Lazarus is not called out of his grave by hollow moans." "I know brethren who
from head to foot, in garb, tone, manner, necktie and boots are so utterly parsonic
that no particle of manhood is visible.... Some men appear to have a white cravat
twisted round their souls, their manhood is throttled with that starched rag." "An
individual who has no geniality about him had better be an undertaker, and bury
the dead, for he will never succeed in influencing the living." "I commend
cheerfulness to all who would win souls; not levity and frothiness, but a genial,
happy spirit. There are more flies caught with honey than with vinegar, and there
will be more souls led to heaven by a man who wears heaven in his face than by one
who bears Tartarus in his looks."
Jesus never counted it a crime to be happy. Why should his followers do so?
(ii) We note where it happened. It happened in a humble home in a village in
Galilee. This miracle was not wrought against the background of some great
occasion and in the presence of vast crowds. It was wrought in a home. A.H. .
Green Armytage in his book, A Portrait of St. Luke, speaks of how Luke delighted
to show Jesus against a background of simple, homely things and people. In a vivid
phrase he says that St. Luke's gospel "domesticated God"; it brought God right into
the home circle and into the ordinary things of life. Jesus' action at Cana of Galilee
shows what he thought of a home. As the Revised Standard Version has it, he
"manifested forth his glory," and that manifestation took place within a home.
There is a strange paradox in the attitude of many people to the place they call
home. They would admit at once that there is no more precious place in all the
world; and yet, at the same time, they would also have to admit that in it they claim
the right to be far more discourteous, far more boorish, far more selfish, far more
impolite than they would dare to be in any society of strangers. Many of us treat the

ones we love most in a way that we would never dare to treat a chance acquaintance.
So often it is strangers who see us at our best and those who live with us who see us
at our worst. We ought ever to remember that it was in a humble home that Jesus
manifested forth his glory. To him home was a place for which nothing but his best
was good enough.
(iii) We note why it happened. We have already seen that in the East hospitality was
always a sacred duty. It would have brought embarrassed shame to that home that
day if the wine had run done. It was to save a humble Galilaean family from hurt
that Jesus put forth his power. It was in sympathy, in kindness, in understanding
for simple folk that Jesus acted.
early everyone can do the big thing on the big occasion; but it takes Jesus to do the
big thing on a simple, homely occasion like this. There is a kind of natural human
maliciousness which rather enjoys the misfortunes of others and which delights to
make a good story of them over the teacups. But Jesus, the Lord of all life, and the
King of glory, used his power to save a simple Galilaean lad and lass from
humiliation. It is just by such deeds of understanding, simple kindliness that we too
can show that we are followers of Jesus Christ.
Further, this story shows us very beautifully two things about Mary's faith in Jesus.
(i) Instinctively Mary turned to Jesus whenever something went wrong. She knew
her son. It was not till he was thirty years old that Jesus left home; and all these
years Mary lived with him. There is an old legend which tens of the days when Jesus
was a little baby in the home in azareth. It tells how in those days when people felt
tired and worried and hot and bothered and upset, they would say: "Let us go and
look at Mary's child," and they would go and look at Jesus, and somehow all their
troubles rolled away. It is still true that those who know Jesus intimately
instinctively turn to him when things go wrong--and they never find him wanting.
(ii) Even when Mary did not understand what Jesus was going to do, even when it
seemed that he had refused her request, Mary still believed in him so much that she
turned to the serving folk and told them to do whatever Jesus told them to do. Mary
had the faith which could trust even when it did not understand. She did not know
what Jesus was going to do, but she was quite sure that he would do the right thing.
In every life come periods of darkness when we do not see the way. In every life
come things which are such that we do not see why they came or any meaning in
them. Happy is the man who in such a case still trusts even when he cannot
understand.
Still further, this story tells us something about Jesus. In answer to Mary he said:
"My hour has not yet come." All through the gospel story Jesus talks about his
hour. In John 7:6; John 7:8 it is the hour of his emergence as the Messiah. In John
12:23 and John 17:1, and in Matthew 26:18; Matthew 26:45 and in Mark 14:41 it is
the hour of his crucifixion and his death. All through his life Jesus knew that he had
come into this world for a definite purpose and a definite task. He saw his life not in

terms of his wishes, but in terms of God's purpose for himself. He saw his life not
against the shifting background of time, but against the steady background of
eternity. All through his life he went steadily towards that hour for which he knew
that he had come into the world. It is not only Jesus who came into this world to
fulfil the purpose of God. As someone has said: "Every man is a dream and an idea
of God." We, too, must think not of our own wishes and our own desires, but of the
purpose for which God sent us into his world.
THE EW EXHILARATIO (John 2:1-11 continued)
ow we must think of the deep and permanent truth which John is seeking to teach
when he tells this story.
We must remember that John was writing out of a double background. He was a
Jew and he was writing for Jews; but his great object was to write the story of Jesus
in such a way that it would come home also to the Greeks.
Let us look at it first of all from the Jewish point of view. We must always
remember that beneath John's simple stories there is a deeper meaning which is
open only to those who have eyes to see. In all his gospel John never wrote an
unnecessary or an insignificant detail. Everything means something and everything
points beyond.
There were six stone waterpots; and at the command of Jesus the water in them
turned to wine. According to the Jews seven is the number which is complete and
perfect; and six is the number which is unfinished and imperfect. The six stone
waterpots stand for all the imperfections of the Jewish law. Jesus came to do away
with the imperfections of the law and to put in their place the new wine of the gospel
of his grace. Jesus turned the imperfection of the law into the perfection of grace.
There is another thing to note in this connection. There were six waterpots; each
held between twenty and thirty gallons of water; Jesus turned the water into wine.
That would give anything up to one hundred and eighty gallons of wine. Simply to
state that fact is to show that John did not mean the story to be taken with crude
literalness. What John did mean to say is that when the grace of Jesus comes to men
there is enough and to spare for all. o wedding party on earth could drink one
hundred and eighty gallons of wine. o need on earth can exhaust the grace of
Christ; there is a glorious superabundance in it.
John is telling us that in Jesus the imperfections have become perfection, and the
grace has become illimitable, sufficient and more than sufficient for every need.
Let us look at it now from the Greek point of view. It so happens that the Greeks
actually possessed stories like this. Dionysos was the Greek god of wine. Pausanias
was a Greek who wrote a description of his country and of its ancient ceremonies. In
his description of Elis, he describes an old ceremony and belief: "Between the
market-place and the Menius is an old theatre and a sanctuary of Dionysos; the
image is by Praxiteles. o god is more revered by the Eleans than Dionysos is, and

they say that he attends their festival of the Thyia. The place where they hold the
festival called the Thyia is about a mile from the city. Three empty kettles are taken
into the building and deposited there by the priests in the presence of the citizens
and of any strangers who may happen to be staying in the country. On the doors of
the buildings the priests, and all who choose to do so, put their seals. ext day they
are free to examine the seals, and on entering the building they find the kettles full
of wine. I was not there myself at the time of the festival, but the most respectable
men of Elis, and strangers too, swore that the facts were as I have said."
So the Greeks, too, had their stories like this; and it is as if John said to them: "You
have your stories and your legends about your gods. They are only stories and you
know that they are not really true. But Jesus has come to do what you have always
dreamed that your gods could do. He has come to make the things you longed for
come true."
To the Jews John said: "Jesus has come to turn the imperfection of the law into the
perfection of grace." To the Greeks he said: "Jesus has come really and truly to do
the things you only dreamed the gods could do."
ow we can see what John is teaching us. Every story tells us not of something Jesus
did once and never again, but of something which he is for ever doing. John tens us
not of things that Jesus once did in Palestine, but of things that he still does today.
And what John wants us to see here is not that Jesus once on a day turned some
waterpots of water into wine; he wants us to see that whenever Jesus comes into a
man's life, there comes a new quality which is like turning water into wine. Without
Jesus, life is dull and stale and flat; when Jesus comes into it, life becomes vivid and
sparkling and exciting. Without Jesus, life is drab and uninteresting; with him it is
thrilling and exhilarating.
When Sir Wilfred Grenfell was appealing for volunteers for his work in Labrador,
he said that he could not promise them much money, but he could promise them the
time of their lives. That is what Jesus promises us. Remember that John was writing
seventy years after Jesus was crucified. For seventy years he had thought and
meditated and remembered, until he saw meanings and significances that he had not
seen at the time. When John told this story he was remembering what life with Jesus
was like; and he said, "Wherever Jesus went and whenever he came into life it was
like water turning into wine." This story is John saying to us: "If you want the new
exhilaration, become a follower of Jesus Christ, and there will come a change in
your life which will be like water turning into wine."
LIGHTFOOT, "1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and
the mother of Jesus was there:
[And the third day there was a marriage, &c.] A virgin marries on the fourth day of
the week, and a widow on the fifth. "This custom came not in but from the decree of
Ezra, and so onward: for the Sanhedrim doth not sit but on the second and the fifth
days; but before the decree of Ezra, when the Sanhedrim assembled every day, then

was it lawful to take a wife on any day." There is a twofold reason given for this
restraint:
I. The virgin was to be married on the fourth day of the week because the assembly
of the twenty-three met on the fifth: so that if the husband should find his wife to be
no virgin, but already violated, he might have recourse to the consistory in the heat
of his displeasure, and procure just punishment for her according to law. But why
then might they not as well marry on the first day of the week, seeing the Beth Din
met on the second as well as the fifth?
II. Lest the sabbath should be polluted by preparations for the nuptials: for the
first, second, and third days of the week are allowed for those kind of preparations.
And the reason why the widow was to be married on the fifth day was, that her
husband might rejoice with her for three days together, viz. fifth, sixth, and the
sabbath day.
If therefore our bride in this place was a virgin, then the nuptials were celebrated on
the fourth day of the week, which is our Wednesday: if she was a widow, then she
was married on the fifth day of the week, which is our Thursday. Let us therefore
number our days according to our evangelist, and let it be but granted that that was
the sabbath in which it is said, "They abode with him all that day," chapter 1, verse
39; then on the first day of the week Christ went into Galilee and met with
athanael. So that the third day from thence is the fourth day of the week; but as to
that, let every one reckon as he himself shall think fit.
[A marriage.] I. The virgin to be married cometh forth from her father's house to
that of her husband, "in some veil, but with her hair dishevelled, or her head
uncovered."
II. If any person meets her upon that day, he gives her the way; which once was
done by king Agrippa himself.
III. They carry before her a cup of wine, which they were wont to call the cup of
Trumah, which denoted that she, for her unspotted virginity, might have married a
priest, and eaten of the Trumah.
IV. Skipping and dancing, they were wont to sing the praises of the bride. In
Palestine they used these words "She needs no paint nor stibium, no plaiting of the
hair, or any such thing; for she is of herself most beautiful."
V. They scattered some kind of grain or corn amongst the children; that they, if
occasion should serve, might bear witness hereafter that they saw that woman a
married virgin.
VI. They sprinkled also or sowed barley before them, by that ceremony denoting
their fruitfulness. Whether these sports were used at the wedding where our Saviour
was present, let others inquire.

VII. In Sotah there is mention of crowns which the bride and bridegroom wore; as
also what fashion they were of, and of what materials they were made.
VIII. Because of the mirth that was expected at nuptial solemnities, they forbade all
weddings celebrating within the feasts of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles,
"because there were great rejoicings at nuptials, and they must not intermingle one
joy with another"; that is, the joy of nuptials with the joy of a festival.
IX. The nuptial festivity was continued for the whole seven days; which we also see
of old, Judges 19:12.
[And the mother of Jesus was there.] The mother of Jesus was there, not invited (as
it should seem) with Christ and his disciples, but had been there before the
invitation made to them.
You may conceive who were the usual nuptial guests by those words of Maimonides:
"The bridegroom and his companions, the children of the bridechamber, are not
bound to make a tabernacle."
I. In a more general sense, denotes a friend or companion, as in the Targum, Judges
14:2; 2 Samuel 13:3: but it is more particularly applied to those friends that are the
nuptial guests.
II. But in a most strict sense to those two mentioned Chetubb. fol. 12. 1: "Of old
they appointed two Shoshbenin, one for the bridegroom, the other for the bride,
that they should minister to them especially at their entry into the bridal chamber."
They were especially instituted for this end, that they should take care and provide
that there should be no fraud nor deceit as to the tokens of the bride's virginity. So
Gloss upon the place. The Rabbins very ridiculously (as they almost always do) tell a
trifling story, that Michael and Gabriel were the two Shoshbenin at Adam and Eve's
wedding.
III. But as to the signification of this nuptial term in a more large sense, we may see
farther: "If any amongst the brethren make a Shoshbenuth while the father is yet
alive, when the Shoshbenuth returns, that also is returned too; for the Shoshbenuth
is required even before the Beth Din; but if any one send to his friend any measures
of wine, those are not required before the Beth Din; for this was a deed of gift? or
work of charity."
The words are very obscure, but they seem to bear this sense, viz.: This was the
manner of the Shoshbenuth: some bachelor or single person, for joy of his friend's
marriage, takes something along with him to eat and be merry with the bridegroom:
when it comes to the turn of this single person to marry, this bridegroom, to whom
he had brought this portion, is bound to return the same kindness again. ay, if the
father should make a wedding for his son, and his friends should bring gifts along
with them in honour of the nuptials, and give them to his son [the bridegroom], the

father was bound to return the same kindness whenever any of those friends should
think fit to marry themselves. But if any one should send the bridegroom to
congratulate his nuptials, either wine or oil, or any such gift, and not come himself
to eat and make merry with them, this was not of the nature of the Shoshbenuth,
nor could be required back again before the tribunal, because that was a free gift.
IV. Christ therefore, and five of his disciples, were not of these voluntary
Shoshbenin at this wedding, for they were invited guests, and so of the number of
those that were called the children of the bridechamber, distinguished from the
Shoshbenin. But whether our Saviour's mother was to be accounted either the one
or the other is a vain and needless question. Perhaps she had the care of preparing
and managing the necessaries for the wedding, as having some relation either with
the bridegroom or the bride.
PI K 1-11, "First of all we will give a brief and simple Analysis of the passage
before us:—
1. The Occasion of the Miracle: a marriage in Cana, verse 1.
2. The Presence there of the Mother of Jesus, verse 1.
3. The Savior and His Disciples Invited, verse 2.
4. Mary’s Interference and Christ’s Rebuke, verses 3, 4.
5. Mary’s Submission, verse 5.
6. The Miracle Itself, verses 6-8.
7. The Effects of the Miracle, verses 9-11.
We propose to expound the passage before us from a threefold viewpoint: first, its
typical significance, second, its prophetic application, third, its practical teaching. It
is as though the Holy Spirit had here combined three pictures into one. We might
illustrate it by the method used in printing a picture in colors. There is first the
picture itself in its black-edged outline; then, on top of this, is filled in the first
coloring—red, or yellow, as the case may be; finally, the last color—blue or
brown—may be added to the others, and the composite and variegated picture is
complete. To use the terms of the illustration, it is our purpose to examine,
separately, the different tints and shadings in the Divine picture which is presented
to our view in the first half of John 2.
I. The typical significance.
It is to be carefully noted that this second chapter of John opens with the word
"and," which indicates that its contents are closely connected with what has gone
before. One of the things that is made prominent in John 1 (following the
Introduction, which runs to the end of verse 18) is the failure of Judaism, and the
turning away from it to Christ. The failure of Judaism (seen in the ignorance of the
Sanhedrin) is made plain by the sending of priests and Levites from Jerusalem to
enquire of John who he was (John 1:19). This is made still more evident by the
pathetic statement of the Baptist, "There standeth one among you, whom ye know
not" (John 1:26). All this is but an amplication of that tragic word found in John
1:11—"He came unto his own, and his own received him not." So blind were the
religious leaders of Israel, that they neither knew the Christ of God stood in their
midst, nor recognized His forerunner to whom the Old Testament Scriptures bore
explicit witness.

Judaism was but a dead husk, the heart and life of it were gone. Only one thing
remained, and that was the setting of it aside, and the bringing in "of a better
hope." Accordingly, we read in Galatians 4:4, ‘But when the fulness of time was
come, God sent forth his Son." Yes, the fulness of God’s time had come. The hour
was ripe for Christ to be manifested. The need of Him had been fully demonstrated.
Judaism must be set aside. A typical picture of this was before us in John 1. The
Baptist wound up the Old Testament system ("The law and the prophets were until
John"—Luke 16:16), and in John 1:35-37 we are shown two (the number of
competent testimony) of His disciples leaving John, and following the Lord Jesus.
The same principle is illustrated again in the chapter now before us. A marriage-
feast is presented to our view, and the central thing about it is that the wine had
given out. The figure is not difficult to interpret: "Wine" in Scripture is the emblem
of joy, as the following passage will show: "And wine that maketh glad the heart of
man" (Ps. 104:15); "And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which
cheereth God and man?" (Judg. 9:13). How striking, then, is what we have here in
John 2! How accurate the picture. Judaism still existed as a religious system, but it
ministered no comfort to the heart. It had degenerated into a cold, mechanical
routine, utterly destitute of joy in God. Israel had lost the joy of their espousals.
"And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying
of the Jews" (verse 6). What a portrayal of Judaism was this! Six is the number of
man, for it was on the sixth day man was made, and of the Superman it is written,
"Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the
number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore six" (Rev. 13:18). Yes,
there were six waterpots standing there, not seven, the perfect number. All that was
left of Judaism was of the flesh; God was not in it. As we read later on in this
Gospel, the "feasts of the Lord" (Lev. 23:2) were now only "the feast of the Jews"
(John 2:13, etc.).
Observe, too, that these six waterpots were of "stone," not silver which speaks of
redemption, nor of gold which tells of Divine glory. As we read in Isaiah 1:22, "Thy
silver is become dross," and again in Lamentations 4:1, "How is the gold become
dim?" Profoundly significant, then, were these waterpots of "stone." And what is
the more noticeable, they were empty. Again, we say, what a vivid portrayal have we
here of Israel’s condition at that time! o wonder the wine had given out! To supply
that Christ was needed. Therefore, our chapter at once directs attention to Him as
the One who alone can provide that which speaks of joy in God. Thus does John 2
give us another representation of the failure of Judaism, and the turning away from
it to the Savior. Hence, it opens with the word "and," as denoting the continuation
of the same subject which had been brought out in the previous chapter.
In striking accord with what we have just suggested above, is the further fact, that
in this scene of the Cana-marriage feast, the mother of Jesus occupies such a
prominent position. It is to be noted that she is not here called by her personal
name—as she is in Acts 1:14—but is referred to as "the mother of Jesus." (John
2:1). She is, therefore, to be viewed as a representative character. In this chapter
Mary occupies the same position as the Baptist did in John 1. She stands for the
nation of Israel. Inasmuch as through her the long promised "seed" had come,
Mary is to be regarded here as gathering up into her person the entire Abrahamic
stock.

What, then, does the Holy Spirit record here of Mary? Were her actions on this
occasion in keeping with the representative character she filled? They certainly
were. The record is exceedingly brief, but what is said is enough to confirm our line
of interpretation. The mother of Jesus exhibited a woeful lack of spiritual
discernment. It seems as if she presumed so far as to dictate to the Lord. Apparently
she ventured to order the Savior, and tell Him what to do. o otherwise can we
account for the reply that He made to her on this occasion—"Woman, what have I
to do with thee?" It was a pointed rebuke, and as such His words admonished her
for her failure to render Him the respect and reverence which, as the Lord of Glory,
were His due.
We believe that this unwonted interference of Mary was prompted by the same
carnal motive as actuated His unbelieving "brethren" (i.e. other sons of Mary and
Joseph) on a later occasion. In John 7:2-5 we read, " ow the Jews feast of
tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and
go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is
no man that doeth anything in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If
thou do these things, show thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe
in him."
Mary wanted the Savior to openly display His power and glory, and, accordingly,
she was a true representative of the Jewish nation. Israel had no thought and had no
heart for a suffering Messiah; what they desired was One who would immediately
set up His kingdom here on earth. Thus, in Mary’s ignorance (at that time) of the
real character of Christ’s mission, in her untimely longing for Him to openly display
His power and glory, and in Christ’s word of rebuke to her, "What have I to do
with thee?" we have added evidence of the typical significance of this scene at the
Cana marriage-feast—the setting aside of Israel after the flesh.
II. The Prophetic Application.
What is recorded here in the first part of John 2 looks beyond the conditions that
obtained in Israel at that time. The miracle which Christ performed at Cana
possessed a prophetic significance. Like so much that is found in Scripture, the
passage before us needs to be studied from a twofold viewpoint: its immediate and
its remote applications. Above, we have sought to bring out what we believe to be
the direct significance of this incident, in its typical and representative
suggestiveness. ow we would turn for a moment to contemplate its more distant
and prophetic application.
"And the third day:" so our chapter opens. The Holy Spirit presents to our view a
third day scene. The third day is the day of resurrection. It was on the third day that
the earth emerged from its watery grave, as it was on the third day the barren earth
was clothed with vegetable life (Gen. 1:9, 11). There is an important scripture in
Hosea 6:2 which should be placed side by side with John 2:1: "After two days will
he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." For
almost two thousand years (two Days with God—see 2 Peter 3:8) Israel has been
without a king, without a priest, without a home. But the second "Day" is almost
ended, and when the third dawns, their renaissance shall come.
This second chapter of John presents us with a prophetic foreshadowing of the
future. It gives us a typical picture of Christ—the Third Day, following the two days
(the two thousand years) of Israel’s dispersion. Then will Israel invite Jesus to come

to them: for, not until they say "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord"
will He return to the earth. Then will the Lord be married to the new Israel, see
Isaiah 54; Hosea 2, etc. Then will Christ turn the water into wine—fill Israel’s
hearts with joy. Then will Israel say to the Gentiles (their servants), "Whatsoever he
saith unto you, do." Then will Israel render unqualified obedience to Jehovah, for
He will write His law in their hearts (Jer. 31:33). Then will Christ "manifest His
glory" (John 2:11)—cf. Matthew 25:31; and thus will the best wine be reserved for
Israel until the last.
Having touched, somewhat briefly, upon the typical and prophetic significance of
this miracle, we turn now to consider,
III. The Practical Teaching.
"And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of
Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage"
(verses 1, 2). Christ here sanctifies the marriage relationship. Marriage was
ordained by God in Eden and in our lesson, the Savior, for all time, set His stamp of
approval upon it. To be present at this marriage was almost Christ’s first public
appearance after His ministry commenced. By gracing this festive gathering, our
Lord distinguished and glorified this sacred institution. Observe that Christ was
invited to be there. Christ’s presence is essential to a happy marriage. The marriage
where there is no place for our Lord and Savior cannot be blest of God:
"Whatsoever ye do... do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31).
"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no
wine" (John 2:3). Mary’s words seem to indicate two things: first, she ignored His
Deity. Was she not aware that He was more than man? Did she not know that He
was God manifest in the flesh? and, therefore, omniscient. He knew that they had no
wine. Second, it appears as though Mary was seeking to exert her parental
authority, by suggesting to Him what He ought to do under the circumstances.
"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4). This is an
elliptical expression, and in the Greek literally read, "What to Me and thee?" We
take it that the force of this question of our Lord’s was, What is there common to
Me and thee—cf Matthew 8:29 for a similar grammatical construction. It was not
that the Savior resented Mary’s inviting His aid, but a plain intimation that she
must allow Him to act in His own way. Christ here showed that His season of
subjection to Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:51) was over, His public ministry had now
commenced and she must not presume to dictate to Him.
Many of our readers, no doubt, have wondered why Christ here addressed His
mother as "Woman." Scholars tell us that at the time our Lord used this word it
would not sound harsh or rough. It was a designation commonly used for
addressing females of all classes and relationships, and was sometimes employed
with great reverence and affection. Proof of this is seen in the fact that while on the
Cross itself Christ addressed Mary as "Woman," saying, "Behold thy son" (John
19:26 and see also John 20:13, 15).
But we believe our Lord chose this word with Divine discrimination, and for at least
two reasons. First, because He was here calling attention to the fact that He was
more than man, that He was none less than the Son of God. To have addressed her
as "mother" would have called attention to human relationships; but calling her
"woman" showed that God was speaking to her. We may add that it is significant

that the two times Christ addressed His mother as "woman" are both recorded in
the Gospel of John which sets forth His Deity.
Again, the employment of this term "woman" denotes Christ’s omniscience. With
prophetic foresight He anticipated the horrible idolatry which was to ascribe Divine
honors to her. He knew that in the centuries which were to follow, men would entitle
her the Queen of angels and the Mother of God. Hence, He refused to use a term
which would in any wise countenance the monstrous system of Mariolatry. Christ
would here teach us that Mary was only a woman—"Blessed among women" (Luke
1:28) but not "blessed above women."
"Mine hour is not yet come" (John 2:4) became the most solemn watchword of His
life, marking the stages by which He drew nigh to His death. Seven references are
made in this Gospel to that awful "hour." The first is in our present passage in John
2:4. The second is found in John 7:30—"Then they sought to take him: but no man
laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come." The third time is found in
John 8:20—"And no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come." The
fourth is in John 12:23—"And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that
the Son of man should be glorified." The fifth is in John 12:27—" ow is my soul
troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause
came I unto this hour." The sixth is in John 16:32—"Behold, the hour cometh, yea,
is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me
alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me." The seventh is in
John 17:1—"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said,
Father, the hour is come; glorify thy son, that thy son also may glorify thee." This
"hour" was the hour of His humiliation. It was the "hour" of His suffering. But
why should Christ refer to this "hour" when Mary was seeking to dictate to Him?
Ah, surely the answer is not far to seek. That awful "hour" to which he looked
forward, was the time when He would be subject to man’s will, for then He would
be delivered up into the hands of sinners. But until then, He was not to be ordered
by man; instead, He was about His Father’s business, seeking only to do His will.
"His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do" (John 2:5).
This is very beautiful. Mary meekly accepted the Lord’s rebuke, recognized His
rights to act as He pleased, and left the matter entirely in His hands. There is an
important and much neglected lesson here for each of us. How prone we are to
dictate to God! How often we are disposed to tell Him what to do! This is only
another evidence of that detestable self-will which still operates in the believer,
unless Divine grace subdues it. Our plain duty is to commit our way unto the Lord
and then leave Him to supply our need in His own good time and manner.
We turn now to consider the miracle which Christ performed here at Cana. And
first, a few words upon the occasion of it. The Lord Jesus recognized in this request
of Mary’s a call from His Father. He discerned in this simple act of furnishing the
wedding-guests with wine a very different thing from what His mother saw. The
performing of this miracle marked an important crisis in the Savior’s career. His act
of turning the water into wine would alter the whole course of His life. Hitherto He
had lived in quiet seclusion in azareth, but from this time on He would become a
public and marked character. From henceforth He would scarcely have leisure to
eat, and His opportunity for retired communion with the Father would be only
when others slept. If He performed this miracle, and manifested forth His glory, He

would become the gazing stock of every eye, and the common talk of every tongue.
He would be followed about from place to place, thronged and jostled by vulgar
crowds. This would provoke the jealousy of religious leaders, and He would be spied
upon and regarded as a public menace. Later, this would eventuate in His being
seized as a notorious criminal, falsely accused, and sentenced to be crucified. All of
this stood out before Him as He was requested to supply the needed wine. But He
did not shrink. He had come to do the will of God, no matter what the cost. May we
not say it reverently, that as He stood there by Mary’s side and listened to her
words, that the Cross challenged Him. Certainly it was here anticipated, and hence
His solemn reference to His "hour" yet to come.
In the second place, the manner in which the miracle was performed is deserving of
our closest attention. "And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the
manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus
saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.
And they bare" (John 2:6-8). Christ was the One to work the miracle, yet the
"servants" were the ones who seemed to do everything. They filled the waterpots,
they drew off the wine, they bore it to the governor of the feast. There was no visible
exhibition of putting forth of Divine power. Christ pronounced no magical formula:
He did not even command the water to become wine. What was witnessed by the
spectators was men at work, not God creating out of nothing. And all this speaks
loudly to us. It was a parable in action. The means used were human, the result was
seen to be Divine.
This was Christ’s first miracle, and in it He shows us that God is pleased to use
human instrumentality in performing the wonders of His grace. The miracle
consisted in the supplying of wine and, as previously pointed out, wine symbolizes
joy in God. Learn then, that the Lord is pleased to employ human agents in bringing
joy to ‘the hearts of men. And what was the element Christ used on this occasion in
producing the wine? It was water. ow "water" is one of the symbols of the written
Word (see Ephesians 5:26). And how may we His servants, today, bring the wine of
joy unto human hearts? By ministering the Word (see Ephesians 5:26). And how
may we His servants, today, "servants" Christ’s command to fill those six empty
waterpots of stone with water, might have seemed meaningless, if not foolish; but
their obedience made them fellow-workers in the miracle! And to the wise of this
world, who put their trust in legislation, and social amelioration, it seems useless to
go forth unto the wicked with nothing more in our hands than a Book written
almost two thousand years ago. evertheless, it has pleased God "by the foolishness
of preaching to save them that believe"—foolish, that is, in the estimate of the
worldly wise. Here then is blessed instruction for the servants of God today. Let us
go forth with the Water of life, implicitly obeying the commands of our Lord, and
He will use us to bring the wine of Divine joy to many a sad heart.
In the third place, consider the teaching of this miracle. In it we have a striking
picture of the regeneration of a sinner. First, we see the condition of the natural man
before he is born again: he is like an empty waterpot of stone-cold, lifeless, useless.
Second, we see the worthlessness of man’s religion to help the sinner. Those
waterpots were set apart "after the manner of the purifying of the Jews"—they
were designed for ceremonial purgation; but their valuelessness was shown by their

emptiness. Third, at the command of Christ they were filled with water, and water
is one of the emblems of the written Word: it is the Word which God uses in
quickening dead souls into newness of life. Observe, too, these waterpots were filled
"up to the brim"—God always gives good measure; with no niggardly hand does He
minister. Fourth, the water produced wine, "good wine" (verse 10): symbol of the
Divine joy which fills the soul of the one who has been "born of water." Fifth, we
read "This beginning of miracles did Jesus." That is precisely what the new birth
is—a "miracle." And not only so, it is always the "beginning of miracles" for the
one newly born: regeneration is ever the initial work of grace. Sixth, observe "this
beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His glory."
It is thus, in the regeneration of dead sinners, that the "glory" of our Savior and
Lord is "manifested." Seventh, observe, "And His disciples believed on him." A
dead man cannot believe. But the first movement of the newly born soul is to turn to
Christ. ot that we argue an interval of time between the two, but as cause stands to
effect so the work of regeneration precedes the act of believing in Christ—cf. 2
Thessalonians 2:13: first, "sanctification of the Spirit," which is the new birth, then
"belief of the truth."
But is there not even a deeper meaning to this beginning of Christ’s miracles? Is it
not profoundly significant that in this first miracle which our Savior performed, the
"wine," which is the symbol of His shed blood, should be so prominent! The
marriage-feast was the occasion of joy and merriment; and does not God give us
here something more than a hint that in order for His people to be joyous, the
precious blood of His Son must be first poured forth! Ah, that is the foundation of
every blessing we enjoy, the ground of all our happiness. Hence did Christ begin His
supernatural works of mercy by producing that which spoke of His sacrificial death.
"When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not
whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the
feast called the bridegroom" (John 2:9). This parenthetical statement is most
blessed. It illustrates an important principle. It was the servants—not the
"disciples," nor yet Mary—who were nearest to the Lord on this occasion, and who
possessed the know]edge of His mind. What puzzled the "ruler of the feast" was no
secret to these "servants." How different are God’s ways from ours! The Lord of
glory was here as "Servant." In marvelous grace He came "not to be ministered
unto, but to minister:" therefore, are those who are humble in service, and those
engaged in the humblest service, nearest to Him. This is their reward for turning
their backs upon the honors and emoluments of the world. As we read in Amos
3:7—"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto (Ah,
unto whom?) his servants the prophets." It is like what we read in Psalm
103:7—"He made known his ways unto Moses;" and who was Moses? Let Scripture
answer: " ow the man Moses was very meek above all the men which were upon
the face of the earth" ( um. 12:3)! Yes, "the meek will he guide in judgment: and
the meek will he teach his way" (Ps. 25:9).
Those who determine to occupy the position of authority (as Mary did here) are not
taken into the Lord’s secrets. Those who wish to be in a place like the "ruler of the
feast," know not His thoughts. But those who humble themselves to take the servant
position, who place themselves at Christ’s disposal, are the ones who share His
counsels. And in the day to come, when He will provide the true wine of the

kingdom, those who have served Him during the time of His absence, shall then be
under Him the dispensers of joy. Has he not promised, "If any man serve me, him
will my Father honor?"
"And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and
when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good
wine until now" (John 2:10). This illustrates the ways of men and the ways of God.
The world (and Satan also) gives its best first, and keeps the worst for the last. First
the pleasures of sin—for a season—and then the wages of sin. But with God it is the
very opposite. He brings His people into the wilderness before He brings them into
the promised inheritance. First the Cross then the crown. Fellow believer, for us, the
best wine is yet to be: "The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more
and more unto the perfect day" (Prov. 4:18).
One more observation on this passage and we must close. What a message is there
here for the unsaved! The natural man has a "wine" of his own. There is a carnal
happiness enjoyed which is produced by "the pleasures of sin"—the merriment
which this world affords. But how fleeting this is! How unsatisfying! Sooner or later
this "wine," which is pressed from "the vine of the earth" (Rev. 14:18), gives out.
The poor sinner may be surrounded by gay companions, he may be comfortably
circumstanced financially and socially, yet the time comes when he discovers he has
"no wine." Happy the one who is conscious of this. The discovery of our own
wretchedness is often the turning point. It prepares us to look to that One who is
ready "to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment
of praise for the spirit of heaviness" (Isa. 61:3). Unbelieving friend, there is only
One who can furnish the true "wine," the "good" wine, and that is the Lord Jesus
Christ. He can satisfy the longing of the soul. He can quench the thirst of the heart.
He can put a song into thy mouth which not even the angels can sing, even the song
of Redemption. What then must you do? What price must you pay? Ah, dear friend,
listen to the glad tidings of grace: "Repent ye, and believe the Gospel" (Mark 1:15).
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "The third day there was a marriage in Cana of
Galilee.
The miracle at Cana
I. THE OCCASION ON WHICH THE MIRACLE WAS WROUGHT.
1. The time. The third day after the interview with Nathanael.
2. The place. Cana, about nine miles from Nazareth. Called Cans of Galilee to
distinguish it from another town of the same name in Ephraim.
3. The company.
(1) The mother of Jesus there probably on the ground of relationship. It has been
supposed that the wedding was in the family of Cleopas or Alphaeus, whose wife
was Mary’s sister.
(2) The most interesting and instructive fact is that Jesus was there. In Him the
social element was prominent. In this respect He differed totally from His
forerunner. He may have meant to teach those of His disciples, who had been
followers of the Baptist, the great lessons of human intercourse, marriage, etc.

(3) Jesus’ disciples Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael and John.
II. THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO IT.
1. The fact stated “They wanted wine;” Mary called Him aside and told Him so.
2. The manner in which the announcement was received.
(1) Not disrespectfully.
(2) Yet in the way of mild censure which rebukes Mariolatry.
(3) Because the proper season for the exercise of His Divine power had not
arrived.
3. The appropriate advice that was given. Christ requires universal and prompt
obedience.
III. THE FEATURES BY WHICH IT WAS DISTINGUISHED.
1. Nothing could be more simple. There was no pomp or parade.
2. Nothing could be more extraordinary. No means were used.
3. Nothing could be more convincing. Deception was impossible.
IV. THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH ENSUED.
1. The display of Christ’s glory.
2. The confirmation of the disciple’s faith.
(The miracles of the Lord Jesus.)
The miracle at Cana
1. After all those years of quiet and obscurity Jesus manifested Himself not as the
Son of Mary, but as the Son of God.
2. He showed His power not to a hermit of the desert, but to a social gathering,
teaching us the sanctity and blessedness of domestic life.
3. He commenced His ministerial life not as a stem preacher of righteousness beside
the sea which covered the sins of Sodom, but as a helper of innocent rejoicings at a
marriage feast. While we love our sins our place is by the Dead Sea; but if we heed
the call to repentance, we pass from the desert to the feast. The narrative teaches us
important lessons.
I. NEVER ACCEPT A FORM OF RELIGION WHICH MAKES PEOPLE GLOOMY AND
MOROSE. The people who would shut all the sunshine out of life and stifle its innocent
laugh, and hush the happy song, have not read the gospel of Jesus aright. There are
times for separation, but as a rule it is in the midst of our daily round that Jesus works
His miracles of mercy.
II. THE SANCTITY OF CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE. No marriage can be blessed unless
Jesus and His disciples are invited. It is quite possible to go through a form of marriage
which is quite legal, but which is a mere contract, and has no mark of holy matrimony
about it. When we see marriage contracts for money, or position, or to hide the results of
sin, we may be sure that Jesus has not been invited, and that there can be no blessing.

III. JESUS IS EVER WORKING THE SAME WONDERFUL CHANGE AND IS
SHOWING FORTH HIS POWER. All nature is a miracle lesson.
1. The seed sown in weakness is raised in power, and we learn that as God gives us
our daily bread so He gives us the True Bread from heaven.
2. Every growing vine with its clustering grapes shows us the miracle of water made
wine, telling us that Jesus is the True Vine, and that we are the branches, and that
without Him we cannot live.
3. The them receives the rains of winter and returns them glorified in the rose of
summer; the helpless chrysalis takes unto itself wings, and flies as the beautiful
butterfly. And the same miracle is shown in our Lord’s dealings with men. He came to
raise and put new strength into fallen humanity. The miracle was wrought on the first
disciples—on Peter who denied his Master, but was changed into a pillar of the Church,
etc. (H. J. W. Buxton, M. A.)
The miracle at Cana
In three points of view this miracle seems strange.
1. It has not that visible stamp of Divinity which is the peculiar glory of most of
Christ’s miracles. They do not disturb, but restore the true order of nature. In these
we see the victims of disorder emancipated, and disorderly forces remedied. They
show the Son of God engaged in a conflict with physical as well as moral disorder,
and exhibit on a small scale what the cross exhibits on a large.
2. Christ’s treatment of His mother seems contrary to the tender spirit we should
have expected.
3. The other miracles recorded by John were in connection with discourses to which
they led and revealed the inner glory of His grace and troth. But the fact that it was
wrought in connection with a domestic scene will help us to clear up these
difficulties. It was fitting
(1) That He should here break away from His mere earthly relationship to
mother and home.
(2) That He should here inaugurate that ministry which differed from His
wilderness experience and the habits of the Baptist. His object was to hallow the
legitimate enjoyments of life, and conquer the world, not turn His back upon it.
4. The particular form of the miracle illustrates
(1) The enriching power of Christ, His power to improve and perfect the sources
of human gratification. Though not repeated in form, the miracle is constantly
repeated in spirit in the greater sweetness of the poor man’s morsel and the poor
man’s life when flavoured with God’s blessing.
(2) The generosity of Christ who giveth liberally and upbraideth not: afterwards
shown in the miracle of the loaves and fishes, and foreshadowed in prophecy
(Isa_4:1).
5. It is in thorough harmony with the Johannine miracles. Of the eight, three bear on
the elements of bodily nourishment, and spiritually on the nourishment of the soul.
It is also in harmony with Christ’s teaching in John: the parable of the living bread

and of the vine: the vision of heavenly refreshment through Christ in the Apocalypse.
(W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
The miracle at Cana
I. THE PLACE WHICH THIS MIRACLE HOLDS AMONG THE MIRACLES OF
CHRIST. The first.
1. As indicative of the general character of those which followed. The product of
Christ’s omnipotence and good will.
2. As the beginning of those wonders which had as their object to manifest forth
Christ’s glory.
II. THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE MIRACLE WAS WROUGHT.
1. The failure of the wine perhaps through the unexpected advent of Jesus and His
disciples.
2. Mary’s appeal based upon her anxiety for the credit of the entertainers and
comfort of the guests.
3. Mary’s faith in Jesus not merely as her Son, but as the Son of God.
4. Mary’s modesty and humility: she demands nothing, and prescribes nothing.
5. The displeasure of Jesus tenderly teaching Mary
(1) That her relationship was no ground on which she might make application,
and that her former claims on this ground had passed away.
(2) That in all matters connected with His great work she was no more to Him
than other believers.
(3) That as He was David’s Lord so was He hers.
(4) That what He was about to do was not to be done for the reason for which
she desired it.
6. Christ’s announcement of His hour: His, not Mary’s; the time of the total failure of
the wine.
III. THE MIRACLE ITSELF.
1. Expected by Mary.
2. The preparation and co-operation of the servants.
3. The arrival of the hour.
4. The drawing forth of the water made wine.
5. The surprise of the governor.
IV. THE THINGS IN WHICH WE ARE INSTRUCTED BY THE MIRACLE.
1. The anticipation of ecclesiastical corruptions.
(1) The Roman depreciation of marriage..
(2) The Romish distinction of meats; that a man is holier for what he eats or
from what he abstains.

(3) Mariolatry.
2. The duty of temperance and self-denial amidst the profusion of temporal mercy.
The great abundance tested self-restraint. The same principle applies to all
enjoyments—dress, furniture, reading.
3. The superior excellency of the Gospel’s dispensation.
(1) As contrasted with Moses’ first miracle turning water into blood.
(2) The kingdom of god is not meat and drink.
4. The sanctifying influence of Christ’s presence. (A. Beith, D. D.)
The miracle at Cana
Notice
I. THAT RELIGION ENLARGES THE PLEASURES OF SOCIAL LIFE. Christ’s presence
did not interfere with the ordinary proceedings. There was no look on His face that
chilled the company. He made no protest against the glad music of the nuptial chant. No
one expressed the wish that Jesus had stayed at home. The wedding feast would have
been a wretched failure had He stayed away. And religion is misunderstood if it is
supposed to lessen the happiness of life. A good deal of worldly pleasure is feverish,
delirium which religion condemns, but it rules out no innocent pleasure. It commands
men to rejoice always. What untold miseries it has swept away. There is more happiness
in the Christian cottage than there was in Caesar’s Palace.
II. THAT SOCIAL LIFE IS THE MOST PROMISING SPHERE FOR RELIGIOUS
USEFULNESS. Christ did not feel out of place here, although a careless observer might
think it better for Him to be in the Temple teaching. He was here because of His perfect
sympathy and to do good. Social life furnishes the Christian with his great opportunities,
Faithfulness in religious exercise not the whole of duty. The Christian in society is the
foremost preacher. He is there to bear witness to the sympathy of religion with
everything that is wholesome, and to protest against everything that is pernicious.
(Sermons by the Monday Club.)
The relaxation of Jesus Christ
I. Our Lord had passed through the conflict of the wilderness and the initial stages of
His work as the caller of men, and had, moreover, come off a long journey. He therefore
NEEDED RELAXATION and found it at a wedding feast, and in the company of his
friends. Showing us that no man can or ought to be incessantly engaged in strife or
labour. If he does he will prematurely wear out or break down. Time for rest and
unbending is urgently required after any severe strain to body or mind.
II. The previous work and conflict was PROFOUNDLY RELIGIOUS; So was the
relaxation. The danger in our relaxations is to accumulate other burdens by forgetfulness
of self or God. “Whether therefore ye eat or drink do all to the glory of God.”
III. CHRIST UTILIZED THE HOURS AND MEANS OF RELAXATION FOR
DISTINCTLY RELIGIOUS ENDS. His aim is ever to leaven society religiously.
1. By the manifestation of His glory, so that

2. His disciples may believe on Him.
IV. CHRIST EMPLOYED IN HIS RELAXATION THOSE INFINITE RESOURCES OF
HIS FOR THE GOOD OF OTHERS, which even in the wilderness He could not be
induced to exert on His own behalf. He declared to Nicodemus that He could do
exceeding abundantly above all he could ask or think; here He fulfilled the declaration.
(J. W. Burn.)
Christ at a feast
Learn:
I. HOW HONOURABLE IN THE SIGHT OF CHRIST IS THE ESTATE OF
MATRIMONY.
1. Society is never in a healthy condition, and true religion never flourishes where
marriage is lightly esteemed.
2. Christ’s blessing and presence are essential to a happy wedding.
II. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN IT IS LAWFUL TO BE MERRY AND REJOICE.
1. True religion was never meant to make men melancholy, but the contrary. The
Christian has no place at races, balls, theatres, etc., but he has no right to hand over
to the devil innocent recreations.
2. It is not easy to hit the mean between the lawful and the unlawful. But the golden
rule is Luk_2:49.
3. While we should take our gladness into religion we should take our religion into
the world.
III. THE ALMIGHTY POWER OF JESUS CHRIST.
1. An act of will without any visible means.
2. The same power is at the disposal of His people. (Bp. Ryle.)
The wedding feast
I. ATTENDED BY CHRIST’S FRIENDS; those connected through blood and by grace.
Marriage though not a Christian sacrament is a religious ordinance Gen_2:24; Mat_
19:5; Mar_10:7; Eph_5:31); honourable in all (Heb_13:5), and when the parties are well
matched by affection and religion, a matter for hearty congratulation. Ordained for the
happiness of the individual and the development of the race, it is calculated, when
undertaken “solemnly, advisedly, and in the fear of God,” to promote the welfare of
husband and wife, and to secure a home for godly upbringing of children (Mal_2:15).
II. GRACED BY CHRIST’S PRESENCE. The first wedding on earth attended by God
(Gen_2:25). Not strange, therefore, that Christ should have set a mark of honour on His
Father’s institution; while it was peculiarly appropriate that He should inaugurate His
mission by placing His hand on the springs of humanity, lifting up this holy ordinance
which perhaps had suffered more than any other by the fall and restoring it to its
pristine dignity and beauty. (T. Whitelaw, D. D.)

The wedding feast
I. CHRIST’S MINISTRY OPENS ON A SCENE OF HUMAN HAPPINESS
1. God Himself is essential happiness and would have us happy.
2. We are disposed to make God the sharer of our sorrows; He here teaches us to
make Him the partner of our joys.
II. CHRIST’S FIRST APPEARANCE TO THE WORLD WAS AT A WEDDING. A
standing protest against the tendency to make it a virtue to abstain from marriage. This
tendency was denounced by Paul as one of the most pernicious doctrines of false
teachers.
III. OUR LORD’S FIRST MIRACLE WAS WROUGHT IN CONNECTION WITH AN
EVENT, THE BRIGHTEST AND MOST INNOCENT IN HUMAN LIFE. It was not to the
sinful outcasts of society that He gave His first and special manifestation of Himself, but
to those who were keeping His laws and exercising aright the natural affections He had
given them. Heaven always comes nearest to the purest home. The gospel prefers to
receive men at their best, not at their worst, and to gather into its treasury of grace, not
the wrecks of human life, but the rich spoils of its youth and strength.
IV. THE MIRACLE TOOK PLACE AT THE VILLAGE OF THE ISRAELITE, INDEED IN
WHOM THERE WAS NO GUILE. This disciple had the blessedness of the pure in heart
who see God. He who manifested Himself to the sleeping patriarch in a dream at the top
of the ladder, revealed Himself to Nathanael in waking reality at the foot, as a servant
ministering to the necessities of others, and enriching the enjoyments of human life by
His blessing. He who appeared to Jacob in a fleeting vision for the purpose of
establishing a covenant relationship with a particular family and nation, has opened up
by His Incarnation a free intercourse between God and man. (H. Macmillan, LL. D.)
Human feasts
I. WHAT THEY ARE BY NATURE.
II. WHAT THEY BECOME BY SIN.
III. WHAT THEY AGAIN BECOME ONLY BY THE GRACE OF CHRIST. (J. P.Lange, D.
D.)
Marks of the grace of Christ
I. THAT CHRIST GIVES US THE MOST PRECIOUS FOR NOTHING.
II. MAKES A GLORIOUS THING OUT OF COMMON.
III. GIVES THE BEST LAST.
IV. GIVES ACCORDING TO HIS OWN TIME, NOT ACCORDING TO OUR IDEAS.
(Harless.)

The water, the wine, and the wedding
I. THE PATHETIC VALUE THERE IS IN THE SIMPLEST FORMS OF HUMAN LIFE. A
little village mentioned four times in the Bible, and then only by one writer, now extinct,
and yet having a sweet, bright fame throughout Christendom, so that Pilgrims go to look
up its ruins. A common wedding has made it immortal, while the names of great cities
have perished.
1. A most significant sanction of the marriage relation. The New Testament scheme
of faith and practice was inaugurated in direct sympathy with human hearts and
established in the centre of the family institutions.
II. JESUS OUR LORD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS, or if of any of the poor. Jesus
is present at every true marriage.
III. JESUS NEVER SET HIS MOTHER UP TO BE A MADONNA. He deeply respected
her, but did not allow her to dictate to Him. In “Woman” there is no reproach. It is the
same word as that addressed to her on the cross. But in “What is there now which is
common to you and me,” He intends to suggest His independence.
IV. A NOBLE MOTTO FOR EVERY SINCERE CHRISTIAN (Joh_2:5). Mary was neither
humbled nor discouraged.
V. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SON OF GOD OVER NATURE. Three characteristics
of this miracle: its mystery, its magnitude, its morality. (C. S.Robinson, D. D.)
Christ and society
Christ here at the outset exemplifies one great rule of His self-manifestation, “The Son of
man came eating and drinking,” regardless if cavillers say, “Behold a man gluttenous and
a wine bibber.” His very miracle was a multiplication of the materials of feasting, acting
Himself on what afterwards became the law of the gospel. “Use hospitality one to
another without judging,” etc. Christ came not to take a few out of the world, but to
transform the world itself; and presented Himself at a marriage feast to redeem things
“which should be for our health” from being turned, through godless abuse into
“occasions of falling.”
I. Observe how RELIGION BEFORE AND WITHOUT CHRIST HAS DEALT WITH
SOCIETY. Its effort and prayer has been to be “taken out” of it to save itself, But this
instinct, right in itself, has been shown in ways suicidal. Selfishness bad in nature, is
worse in religion. Christ’s Epiphany to society was an original idea among the religious.
The dream of every religion but the Christian was celebrate monasticism. Even
Christianity has relapsed into it literally, and also morally in the selfishness which marks
out certain persons, phrases, recreations as signs of a world lying in wickedness. Far less
difficult would Christian duty be if we might quit the world and have done with it, but we
cannot and dare not. This parable of our Master’s life shows us this.
II. How CHRIST DEALS WITH SOCIETY. He finds in the world homes beautiful with
natural affection, and tables spread with God’s bounties. Into this, with the treacherous
ashes above and the latent fires below, Christ comes and says, “Use this world as not
abusing it,” and by His presence helps us to obey His precept. Realize, then, this
sanctifying presence in business, e.g., or pleasure, and we shall realize that which will
quicken both with Divine life. We shall then be there to exert the same helpfulness to
others through Christ, as Christ exerted at this feast.

1. Jesus was there with His disciples, not a solitary Messiah.
2. Let the disciples now take the Master with them. For some, alas I this would be
irksome, and so they either go without Christ, or else stay away. The former is sinful,
the latter faithless. (Dean Vaughan.)
Christian festivity
Some people think that the age of miracles has passed; everybody knows that that of
marriages has not.
I. JESUS NOT ONLY TOLERATES THE SOCIAL USAGES OF LIFE—its festivities
among the rest—BUT ENCOURAGES AND SANCTIFIES THEM. Some gloomy people
frown upon the common signs of cheerfulness, but for this habit we have here the
eternal antidote.
II. WE NEED CHRIST AT SEASONS OF SOCIAL FESTIVITY AS MUCH, OR EVEN
MORE, THAN AT OTHER TIMES. Pure religion is never unseasonable. If we think we
give our worship to God, and stop the devil’s mouth by an occasional indulgence, the
devil will soon get our worship too. There is no more fatal mistake than to think that if
we pay our dues in the House of God, we may please ourselves in the house of man.
Jesus should be always bidden at our seasons of joy; for be sure that if we do not send
Him our invitation, the devil will come without one.
III. THERE IS AN EXQUISITE TENDERNESS IN OUR LORD’S BINDING HIS
DISCIPLES TO HIM at this marriage feast. He does not speak to them of the cross as
yet. He speaks as they are able to bear it. Coming after His long fast in the wilderness, He
breathes no asceticism. He who had been so hardly pressed for bread, turns water into
wine. He will train us as we need to be trained.
IV. IF CHRIST IS SHUT OUT FROM THE HOUSE OF FEASTING, WE MUST NOT
WONDER AT HIS ABSENCE FROM THE HOUSE OF MOURNING.
(Harry Jones, M. A.)
The ministry began at a marriage festival which ended on Calvary, and its glory was
manifested by both.
I. THE FUNDAMENTAL, ORIGINAL, AND ULTIMATE CONDITION OF LIFE IS
BLESSING. Life begins in Eden, passes by Gethsemane and Calvary, and ends in heaven.
It is God’s will that man should be everywhere and always blessed. Misery lies not in
God’s making, but in the devil’s marring.
II. OUR LORD SOUGHT TO SEVER HIMSELF AT ONCE AND ABSOLUTELY FROM
THE ASCETIC SPIRIT. He came to add to the mirth of all feasts, the brightness of all
homes, the gladness of all songs. He was absolutely free from the monkish idolatry of
sorrow. He simply went about His Father’s work in whatever direction it might be.
III. CHRIST REVERSED THE DEVIL’S UNIFORM METHOD AT FESTIVALS. Did ever
any one get the best of the world’s wine, or the devil’s, at the end of the banquet? But
whatever He gives has an infinite store behind it. Hence we are saved by hope. The pain
and toil are for the moment, the joy grows into eternity

IV. CHRIST SHOWED THE TRUE SPIRIT OF SELF-SACRIFICE. The joy sympathetic
with the joy of the Lord. (J. Baldwin Brown, B. A.)
Lessons of the incident
1. Temperance amidst plenty.
2. The profusion of Divine gifts.
3. Christ’s presence changes the circumstances of His people.
4. Christ turns the lower into the higher; the common to the valuable.
5. Christ does not work till the necessity is felt.
6. Christ works according to His own will, without human interference. (Family
Churchman.)
General analysis and illustrations of the Cana miracle
The company at this wedding may represent the Church of Christ, which is often
represented as the guests called together to a marriage feast. Jesus, and His mother, and
His disciples were there; thus it is in the Church. The former circumstances of the
marriage, wherein they wanted wine, represent the state of the Church before Christ
came; or rather, before the evangelical dispensation was established. The latter
circumstances of the wedding, wherein they had plenty of wine, represent the latter state
of the Church, after the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost, and especially after the fall
of Antichrist. The wine represents the spiritual supplies of His Church, the grace and
comforts of the Holy Spirit, which are often represented by wine in Scripture. Their wine
ran low, and was just out; so formerly the Old Testament Church had a supply of wine;
but when Christ came into the world it was just out—they had in a manner no wine. But
when Christ came and ascended up to heaven, He soon gave His Church plenty of wine,
and much better wine than ever the Jewish Church had enjoyed; as it is said, “Thou hast
kept the good wine until now.” So again, before the glorious times of the Church
commence, the Church’s wine runs very low, and is almost out; what they alloy with is
water—human learning, sapless speculations and disputations, and dead morality.
Formerly the Christian Church had wine, as in the times of the primitive Church, and in
the times of the Reformation; but now their wine is almost gone. But after the beginning
of these glorious times their water shall be turned into wine, and much better wine than
ever they had before. The mother of Jesus may represent the more eminent ministers of
the gospel, or the public eccleslastical authority, as exercised in synods, public schools,
etc. They, in a dark and dead time of the Church, complain to Christ of their
unsuecessfulness, of the want of wine in the Church, and look to Him for a supply. But
they must not expect an answer till Christ’s time is come; their prayers are not answered
till then, and then they shall be fully answered; their prayers are not rejected, they are
offered up with incense. The cries of the souls under the altar, that cry, “How long, Lord,
holy and true?” are not rejected; but yet it is said to them that they should wail till God’s
time comes. The servants represent gospel ministers; they have a command from Jesus’
mother, i.e, from the Church in her public authority, to do whatsoever Jesus commands.
Whence we may note, that the way to have a plentiful effusion of the Spirit with His
Word and ordinances, is for ministers to be faithful in their work. They are to fill up the
water-pots of purification with water; that is all they can do. They can, in the use of the

ordinances of God’s house, and the appointed means of grace and purification, he
instant in season and out of season; they can fill the water-pots up to the brim; they can
be abundant in preaching the Word—which, as it comes from them, is only water—a
dead letter, a sapless, tasteless, spiritless thing—but this is what Christ will bless for the
supplying of His Church with wine. (Jonathan Edwards.)
The popularity of this Cana miracle
From a very early period the Church has recognized the importance and significance of
the miracle. Of the fifty-two marble sarcophagi originally found in the catacombs of
Rome, and now preserved in the Museum of St. John Lateran, no less than sixteen have
carved upon them a rude representation of Jesus touching with a rod two, three, four,
five, or six water-pots standing on the ground—the number varying according to the skill
of the artist, or the space at his disposal. In the frescoes and mosaics of numerous
churches and consecrated buildings, the incident has been depicted in a great variety of
ways; and Tintoretto exhausted his genius, in giving expression to its wonderful beauty,
in his great picture in the church of Santa Maria della Salute in Venice. With
commentators in all ages, the miracle of Cana has been a favourite and fertile theme for
exposition. No miracle will more thoroughly reward a careful study than that which
meets the inquirer at the very threshold. It is the “gate beautiful” by which he enters the
sacred temple of Divine truth. It is the illuminated initial which represents, in a pictorial
form, the nature and design of the kingdom of heaven as revealed unto men. It is an
acted parable of the whole gospel; a type and image of all the work of Jesus, opening up
a vista of light far into the ways of God. (H. Macmillan, LL. D.)
Cana.
Two places claim the distinction of being the Cana of the gospel—the one a ruined and
deserted village, called Khurbet Cana, about half-a-day’s journey to the north-west of
Nazareth; and the other, called Kerr Kenna, lying much nearer, on the present main road
from that town to Tiberias and the lake district. The great weight of evidence derived
from name, site, history, and present remains, is on the side of the latter place, which is
still one of the most prosperous villages in Galilee. Like Nain, its situation is exceedingly
picturesque. It is perched on the slope of a low hill, at the head of several valleys forming
natural roadways leading down on the one side to the sea-coast, and on the other to the
Lake of Galilee. In front is a rich bottom, which becomes a lake or a swamp in the rainy
season. In this respect Cans resembles the villages of Italy, which are nearly all built
upon isolated heights, rising up from extensive marshy plains, not only for the sake of
security, but also for the purer air and wider outlook. Its Greek name, which has no
Hebrew, Chaldee, or Aramaic form, means a reed; and was doubtless derived from the
reeds which still grow in abundance in the marshy plain below, and utter their mournful
wail as the winds pass through them. Several well-known places are similarly named for
the same reason, as Cannae, Canneto, Cannossa, and Cannes. The houses of the modern
village are embosomed among orchards of pomegranate trees, whose dark-green foliage
and scarlet blossoms form in April a scene of enchantment. The fig-tree still casts its
grateful shadow over the white roadway, and at the foot of the hill there is a deep, cool
well, the only one in the neighbourhood, from which the water used at the marriage feast
must have been drawn. Remains of ancient edifices testify to the hoary antiquity of the
site and its former importance. The foundations of an early church and monastery,

erected by Syrian Christians in commemoration of the marriage feast, may still be
traced. The buildings were entire long before the Moselm power was established in
Galilee; and various pilgrims from the West visited them from time to time during a
period of nine hundred years. Our own English St. Willibald, who was a palmer in 722,
stayed one day in Cans, and prayed in the church; and, four hundred years later, another
English pilgrim, Saewulf, saw and reported regarding the convent, called after the ruler
of the feast, “Holy Architriclinos,” the only building in Cans then that was not wholly
destroyed. (H. Macmillan, LL. D.)
Eastern marriage customs
An Oriental wedding is very different from an Occidental one; and there is as much
variety of usage in the accompaniments of this ceremony in the East as in the West. In
all cases, however, the marriage ceremonies are among the most prominent ceremonies
of private life, as much display being made as the circumstances of the contracting
parties will allow. Among the wealthy inhabitants of towns, however, the ceremonies of
marriage are both protracted and complicated. Six or seven days after the conclusion of
the betrothal contract, the well-to-do bridegroom begins to illuminate the street in
which he lives with swinging lamps and flying flags in token of the coming festivities.
During the evenings of these days festivals are held at the bridegroom’s house. The chief
entertainment is given by the bridegroom the evening before the marriage. On the day of
the marriage the bride goes in procession to the bridegroom’s house, preceded by music,
dancers, mountebanks, and walking beneath a canopy. The procession seeks a circuitous
route, and takes several hours before it reaches the bridegroom’s house. Here the party
is entertained with a repast. At sunset the bridegroom leaves the house, and goes in
procession to a mosque to say the proper ceremonial prayers. Then the procession
returns slowly, preceded by music and lanterns. When the procession reaches the house,
pipes, coffee, and sherbert (sweetened water, for the Mohammedans do not drink wine)
are set before the company. The bridegroom then visits his bride, whose face he now
sees for the first time. Upon his announcement that he is satisfied with his bride, the
women without raise the zaghareet, or shrill cries of joy, which announce the happy
event to the whole neighbourhood. The bridegroom then returns, for a little while, to his
friends who are feasting below, to receive their felicitations on the completion of the
marriage. (S. S. Times.)
Marriage happy where Christ is acknowledged
When Philip Henry was settled at Worthenburv, he sought the hand of the only daughter
and heiress of Mr. Matthews, of Broad Oak. The father demurred, saying that, though
Mr. Henry was an excellent preacher and a gentleman, yet he did not know from whence
he came. “True,” said the daughter; “but I know where he is going, and I should like to
go with him.” Mr. Henry records in his diary long after the happiness of the union,
which was soon after consummated: “April 26th, 1680. This day we have been married
twenty years, in which time we have received of the Lord twenty thousand mercies—to
God be glory!” Sometimes he writes, “We have been so longmarried, and never
reconciled, i.e, there never was any occasion for it.” His advice to his children with
respect to their marriage was, “Please God, and please yourselves, and you will please
me”; and his usual compliment to his newly-married friends, “Others wish you all
happiness. I wish you all holiness, and then there is no doubt but you will have all

happiness.” (Life of Philip Henry.)
The blessing of marriage
That is the great blessing of marriage, that it delivers us from the tyranny of Meum and
Tuum. Converting each into the other, it endears them both, and turns a slavish,
deadening drudgery, into a free and joyous service. And by bringing home to every one’s
heart that he is something better than a mere self, that he is the part of a higher and
more precious whole, it becomes a type of the union between the Church and her Lord.
(J G. Hare)
Religion for joy as well as for sorrow
Religion is just as necessary for prosperity as for adversity. There is no happiness so
happy but His presence can make it happier; and they who seek to have Him at their
bridals can count more confidently on Him in their sufferings and at their death-beds.
(J. A. Seiss, D. D.)
The miracles of nature and the miracles of Christ
He that made wine on that day at the marriage feast in those six water-pots, which He
commanded to be filled with water, the same does every year the like in vines. For as
what the servants put into the water-pots was changed into wine by the operation of the
Lord, just so what the clouds pour forth is changed into wine by the operation of the
same Lord. But at the latter we do not marvel, because it happens every year; by
constant use it hath lost its wonder. And yet it suggests a greater consideration. But
since men, intent on a different matter, have lost the consideration of the works of God
by which they should daily praise Him as the Creator, God has reserved to Himself the
doing of certain extraordinary actions, that, by striking them with wonder, He might
rouse men as from sleep to worship Him. A dead man rises again; men marvel: so many
are born daily, and none marvel. If we reflect more considerately, it is a matter of greater
wonder for one to be who was not before, than for one who was to come to life again.
(Augustine.)
The transformation of the mean
He made wine of water; not wine without water. It is not the nature of His work to make
a new order of creatures for saints, or a new order of faculties for religion, or a new
planet for that future world wherein dwelleth righteousness; but it is His office to take
the common man as he is, and the heavens and earth which now are, and by a new and
supernatural putting forth of power upon them, to evolve from the one a pure, holy, and
royal being, and for the other a fitting home and dominion for him for ever. Precious as
are those living jewels of His which the Saviour eventually gathers into the glorious
cabinet of the world to come, they are in their origin mere men and women, of like
passions with ourselves—ordinary humanity ennobled and transformed by supernatural
grace into eternal kings and priests. Christianity, in its highest achievements and results,
is simply the miraculous power of Jesus made effective in and upon the common

elements of nature—the gladdening transfiguration of the common into the noble, the
sinful into the holy, the earthly into the heavenly. (J. A. Seiss, D. D.)
2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited
to the wedding.
BAR ES, "His disciples - Those that he had made when in Judea. These were
Peter, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael. They were not yet called to be apostles, but they
believed that he was the Messiah. The miracle performed here was doubtless to convince
them more fully that he was the Christ.
CLARKE, "And both Jesus was called, and his disciples - There are several
remarkable circumstances here.
1. This was probably the first Christian wedding that was ever in the world.
2. The great Author of the Christian religion, with his disciples, (probably then only
four or five in number, see Joh_1:37, etc.), were invited to it.
3. The first miracle Jesus Christ wrought was at it, and in honor of it.
4. The mother of Christ, the most pure of all virgins, the most holy of all wives, and
the first Christian mother, was also at it.
5. The marriage was according to God, or these holy persons would not have
attended it.
6. The bride and bridegroom must have been a holy pair, otherwise they would have
had nothing to do with such holy company.
Marriage is ever honorable in itself; but it is not at all times used honourably. Where
Jesus is not invited to bless the union, no good can be expected; and where the disciples
of sin and Satan are preferred to the disciples of Christ, on such occasions, it is a
melancholy intimation that so bad a beginning will have a bad ending. I am afraid we
may search long, before we find a marriage conducted on such principles as this appears
to have been, even among those who make more than a common profession of the
religion of Christ.
GILL, "And both Jesus was called,.... Or invited, as being a relation, according to
the flesh:

and his disciples, to the marriage; who were bidden, on his account; and they seem
to be these, Andrew, and the other disciple, that followed Jesus, and Simon Peter, and
Philip, and Nathanael, who was of this place; and accordingly they all went to it. Christ,
and his five disciples, made six of the ten, which were always necessary to be present at,
the benediction of bridegrooms: for so runs the canon (m);
"they do not bless the blessing of bridegrooms, but with ten principal and free men; and
the bridegroom may be one of the number.''
To attend a wedding, was reckoned, with the Jews, an act of beneficence and kindness
(n). Our Lord, being at this wedding, was acting like himself, and his general character,
of being free, affable, and courteous; who accepted of every invitation, and refused not to
be at any entertainment, made by who it would, or on whatever occasion: and
particularly in this instance, it shows his humility in not disdaining his poor relations,
but giving them his company at such a time; as also it was bearing a testimony to the
institution of marriage, as honourable; and teaches us to rejoice with them that rejoice:
and as this was, at the first of Christ's ministry and miracles, it is likely it might give the
occasion of that calumny cast on him in Mat_11:19. The disciples of Christ followed the
example of their master. According to the Jewish cations (o), a disciple of a wise man
might not partake of any feast, but what was according to the commandment, as the
feast of espousals, and of marriage; and such a feast was this, which Christ and his
disciples were at; and so not to be condemned for it, according to their own maxims.
HE RY, " The disciples also were invited, those five whom he had called (ch. 1), for
as yet he had no more; they were his family, and were invited with him. They had thrown
themselves upon his care, and they soon found that, though he had no wealth, he had
good friends. Note, [1.] Those that follow Christ shall feast with him, they shall fare as
he fares, so he has bespoken for them (Joh_12:26): Where I am, there shall my servant
be also. [2.] Love to Christ is testified by a love to those that are his, for his sake; our
goodness extendeth not to him, but to the saints. Calvin observes how generous the
maker of the feast was, though he seems to have been but of small substance, to invite
four or five strangers more than he thought of, because they were followers of Christ,
which shows, saith he, that there is more of freedom, and liberality, and true friendship,
in the conversation of some meaner persons than among many of higher rank.
COKE, "John 2:1. And the third day there was a marriage— On the third day after Jesus
and his disciples arrived in Galilee, they went to a marriage feast (see on Matthew 22:1-
2.) in Cana; which is mentioned, Joshua 19:28, as situated in the possession of the tribe
of Asher not far from thecity of Sidon, and by consequence in the most northern part of
Galilee. Hence it was called Cana of Galilee, to distinguish it from another Cana in the
tribe of Ephraim, mentioned Joshua 16:8; Joshua 17:9. This latter Cana therefore was at
no great distance from Jerusalem. Here Jesus furnished wine by miracle for the
entertainment, at the desire of his mother, who was also bidden. Dr. Clarke thinks, that
our Lord, in the course of his private life, had sometimes exerted his divine power for the
relief of his friends; and that his mother, having seen and heard of those miracles, knew
the greatness of his power, and so applied to him on this occasion. Or we may suppose
that she had heard him speak of the miracles he was to perform, for the confirmation of
his mission, and the benefit of mankind, and begged him to favour his friends with one

in the present necessity. Probably Mary interested herself in this matter, because she
was a relation, or an intimate acquaintance of the new-married couple, and had the
management of the entertainment committed to her care. Some have supposed that this
marriage was celebrated at the house of Cleophas or Alpheus, whose wife was sister to
the mother of our Lord, (Ch. John 19:25.) and one of whose sons was Simon the
Canaanite, whom some have thought to have been so called from being an inhabitant of
this Cana, Mark 3:18 and this may be considered the more probable, as Mary was not
only present at the feast, but was there—as a person concerned, and was solicitous about
supplying them with wine, which, mixed with water, was the common beverage of the
country: and when the feast was over, we are told, John 2:12 that Jesus was attended, on
his leaving Cana, not only by his disciples, but by his brethren, or nearest kinsmen, who
most likely came thither, as relations, to be present at the marriage. As Mary here is
spoken of alone, it may be reasonable to conclude, that Joseph was now dead, and that
he lived not to the time when Jesus entered on his public ministry; especially as he is
nowhere mentioned in the gospel afterwards.
3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to
him, “They have no more wine.”
BAR ES, "When they wanted wine - A marriage feast among the Jews was
commonly observed for seven or eight days. It is not probable that there would be a want
of wine at the marriage itself, and it is possible, therefore, that Jesus came there some
time during the marriage feast.
They have no wine - It is not known why Mary told this to Jesus. It would seem that
she had a belief that he was able to supply it, though he had as yet worked no miracle.
CLARKE, "They have no wine - Though the blessed virgin is supposed to have
never seen her son work a miracle before this time, yet she seems to have expected him
to do something extraordinary on this occasion; as, from her acquaintance with him, she
must have formed some adequate idea of his power and goodness.
GILL, "And when they wanted wine,.... Or wine was wanting; not through the
intemperance of the guests, rather through the poverty of the family, who were not able
to provide very largely; and it may be by reason of a larger number of guests than were

expected; however, so it was ordered by Divine Providence, that there might be an
opportunity for Christ to manifest forth his glory:
the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine; being concerned for the
family, lest they should be put to shame and disgrace, and the entertainment should not
proceed with becoming credit and honour; and knowing the power of Christ to help in
this time of necessity, she modestly moves it to him, perhaps by a whisper, sitting next
him; or, it may be, might call him out, and just drop the hint; being well persuaded of his
power, as she might; not from any miracles wrought by him in her family for the support
of it, when in distress; for as Christ wrought no miracle, in the time of his public
ministry, for the support of himself, or his disciples, but for others, it is not likely he
should do it for his family in private life; but from the wonderful things told her by the
angel that brought the news of her conception, and by the shepherds, and by Simeon and
Anna, which she had laid up in her heart; and from his being the Messiah, who,
according to the general belief of the nation, was to work miracles; and particularly from
the last words of the preceding chapter; See Gill on Joh_1:50, for she might be present
at the delivery of them; and therefore might hope that as this was the first opportunity
that offered after, that he would display his power in supplying the family with wine in
this time of exigence.
HE RY, "II. The miracle itself. In which observe,
1. They wanted wine, Joh_2:3. (1.) There was want at a feast; though much was
provided, yet all was spent. While we are in this world we sometimes find ourselves in
straits, even then when we think ourselves in the fulness of our sufficiency. If always
spending, perhaps all is spent ere we are aware. (2.) There was want at a marriage feast.
Note, They who, being married, are come to care for the things of the world must expect
trouble in the flesh, and count upon disappointment. (3.) It should seem, Christ and his
disciples were the occasion of this want, because there was more company than was
expected when the provision was made; but they who straiten themselves for Christ shall
not lose by him.
2. The mother of Jesus solicited him to assist her friends in this strait. We are told
(Joh_2:3-5) what passed between Christ and his mother upon this occasion.
(1.) She acquaints him with the difficulty they were in (Joh_2:3): She saith unto him,
They have no wine. Some think that she did not expect from him any miraculous supply
(he having as yet wrought no miracle), but that she would have him make some decent
excuse to the company, and make the best of it, to save the bridegroom's reputation, and
keep him in countenance; or (as Calvin suggests) would have him make up the want of
wine with some holy profitable discourse. But, most probably, she looked for a miracle;
for she knew he was now appearing as the great prophet, like unto Moses, who so often
seasonably supplied the wants of Israel; and, though this was his first public miracle,
perhaps he had sometimes relieved her and her husband in their low estate. The
bridegroom might have sent out for more wine, but she was for going to the fountain-
head. Note, [1.] We ought to be concerned for the wants and straits of our friends, and
not seek our own things only. [2.] In our own and our friends' straits it is our wisdom
and duty to apply ourselves to Christ by prayer. [3.] In our addresses to Christ, we must
not prescribe to him, but humbly spread our case before him, and then refer ourselves to
him to do as he pleases.
JAMIESO , "no wine — evidently expecting some display of His glory, and hinting

that now was His time.
COKE, "John 2:3. When they wanted wine, &c.— The wine beginning to fail;—
υστερησαντος . But a small stock possibly was provided at first, as the persons were not
in the highest circumstances; and that began to fail the sooner, as greater numbers of
guests attended than were expected, probably on account of Jesus, whose fame began to
spread abroad. His mother, provident for the young couple, and having conceived great
expectations, as she had good grounds, of her
wonderfulSon,whosemiraculousconceptionshecouldneverforget,—anymorethan the
wonderful circumstances which attended his birth,—and whose entrance on his public
ministry she now observed with joy, witnessed as it was by a voice from heaven, and by
the testimony of the Baptist—in this situation of things his mother saith unto him, They
have no wine; hinting, as our Saviour's answer shews, that he would afford some
miraculous supply; and it is plain, that notwithstanding the rebuke she met with, yet she
had still a view to this by her direction to the servants afterwards, John 2:5.
BURKITT, "Verse 3
This want of wine was probably so disposed by the providence of God, to give our
Saviour an opportunity to manifest his divine power in working a miracle to supply it.
Observe here, 1. How the Virgin enquires into the family's wants, and then makes them
known to Christ.
Learn hence, That it is an argument of piety, and an evidence of Christian love, to
enquire into the wants, and to recommend the necessities of others to Christ's care and
consideration; whose bounty and munificence can readily and abundantly supply them.
Thus far the Virgin's action was good: she laid open the case to Christ; They have no
wine. but Christ, who discerned the thoughts of Mary's heart, finds her guilty of
presumption; she thought by her motherly authority, she might have expected, if not
commanded, a miracle from him: whereas Christ was subject to her as a man during his
private life: but now being entered upon his office a mediator, as God-man, he gives her
to understand she had no power over him, nor any motherly authority in the business of
his public office; therefore he says to her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?. He that
charges his angels with folly, will not be taught when and how to act by poor crawling
dust and ashes.
Observe therefore, 2. Christ calls the Virgin, Woman, not Mother; but this was not out of
any contempt, but to prevent her being thought more than a woman, above or beyond a
woman, having brought forth the Son of God. Woman, says Christ; not Goddess, as the
Papists would make her, and proclaim her free from sin, even from venial sin; but
Christ's reproving her shows that she was not faultless.
Observe, 3. Christ would not bear with the Virgin's commanding on earth, will he them
endure her intercession in heaven? Must she not meddle with matters appertaining to
his office here below, and will it be endured by Christ, or endeavoured by her, to
interpose, in the work of mediation above? No, no; were it possible for her so far to

forget herself in heaven, she would receive the answer from Christ which she had on
earth, Woman, what have I to do with thee? or thou with me, in my mediatorial office?
But instead of this, she returns answer from heaven to her idolatrous petitioners here on
earth, "What have I to do with thee? Get you to my Son, go you to Christ, he that was the
Mediator of redemption; he, and only he, continues the Mediator of intercession."
O how foolish, as well as impious, is it to think, that she who had not so much power as
to direct the working of one miracle on earth, should have now lodged in her hands all
the power of heaven!
CALVI , "3.The mother of Jesus saith to him. It may be doubted if she expected or
asked any thing from her Son, since he had not yet performed any miracle; and it is
possible that, without expecting any remedy of this sort, she advised him to give
some pious exhortations which would have the effect of preventing the guests from
feeling uneasiness, and at the same time of relieving the shame of the bridegroom. I
consider her words to be expressive of ( συµπαθεία) earnest compassion; for the
holy woman, perceiving that those who had been invited were likely to consider
themselves as having been treated with disrespect, and to murmur against the
bridegroom, and that the entertainment might in that way be disturbed, wished that
some means of soothing them could be adopted. Chrysostom throws out a suspicion
that she was moved by the feelings of a woman to seek I know not what favor for
herself and her Son; but this conjecture is not supported by any argument.
4 “Woman,[a] why do you involve me?” Jesus
replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
BAR ES, "Woman - This term, as used here, seems to imply reproof, as if she was
interfering in that which did not properly concern her; but it is evident that no such
reproof or disrespect was intended by the use of the term “woman” instead of “mother.”
It is the same term by which he tenderly addressed Mary Magdalene after his
resurrection Joh_20:15, and his mother when he was on the cross, Joh_19:26. Compare
also Mat_15:28; Joh_4:21; 1Co_7:16.
What have I to do with thee? - See the notes at Mat_8:29. This expression is
sometimes used to denote indignation or contempt. See Jdg_11:12; 2Sa_16:10; 1Ki_
17:18. But it is not probable that it denoted either in this place; if it did, it was a mild
reproof of Mary for attempting to control or direct him in his power of working miracles.
Most of the ancients supposed this to be the intention of Jesus. The words sound to us
harsh, but they might have been spoken in a tender manner, and not have been intended
as a reproof. It is clear that he did not intend to refuse to provide wine, but only to delay
it a little; and the design was, therefore, to compose the anxiety of Mary, and to prevent
her being solicitous about it. It may, then, be thus expressed: “My mother, be not

anxious. To you and to me this should not be a matter of solicitude. The proper time of
my interfering has not yet come. When that is come I will furnish a supply, and in the
meantime neither you nor I should be solicitous.” Thus understood, it is so far from
being a “harsh reproof,” that it was a mild exhortation for her to dismiss her fears and to
put proper trust in him.
Mine hour ... - My time. The proper time for my interposing. Perhaps the wine was
not yet entirely exhausted. The wine had begun to fail, but he would not work a miracle
until it was entirely gone, that the miracle might be free-from all possibility of suspicion.
It does not mean that the proper time for his working a miracle, or entering. on his
public work had not come, but that the proper time for his interposing there had not
arrived.
CLARKE, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? - Τι εµοι και σοι, γυναι: O,
woman, what is this to thee and me? This is an abrupt denial, as if he had said: “We are
not employed to provide the necessaries for this feast: this matter belongs to others, who
should have made a proper and sufficient provision for the persons they had invited.”
The words seem to convey a reproof to the virgin, for meddling with that which did not
particularly concern her. The holiest persons are always liable to errors of judgment: and
should ever conduct themselves with modesty and humility, especially in those things in
which the providence of God is particularly concerned. But here indeed there appears to
be no blame. It is very likely the bride or bridegroom’s family were relatives of the
blessed virgin; and she would naturally suppose that our Lord would feel interested for
the honor and comfort of the family, and, knowing that he possessed extraordinary
power, made this application to him to come forward to their assistance. Our Lord’s
answer to his mother, if properly translated, is far from being disrespectful. He
addresses the virgin as he did the Syrophoenician woman, Mat_15:28; as he did the
Samaritan woman, Joh_4:21, as he addressed his disconsolate mother when he hung
upon the cross, Joh_19:26; as he did his most affectionate friend Mary Magdalene, Joh_
20:15, and as the angels had addressed her before, Joh_20:13; and as St. Paul does the
believing Christian woman, 1Co_7:16; in all which places the same term, γυναι which
occurs in this verse, is used; and where certainly no kind of disrespect is intended, but,
on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness, and concern and in this sense it is
used in the best Greek writers.
Mine hour is not yet come - Or, my time, for in this sense the word ᆞρα is often
taken. My time for working a miracle is not yet fully come. What I do, I do when
necessary, and not before. Nature is unsteady - full of haste; and ever blundering, in
consequence. It is the folly and sin of men that they are ever finding fault with the Divine
providence. According to them, God never does any thing in due time - he is too early or
too late: whereas it is utterly impossible for the Divine wisdom to forestall itself; or for
the Divine goodness to delay what is necessary.
GILL, "Jesus saith unto her, woman,.... Calling her "woman", as it was no ways
contrary to her being a virgin, Gal_4:4, so it was no mark of disrespect; it being an usual
way of speaking with the Jews, when they showed the greatest respect to the person
spoken to; and was used by our Lord when he addressed his mother with the greatest
tenderness, and strongest affection, Joh_19:26. The Jews frequently object this passage

to us Christians: one of their writers his objection in this manner (p):
"they (the Christians) say, the mother of Jesus is never called a woman their law; but
here her son himself calls her a man.''
Another puts it thus (q):
"it is their (the Christians) belief, that Mary, even after she brought forth Jesus, was a
virgin; but if she was, as they say, why does not her son call her by the name of virgin?
but he calls her a woman, which signifies one known by man, as appears from Joh_2:4.''
To which may be replied, that the mother of Jesus is never called a woman in the New
Testament, is not said by us Christians: it is certain she is so called, both here, and
elsewhere; but then this is no contradiction to her being a virgin; one, and the same
person, may be a virgin, and a woman: the Abraham's servant was sent to take for wife
for his son Isaac, is called a woman, though a virgin that had never known any man,
Gen_24:5. Besides, we do not think ourselves obliged to maintain the perpetual virginity
of Mary, the mother of our Lord; it is enough that she was a virgin when she conceived,
and when she brought forth her firstborn: and as the Jews endeavour to take an
advantage of this against the character of Mary, the Papists are very solicitous about the
manner in which these words are said, lest they should be thought to contain a reproof,
which they cannot bear she should be judged worthy of; or suggest any thing to her
dishonour, whom they magnify as equal to her son: but certain it is, that the following
words,
what have I to do with thee? show resentment and reproof. Some render the words,
"what is it to thee and me?" and give this as the sense; what concern is this of ours? what
business have we with it? let them look to it, who are the principal in the feast, and have
the management of it. The Jew (r) objects to this sense of the words, but gives a very
weak reason for it:
"but I say, (says he,) who should be concerned but the master of the feast? and he was
the master of the feast:''
whereas it is a clear case that he was one of the guests, one that was invited, Joh_2:2,
and that there was a governor or ruler of the feast, who might be more properly called
the master of it than Jesus, Joh_2:8. However, since Christ afterwards did concern
himself in it, it looks as if this was not his meaning. Others render it to the sense we do,
"what have I with thee?" as the Ethiopic version; or "what business hast thou with me?"
as the Persic version; and is the same with, ‫ולך‬ ‫לי‬ ‫,מה‬ "what have I to do with thee?" used
in 1Ki_17:18, where the Septuagint use the same phrase as here; and such a way of
speaking is common with Jewish writers (s): hereby signifying, that though, as man, and
a son of hers, he had been subject to her, in which he had set an example of obedience to
parents; yet, as God, he had a Father in heaven, whose business he came to do; and in
that, and in his office, as Mediator, she had nothing to do with him; nor was he to be
directed by her in that work; or to be told, or the least hint given when a miracle should
be wrought, by him in confirmation of his mission and doctrine. Moreover, he adds,
mine hour is not yet come: meaning not the hour of his sufferings and death, in
which sense he sometimes uses this phrase; as if the hint was, that it was not proper for

him to work miracles as yet, lest it should provoke his enemies to seek his life before his
time; but rather the time of his public ministry and miracles, which were to go together,
and the one to be a proof of the other; though it seems to have a particular regard to the
following miracle, the time of doing that was not yet come; the proper juncture, when all
fit circumstances meeting together, it would be both the more useful, and the more
illustrious: or his meaning is, that his time of doing miracles in public was not yet; and
therefore, though he was willing to do this miracle, yet he chose to do it in the most
private manner; so that only a few, and not the principal persons at the feast should
know it: wherefore the reproof was not so much on the account of the motion itself, as
the unseasonableness of it; and so his mother took it.
HE RY, "(2.) He gave her a reprimand for it, for he saw more amiss in it than we do,
else he had not treated it thus. - Here is,
[1.] The rebuke itself: Woman, what have I to do with thee? As many as Christ loves,
he rebukes and chastens. He calls her woman, not mother. When we begin to be
assuming, we should be reminded what we are, men and women, frail, foolish, and
corrupt. The question, ti emoi kai soi, might be read, What is that to me and thee? What
is it to us if they do want? But it is always as we render it, What have I to do with thee?
as Jdg_11:12; 2Sa_16:10; Ezr_4:3; Mat_8:29. It therefore bespeaks a resentment, yet
not at all inconsistent with the reverence and subjection which he paid to his mother,
according to the fifth commandment (Luk_2:51); for there was a time when it was Levi's
praise that he said to his father, I have not known him, Deu_33:9. Now this was
intended to be, First, A check to his mother for interposing in a matter which was the act
of his Godhead, which had no dependence on her, and which she was not the mother of.
Though, as man, he was David's Son and hers; yet, as God, he was David's Lord and
hers, and he would have her know it. The greatest advancements must not make us
forget ourselves and our place, nor the familiarity to which the covenant of grace admits
us breed contempt. irreverence, or any kind or degree of presumption. Secondly, It was
an instruction to others of his relations (many of whom were present here) that they
must never expect him to have any regard to his kindred according to the flesh, in his
working miracles, or that therein he should gratify them, who in this matter were no
more to him than other people. In the things of God we must not know faces. Thirdly, It
is a standing testimony against that idolatry which he foresaw his church would in after-
ages sink into, in giving undue honours to the virgin Mary, a crime which the Roman
catholics, as they call themselves, are notoriously guilty of, when they call her the queen
of heaven, the salvation of the world, their mediatrix, their life and hope; not only
depending upon her merit and intercession, but beseeching her to command her Son to
do them good: Monstra te esse matrem - Show that thou art his mother. Jussu matris
impera salvatori - Lay thy maternal commands on the Saviour. Does he not here
expressly say, when a miracle was to be wrought, even in the days of his humiliation, and
his mother did but tacitly hint an intercession, Woman, what have I to do with thee?
This was plainly designed either to prevent or aggravate such gross idolatry, such
horrid blasphemy. The Son of God is appointed our Advocate with the Father; but the
mother of our Lord was never designed to be our advocate with the Son.
[2.] The reason of this rebuke: Mine hour is not yet come. For every thing Christ did,
and that was done to him, he had his hour, the fixed time and the fittest time, which was
punctually observed. First, “Mine hour for working miracles is not yet come.” Yet
afterwards he wrought this, before the hour, because he foresaw it would confirm the
faith of his infant disciples (Joh_2:11), which was the end of all his miracles: so that this

was an earnest of the many miracles he would work when his hour was come. Secondly,
“Mine hour of working miracles openly is not yet come; therefore do not talk of it thus
publicly.” Thirdly, “It not the hour of my exemption from thy authority yet come, now
that I have begun to act as a prophet?” So Gregory Nyssen. Fourthly, “Mine hour for
working this miracle is not yet come.” His mother moved him to help them when the
wine began to fail (so it may be read, Joh_2:3), but his hour was not yet come till it was
quite spent, and there was a total want; not only to prevent any suspicion of mixing
some of the wine that was left with the water, but to teach us that man's extremity is
God's opportunity to appear for the help and relief of his people. Then his hour is come
when we are reduced to the utmost strait, and know not what to do. This encouraged
those that waited for him to believe that though his hour was not yet come it would
come. Note, The delays of mercy are not to be construed the denials of prayer. At the end
it shall speak.
JAMIESO , "Woman — no term of disrespect in the language of that day (Joh_
19:26).
what ... to do with thee — that is, “In my Father’s business I have to do with Him
only.” It was a gentle rebuke for officious interference, entering a region from which all
creatures were excluded (compare Act_4:19, Act_4:20).
mine hour, etc. — hinting that He would do something, but at His own time; and so
she understood it (Joh_2:5).
COKE, "John 2:4. Woman, what have I to do with thee?— The compellation with which
Jesus addressed his mother, sounds harsh in our language, because with us it is never
used, where respect is meant to be shewn. Nevertheless, woman anciently was a term of
honour, being used in speaking to persons of the first quality, as wefind in the politest
writers of antiquity. Besides, it was that by which our Lord addressed her at a time when
his respect and tenderness for her cannot be called in question,—ch. John 19:26. The
clause which in our translation runs, What have I to do with thee, might be rendered so
as to have a milder aspect. What hast thou to do with me? For the original words τι εµοι
και σοι, are evidently used in this sense, 2 Samuel 19:22. Mark 5:7. What hast thou to do
with me? Mine hour is not yet come. "The season of my public ministry in this country is
not yet come. Before I work miracles in Galilee, I must go into Judea and preach, where
the Baptist, my forerunner, has been preparing my way." Some translate the latter clause
interrogatively, Is not mine hour come? "The season of my public ministry, at which
period your authority over me ceases?" Upon the whole, our Lord's answer to his
mother, though perhaps intended as a slight rebuke, was not in the least disrespectful; as
is evident likewise from the temper with which she received it, and from her desiring the
servants to do whatever he ordered them. The generality of writers upon this subject
have observed, with great justice I have no doubt, that this rebuke was intended by our
Lord, in his prophetic spirit, as a standing testimony against that idolatry, which he
foresaw after-ages would superstitiously bestow upon his mother, even to the robbing
him of the right and honour of his alone Mediatorship and intercession.
COFFMAN, "Woman ... This word addressed to his mother seems a little harsh in
English; but, as Richardson noted, "It would not in the original. There is no precise
English equivalent of this usage; perhaps `Madam' comes nearest, but is too cold and
distant."[1] Nevertheless, a mild and respectful reproof of his mother cannot be
separated from this. The Saviour's work of worldwide redemption was beginning; and

the magnificent dimensions of such a work were not to be prescribed and directed by his
earthly mother. Jesus' words here leave no doubt that Mary's suggestion was premature
and unnecessary; and yet Jesus' rejection of her words did not violate any of the
veneration and respect the beloved Mary was entitled to receive.
These words bring into sharp focus the true status of the earthly mother of our Lord;
and, in the sacred text, she never appears as a semi-deity commanding and directing her
son to do this or that, but as herself subject to error. At no other point has the Medieval
religion erred any more dramatically than here. As Gaebelein noted:
She was not without error and sin, and was not meant to be prayed to and adored. If our
Lord would not allow his mother even to suggest to him the working of a miracle, we
may well suppose that all prayers to the Virgin Mary, and especially prayers entreating
her to "command her Son" are most offensive and blasphemous in his eyes.[2]
Mine hour is not yet come ... has been variously understood as meaning: "they are not
yet completely out of wine," or "it is not time for me to step in yet," or "it is not yet time
for me to show my glory," etc. It was Barnes' opinion that it means, "the proper time for
his interposing THERE had not arrived,"[3] and not that it was an improper time for
him to work a miracle. Of course, the expression "my hour" was also used to mean the
hour of the Lord's crucifixion and resurrection (John 7:30; 8:20; 12:33; 13:1; 17:1, etc.).
[1] Alan Richardson, The Gospel according to St. John (London: SCM Press, 1959), p.
60.
[2] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of John (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers,
1965), p. 47.
[3] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
House, 1954), Volumes of Luke and John, p. 192.
CALVI , "4.Woman, what have I to do with thee? Why does Christ repel her so
rashly? I reply, though she was not moved by ambition, nor by any carnal affection,
still she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the
inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated,
proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting
herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ. Though it ought also to be
observed, that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of
others. Her modesty and piety were too great, to need so severe a chastisement.
Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the
danger, that no improper use may be made of what his mother had said, as if it were
in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle.
The Greek words ( Τί ἐµοὶ καὶ σοὶ) literally mean, What to me and to thee ? But the
Greek phraseology is of the same import with the Latin — Quid tibi mecum ? (what
hast thou to do with me ?) The old translator led many people into a mistake, by

supposing Christ to have asserted, that it was no concern of his, or of his mother’s, if
the wine fell short. But from the second clause we may easily conclude how far
removed this is from Christ’s meaning; for he takes upon himself this concern, and
declares that it belongs to him to do so, when he adds, my hour is not yet come. Both
ought to be joined together — that Christ understands what it is necessary for him
to do, and yet that he will not act in this matter at his mother’s suggestion.
It is a remarkable passage certainly; for why does he absolutely refuse to his mother
what he freely granted afterwards, on so many occasions, to all sorts of persons?
Again, why is he not satisfied with a bare refusal? and why does he reduce her to the
ordinary rank of women, and not even deign to call her mother ? This saying of
Christ openly and manifestly warns men to beware lest, by too superstitiously
elevating the honor of the name of mother in the Virgin Mary, (45) they transfer to
her what belongs exclusively to God. Christ, therefore, addresses his mother in this
manner, in order to lay down a perpetual and general instruction to all ages, that his
divine glory must not be obscured by excessive honor paid to his mother.
How necessary this warning became, in consequence of the gross and disgraceful
superstitions which followed afterwards, is too well known. For Mary has been
constituted the Queen of Heaven, the Hope, the Life, and the Salvation of the world;
and, in short, their fury and madness proceeded so far that they stripped Christ of
his spoils, and left him almost naked. And when we condemn those horrid
blasphemies against the Son of God, the Papists call us malignant and envious; and
— what is worse — they maliciously slander us as deadly foes to the honor of the
holy Virgin. As if she had not all the honor that is due to her, unless she were made
a Goddess; or as if it were treating her with respect, to adorn her with blasphemous
titles, and to substitute her in the room of Christ. The Papists, therefore, offer a
grievous insult to Mary when, in order to disfigure her by false praises, they take
from God what belongs to Him.
My hour is not yet come. He means that he has not hitherto delayed through
carelessness or indolence, but at the same time he states indirectly that he will attend
to the matter, when the proper time for it shall arrive. As he reproves his mother for
unseasonable haste, so, on the other hand, he gives reason to expect a miracle. The
holy Virgin acknowledges both, for she abstains from addressing him any farther;
and when she advises the servants to do whatever he commands, she shows that she
expects something now. But the instruction conveyed here is still more extensive that
whenever the Lord holds us in suspense, and delays his aid, he is not therefore
asleep, but, on the contrary, regulates all His works in such a manner that he does
nothing but at the proper time. Those who have applied this passage to prove that
the time of events is appointed by Fate, are too ridiculous to require a single word to
be said for refuting them. The hour of Christ sometimes denotes the hour which had
been appointed to him by the Father; and by his time he will afterwards designate
what he found to be convenient and suitable for executing the commands of his
Father; but in this place he claims the right to take and choose the time for working
and for displaying his Divine power. (46)

5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever
he tells you.”
BAR ES, "His mother saith ... - It is evident from this verse that his mother did
not understand what he had said as a harsh reproof and repulse, but as an indication of
his willingness at the proper time to furnish wine. In all this transaction he evinced the
appropriate feelings of a son toward a mother.
CLARKE, "His mother saith, etc. - The virgin seems to have understood our Lord
as hinted above. It was not yet time to grant them a supply, because the want had not as
yet been generally felt. But, silently receiving the respectful caution, she saw that the
miracle should be wrought when it best suited the purposes of the Divine wisdom.
GILL, "His mother said unto the servants,.... She took the reproof in good part,
and by the words he said, and the manner in which he spoke them, or by the looks he
gave, and the gestures he might use, she hoped, and even believed, that the thing she
moved for would be done; and therefore went immediately to the servants, and gave
them the following instructions:
whatsoever he saith unto you, do it; punctually observe and obey his orders in
every circumstance.
HE RY, "(3.) Notwithstanding this, she encouraged herself with expectations that
he would help her friends in this strait, for she bade the servants observe his orders,
Joh_2:5. [1.] She took the reproof very submissively, and did not reply to it. It is best not
to deserve reproof from Christ, but next best to be meek and quiet under it, and to count
it a kindness, Psa_141:5. [2.] She kept her hope in Christ's mercy, that he would yet
grant her desire. When we come to God in Christ for any mercy, two things discourage
us: - First, Sense of our own follies and infirmities “Surely such imperfect prayers as
ours cannot speed.” Secondly, Sense of our Lord's frowns and rebukes. Afflictions are
continued, deliverances delayed, and God seems angry at our prayers. This was the case
of the mother of our Lord here, and yet she encourages herself with hope that he will at
length give in an answer of peace, to teach us to wrestle with God by faith and fervency
in prayer, even when he seems in his providence to walk contrary to us. We must against
hope believe in hope, Rom_4:18. [3.] She directed the servants to have an eye to him
immediately, and not to make their applications to her, as it is probable they had done.
She quits all pretensions to an influence upon him, or intercession with him; let their

souls wait only on him, Psa_62:5. [4.] She directed them punctually to observe his
orders, without disputing, or asking questions. Being conscious to herself of a fault in
prescribing to him, she cautions the servants to take heed of the same fault, and to
attend both his time and his way for supply: “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it,
though you may think it ever so improper. If he saith, Give the guests water, when they
call for wine, do it. If he saith, Pour out from the bottoms of the vessels that are spent, do
it. He can make a few drops of wine multiply to so many draughts.” Note, Those that
expect Christ's favours must with an implicit obedience observe his orders. The way of
duty is the way to mercy; and Christ's methods must not be objected against.
SBC, "We must perceive at once the peculiar appropriateness with which this miracle
was chosen as the first to be performed by our Lord, when we bear in mind that the great
object of our Lord’s incarnation was to reunite, in ties compared to the bonds of
marriage, the human nature with the Divine.
I. It was a festal occasion, and how could our gracious Lord but rejoice at the
commencement of that stupendous work of Divine mercy which, determined upon
before the world began, by the kindness of God the blessed Trinity, He had now come to
effect? Yet whilst the Lord Jesus cheered His heart at the commencement of His
ministry by adorning the marriage feast with His presence, and so contemplating His
own union with His spouse, the Church, there is melancholy in these words, "Mine hour
is not yet come," which speaks to the heart of every one who truly weighs their meaning.
II. "Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it." This is our exhortation. Be in the way of duty,
and God will be with you. And herein how blessed and how wonderful is the example set
us by our Lord Himself! The greatest miracle, as an old writer has observed, is that
Christ should have been for thirty years on earth and yet have worked no miracle till
now. For thirty years He did not manifest His powers even to His kinsmen; for thirty
years He pursued a carpenter’s trade in a remote town of Galilee, obscure, despised. For
almost His whole life His was a career of obscurity such as the ambitious must despise.
His was a life of inactivity such as the active, the zealous, the busybodies must consider
useless. His was a life most certainly which no son of man so endowed (looking merely to
endowments of our Lord’s human nature) could have led without the special and
restraining grace of God. Thus Christ teaches us that our perfection and true greatness
consist, in the eyes of angels and of those just men made perfect who form the Church
invisible and triumphant, in doing God’s will, whatever that will may be, in that situation
in which He sees fit, by the ordinance of His Providence, to place us.
W. F. Hook, Sermons on the Miracles, vol. i., p. 1.
COFFMAN, "This verse shows several things: (1) Mary did not understand Jesus' words
either as a rebuke or as a refusal to meet the need pointed out by her; (2) she evidently
anticipated that Jesus' command might appear unreasonable to the servants; and (3)
under normal circumstances, servants might hesitate to carry out the orders of a guest.
Thus, her remarks to the servants were needed and timely. That she was in a position to
instruct the servants suggests a close personal connection with the family of the
bridegroom, and indicating also that Mary, not Nathaniel, might have been the source of
the invitation to Jesus and his disciples.
Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it ... Mary thus assumed her proper place, no longer

making suggestions to the Lord, but leaving everything in his hands. These words are
timeless in their application. Whatever Christ commands should be obediently accepted
and done. The advice of the blessed Mary to the servants of Cana is appropriate for every
generation; and even churches should spare themselves the burden of deciding which of
the Lord's commandments are essential or not and do them all.
CALVI , "5.His mother saith to the servants. Here the holy Virgin gives an
instance of true obedience which she owed to her Son, (47) when the question
related, not to the relative duties of mankind, but to his divine power. She modestly
acquiesces, therefore, in Christ’s reply; and in like manner exhorts others to comply
with his injunctions. I acknowledge, indeed, that what the Virgin now said related to
the present occurrence, and amounted to a declaration that, in this instance, she had
no authority, and that Christ would do, according to his own pleasure, whatever he
thought right. But if you attend closely to her design, the statement which she made
is still more extensive; for she first disclaims and lays aside the power which she
might seem to have improperly usurped; and next, she ascribes the whole authority
to Christ, when she bids themdo whatever he shall command. We are taught
generally by these words, that if we desire any thing from Christ, we will not obtain
our wishes, unless we depend on him alone, look to him, and, in short, do whatever
he commands On the other hand, he does not send us to his mother, but rather
invites us to himself.
6 earby stood six stone water jars, the kind used
by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding
from twenty to thirty gallons.[b]
BAR ES, "Six water-pots of stone - Made of stone; or, as we should say,
stoneware.
After the manner - After the usual custom.
Of the purifying - Of the “washings” or ablutions of the Jews. They were for the
purpose of washing the hands before and after eating Mat_15:2, and for the formal
washing of vessels, and even articles of furniture, Luk_11:39; Mar_7:3-4.
Two or three firkins - It is not quite certain what is meant here by the word
“firkins.” It is probable that the measure intended is the Hebrew “bath,” containing
about 7 12 gallons.

CLARKE, "After the manner of the purifying of the Jews - Or, for the
purpose of the purifying of the Jews. The preposition κατα, which I have translated, for
the purpose, often denotes in the best Greek writers the final cause of a thing. See several
examples produced by Raphelius, from Arrian and Herodotus. These six vessels were set
in a convenient place, for the purpose of the Jews washing their hands before they sat
down to meat, and probably for other purposes of purification. See this custom referred
to in Mat_15:2 (note). As to the number six, we need seek for no mystery in it; the
number of pots was proportioned to the number of the guests.
Containing two or three firkins apiece - Measures or metretes, µετρητας. Bishop
Cumberland supposes that the Syrian metretes is here meant, which he computes to
have held seven pints and one eighth of a pint; and, if this computation be right, the
whole six water pots might have contained about fourteen gallons and a quart. Others
make each metretes to contain ten gallons and two pints: see Arbuthnot. But the
contents of the measures of the ancients are so very uncertain that it is best, in this and
numberless other cases, to attempt to determine nothing.
GILL, "And there were set six water pots of stone,.... To distinguish them from
other vessels made of different matter: for the Jews had
"vessels made of dust, and the dung of beasts, ‫אבנים‬ ‫,כלי‬ "vessels of stone", vessels of
earth, vessels made of shells, vessels of nitre, vessels made of the bones and skins of
fishes (t).''
And as these vessels were very likely for washing of hands, such were used for that
purpose: their rule is (u),
"they may put water for the hands in all sorts of vessels; in vessels of dung, in stone
vessels, and in vessels of earth.''
At a wedding were set vessels of various sizes to wash hands and feet in; there was one
vessel called ‫,משיכלא‬ which the gloss says was a large pitcher, or basin, out of which the
whole company washed their hands and their feet; and there was another called ‫,משיכלתא‬
which was a lesser and beautiful basin, which was set alone for the more honourable
persons, as for the bride, and for any gentlewoman (w); and such might be these six
stone jars, or pots:
after the manner of the purifying of the Jews; or "for the purifying either Jews",
as the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions render it; that is, for the washing of them, their
hands and feet, and their vessels, pots, and cups, according to the traditions of the
elders; see Mar_7:2;
containing two or three firkins apiece. The Ethiopic version reads, "some held two
measures, and some three"; how large the "metreta", or "measure" was, which we render
a "firkin", is not certain; it is most likely it answered to the "Hebrew bath", which was a
common measure of liquids with the Jews, and held four gallons and a half, or more; See

Gill on Luk_16:6; so that such of these vessels, that held two of these measures,
contained nine gallons, and such as held three of them, thirteen gallons and a half; and
six of these contained a large quantity of wine, one with another: and which makes the
following miracle the greater; and shows the liberality of Christ the more, in providing
for the following days of the feast, for a marriage was kept seven days (x); and for the
family, some time after it was over.
HE RY, "(4.) Christ did at length miraculously supply them; for he is often better
than his word, but never worse.
[1.] The miracle itself was turning water into wine; the substance of water acquiring a
new form, and having all the accidents and qualities of wine. Such a transformation is a
miracle; but the popish transubstantiation, the substance changed, the accidents
remaining the same, is a monster. By this Christ showed himself to be the God of nature,
who maketh the earth to bring forth wine, Psa_109:14, Psa_109:15. The extracting of the
blood of the grape every year from the moisture of the earth is no less a work of power,
though, being according to the common law of nature, it is not such a work of wonder, as
this. The beginning of Moses's miracles was turning water into blood (Exo_4:9; Exo_
7:20), the beginning of Christ's miracles was turning water into wine; which intimates
the difference between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ. The curse of the law
turns water into blood, common comforts into bitterness and terror; the blessing of the
gospel turns water into wine. Christ hereby showed that his errand into the world was to
heighten and improve creature-comforts to all believers, and make them comforts
indeed. Shiloh is said to wash his garments in wine (Gen_49:11), the water for washing
being turned into wine. And the gospel call is, Come ye to the waters, and buy wine,
Isa_55:1.
[2.] The circumstances of it magnified it and freed it from all suspicion of cheat or
collusion; for,
First, It was done in water-pots (Joh_2:6): There were set there six water-pots of
stone. Observe, 1. For what use these water-pots were intended: for the legal
purifications from ceremonial pollutions enjoined by the law of God, and many more by
the tradition of the elders. The Jews eat not, except they wash often (Mar_7:3), and they
used much water in their washing, for which reason here were six large water-pots
provided. It was a saying among them, Qui multâ utitur aquâ in lavando, multas
consequetur in hoc mundo divitias - He who uses much water in washing will gain
much wealth in this world. 2. To what use Christ put them, quite different from what
they were intended for; to be the receptacles of the miraculous wine. Thus Christ came to
bring in the grace of the gospel, which is as wine, that cheereth God and man (Jdg_
9:13), instead of the shadows of the law, which were as water, weak and beggarly
elements. These were water-pots, that had never been used to have wine in them; and of
stone, which is not apt to retain the scent of former liquors, if ever they had had wine in
them. They contained two or three firkins apiece; two or three measures, baths, or
ephahs; the quantity is uncertain, but very considerable. We may be sure that it was not
intended to be all drank at this feast, but for a further kindness to the new-married
couple, as the multiplied oil was to the poor widow, out of which she might pay her debt,
and live of the rest, 2Ki_4:7. Christ gives like himself, gives abundantly, according to his
riches in glory. It is the penman's language to say, They contained two or three firkins,
for the Holy Spirit could have ascertained just how much; thus (as Joh_6:19) teaching
us to speak cautiously, and not confidently, of those things of which we have not good
assurance.

JAMIESO , "firkins — about seven and a half gallons in Jewish, or nine in Attic
measure; each of these huge water jars, therefore, holding some twenty or more gallons,
for washings at such feasts (Mar_7:4).
COFFMAN, "Here is the vivid description of an eye-witness who, after so many years,
could still see the six great water-pots sitting there, precisely in a certain place; nor is the
indefinite capacity of the water-pots (two or three firkins) a contradiction of this. After
the custom of the times, those water-pots were hand-made of stone; and there is hardly
any possibility that they were of any precise capacity in each case. Containers sold in
markets today are required by governments to be of an exact capacity, but that was not
the case with these water-pots. One can only be astonished at the conclusion of a scholar
like Richardson who said:
In view of the vague "two or three" ... this consideration alone is enough to convince us
that the story is a parable, not an actual historical event.[4]
How strange that a certain school of interpreters can make so much of the indefinite
capacity of the pots and so little of their exact number! No eye-witness could have told
by looking at them exactly how much water they held; and, therefore, an indefinite
statement of their capacity was strictly proper and correct. The parable theory regarding
this sign is really hard-pressed for evidence to support it when its advocate will seize
upon something like this.
After the manner of the Jews' purifying ... In Mark 7:3,4 is a reference to the extensive
washings of hands, cups, pots, and brazen vessels; and the observance of such
ceremonies by the Jews required a bountiful supply of water-pots.
Two or three firkins apiece ... A firkin was not an exact measurement, being about seven
or eight gallons; and thus the capacity of the six water-pots was something between
eighty and one hundred and fifty gallons. Again, the water-pots of that day were not
precisely machined and uniformly crafted containers with exactly equal capacities, but
they were made by hand in diverse patterns and varying sizes.
ENDNOTE:
[4] Alan Richardson, op. cit., p. 61.
COKE, "John 2:6. After the manner of the purifying of the Jews,— Besides the
purifications appointed by the law of God, there were a multitude of others then
practised, in compliance with the tradition of the elders. Possibly this clause is thrown in
by St. John, by way of explanation, as he wrote this gospel for the use of the Gentiles,
who might be strangers to the Jewish customs. These water-pots are said to contain two
or three firkins a-piece. Now the measures of the ancients are so very uncertain, that it is
hardly possible to determine the exact contents of these vessels: some have computed
them to contain about two or three hogsheads; and the Greek is so rendered in our
translation, as to make them contain above one hundred gallons; but it is hardly
probable the vessels were so large; and as the original word µετρητας signifies no more
than measures, it is much better that we should leave it as we find it, unless the quantity

could be determined with more certainty. It seems most probable that as the Jewish
bath was the most common measure used in liquids, this is the quantity designed, where
measuresare expressed without any limitation; and as the Jewish bath is reckoned to
contain four gallons and a half, the contents of these vessels, if they are computed only at
two measures each, will amount to no less than fifty-four gallons.
CALVI , "6.And there were there six water-pots of stone. According to the
computation of Budaeus, we infer that these water-pots were very large; for as the
metreta (48) ( µετρητὴς) contains twenty congii, each contained, at least, a Sextier of
this country. (49) Christ supplied them, therefore, with a great abundance of wine,
as much as would be sufficient for a banquet to a hundred and fifty men. Besides,
both the number and the size of the water-pots serve to prove the truth of the
miracle. If there had been only two or three jars, many might have suspected that
they had been brought from some other place. If in one vessel only the water had
been changed into wine, the certainty of the miracle would not have been so obvious,
or so well ascertained. It is not, therefore, without a good reason that the Evangelist
mentions the number of the water-pots, and states how much they contained.
It arose from superstition that vessels so numerous and so large were placed there.
They had the ceremony of washing, indeed, prescribed to them by the Law of God;
but as the world is prone to excess in outward matters, the Jews, not satisfied with
the simplicity which God had enjoined, amused themselves with continual washings;
and as superstition is ambitious, they undoubtedly served the purpose of display, as
we see at the present day in Popery, that every thing which is said to belong to the
worship of God is arranged for pure display. There was, then, a twofold error: that
without the command of God, they engaged in a superfluous ceremony of their own
invention; and next, that, under the pretense of religion, ambition reigned amidst
that display. Some Popish scoundrels have manifested an amazing degree of
wickedness, when they had the effrontery to say that they had among their relics
those water-pots with which Christ performed this miracle in Cana, and exhibited
some of them, (50) which, first, are of small size, and, next, are unequal in size. And
in the present day, when the light of the Gospel shines so clearly around us, they are
not ashamed to practice those tricks, which certainly is not to deceive by
enchantments, but daringly to mock men as if they were blind; and the world, which
does not perceive such gross mockery, is evidently bewitched by Satan.
BURKITT, "In this miracle of our Saviour's turning water into wine, Observe, 1.
The reality of the miracle, and the sincerity of Christ in the working of it. The
evidencce there was no deceit in the miracle, not wine-casks, but water-pots, are
called for; wine-vessels, in which some lees were remaining might have given both a
vinous colour and taste to the water; but stonepots could contribute nothing of this
nature; and being open pots, there was not stealing wine into them without
observation.
Again, our Saviour's employing the servants, and not his disciples, takes off any

suspicion of collusion; and his sending it to the ruler or governor of the feast, was an
evidence that the miracle would bear examination. Our Saviour's miracles were real
and beneficial; they were obvious to sense, not lying wonders, nor fictitious miracles,
which the jugglers in the church of Rome cheat the people with. The greatest
miracle which they boast of, transubstantiation, is so far from being obvious to
sense, that it conrtradicts the sense and reason of mankind, and is the greatest
affront to human nature that ever the world was acquainted with.
Observe, 2. Though Christ wrought a real miracle, yet he would not work more of
miracle than needed; he would not create wine out of nothing, but turned water into
wine. Thus he multiplied the bread, changed the water, restored withered limbs,
raised dead bodies, still working upon that which was, and not creating that which
was not: Christ never wrought a miracle but when needful, and then wrought no
more of miracles than he needed.
Observe, 3. The liberality and bounty of Christ in the miracle here wrought; six
water-pots are filled with wine! Enough, says some writers, for an hundred and fifty
men; had he turned but one of those large vessels into wine, it had been a sufficient
proof of his power; but to fill so many, was an instance both of his power and
mercy.
The Lord of the family furnishes his household not barely for necessity, but for
delight, giving richly all things to enjoy. And as the bounty of Christ appeared in
quantity, so in the excellency, of the wine; Thou hast kept the best wine until now,
says the governor of the feast. It was fit that Christ's miraculous wine should be
more perfect than the natural.
But, O blessed Saviour, how delicate and delicious shall that wine be, which we shall
drink ere long, with thee in thy Father's kingdom! Let thy Holy Spirit fill the vessel
of my heart with water, with godly sorrow and contrition, and thou wilt turn it into
wine. For blessed are they that mourn, they shall be comforted.
Observe, 4. The double effects of this miracle; Christ hereby manifested forth his
glory, and his disciples believed on him.
1. He manifested forth his glory; that is, the glory of his godhead, as doing this by
his own power. Here shined forth his omnipotence, his bounty and liberality, every
thing that might bespeak him both a great and good God.
The second effect of this miracle was, that the disciples believed on him. The great
end of miracles is the confirmation of faith; God never sets the seals of his
omnipotence to a lie; all the miracles then that Christ and his apostles did, were as
so many seals that the doctrine of the gospel is true. If you believe not me, says
Christ, believe the works which I do, for they bear witness of me, John 5:36
LIGHTFOOT, "6. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner

of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
[Six waterpots.] Gloss, "If any one have water fit to drink, and that water by chance
contract any uncleanness, let him fill the stone vessel with it."
The number of the six waterpots, I suppose, needs not be ascribed to any custom of
the nation, but rather to the multitude then present. It is true indeed that at nuptials
and other feasts, there were waterpots always set for the guests to wash their hands
at; but the number of the vessels and the quantity of water was always proportioned
according to the number of the guests; for both the hands and vessels, and perhaps
the feet of some of them, were wont to be washed.
Mashicala mashi culla, the greater vessel out of which all wash; maschilta mashia
callatha, the lesser vessel in which the bride washes, and (saith the Gloss) the better
sort of the guests.
[Firkins.] The Greek version thus expresseth the measure of a bath, 2 Chronicles
4:5: so Haggai 2:16, where the same measure of a bath is to be understood. ow if
every one of these waterpots in our story contained two or three baths apiece, how
great a quantity of wine must that be which all that water was changed into!
The waterpots of Lydda and Bethlehem: where the Gloss, "They were wont to make
pots in Lydda from the measure of the seah to that of the log; and in Bethlehem
from the measure of two seahs to that of one." How big were these pots that
contained six or nine seahs: for every bath contained three seahs.
As to the washing of the hands, we have this in Jadaim; "they allot a fourth part of
a log for the washing of one person's hands, it may be of two; half a log for three or
four; a whole log to five or ten, nay, to a hundred; with this provision, saith R. Jose,
that the last that washeth hath no less than a fourth part of a log for himself."
7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with
water”; so they filled them to the brim.
BAR ES, "With water - This was done by the servants employed at the feast. It was
done by “them,” so that there might be no opportunity of saying that the disciples of
Jesus had filled them with wine to produce the “appearance” of a miracle. In this case
there could be no deception. The quantity was very considerable. The servants would
know whether the “wine” or “water” had been put in these vessels. It could not be
believed that they had either the power or the disposition to impose on others in this

manner, and the way was therefore clear for the proof that Jesus had really changed
what was known to be water into wine.
To the brim - To the top. So full that no wine could be poured in to give the
appearance of a mixture. Further, vessels were used for this miracle in which wine had
not been kept. These pots were never used to put wine in, but simply to keep “water” in
for the various purposes of ablution. A large number was used on this occasion, because
there were many guests.
GILL, "Jesus saith unto them,.... To the servants that waited at the feast,
fill the water pots with water. The Ethiopic version adds, "to their brims", as they
did. Christ chose the water pots, and not the vessel, or vessels, or bottles, now empty,
out of which they had drank their wine; that it might not be said that there was any left
therein, which gave colour and flavour to the water: and he ordered them to be filled
with water by the servants, that they might take notice, and be witnesses, that that, and
nothing else, was put into them; and up to the brims, so that they could not he capable of
having any other liquor infused into them:
and they filled them up to the brim; strictly observing the orders of Christ, and the
instructions of his mother.
HE RY, "Secondly, The water-pots were filled up to the brim by the servants at
Christ's word, Joh_2:7. As Moses, the servant of the Lord, when God bade him, went to
the rock, to draw water; so these servants, when Christ bade them, went to the water, to
fetch wine. Note, Since no difficulties can be opposed to the arm of God's power, no
improbabilities are to be objected against the word of his command.
JAMIESO , "Fill ... draw ... bear — directing all, but Himself touching nothing, to
prevent all appearance of collusion.
COKE, "John 2:7. Fill the water-pots with water:— Mary was without doubt blameable
for presuming to direct her Son in the duties of his ministry, her parental authority not
extending to those matters; therefore he very justly gave her the gentle rebuke, John 2:4
in which he insinuated that his miracles were not to be performed at the desire of his
relations for civil and private reasons; but in pursuance of the great ends that he had in
charge,—the conversion and salvation of mankind. But though Mary might have had
only private reasons of conveniency for asking this miracle, yet Jesus, knowing that it
would tend to the confirmation of his disciples' faith, and to the advancement of his
great cause, thought proper to comply; being not the less willing to exert his power,
because his friends would reap some benefit from the matter of the miracle. Ordering
the servants therefore to fill thewater-pots, which were at hand, to the brim, with water,
he converted the whole mass of the liquid into excellent wine. The quantity of water
turned into wine on this occasion, deserves notice. We have spoken something on the
subject in the preceding note. The following is Dr. Macknight's remark: "The six water-
pots in which the wine was formed, being appointed, for such purifications or washings
as required the immersion of the whole body, were of a very large capacity; so that, being
filled to the brim, there was an abundance of wine produced: but the deists, a sort of
people who look on all Christ's actions with an evil eye, have not let this escape their
censure, making it the subject of ridicule. This might have been spared, had they

considered that the speech made by the governor of the feast to the bridegroom, John
2:10 does not imply that any of the company were drunk, as they would have itbelieved:
it is only a comparison between the order in which he had produced his liquor, and that
commonly observed by other people. [But see the note on that verse.] Besides, it ought
to be considered, that Jesus did not order all the wine he furnished to be drank at this
solemnity; though, according to the custom of Judea, it lasted a whole week. [See Judges
14:12; Judges 14:20 and the notes on Solomon's Song.] It is probable, that our Lord
designed to provide for the future occasions of the new-married couple, making them a
valuable and seasonable nuptial present in this delicate though miraculous manner: and
surely he, who in the first creation made such liberal provision for the necessities of
men, might on a particular occasion, when he was formingnourishment for the natural
life of his friends, do it plentifully; because thus the favour was enhanced, and by the
quantity furnished he both shewed his own exuberant goodness, and gave such
magnificence to the miracle, as removed it beyond all probability of fraud. Whereas, had
the quantity been considerably less,—only the cup, for instance, which was borne to the
governor of the feast (as some have thought), who knows but the enemies of Christianity
might have affirmed that here was no miracle at all; but that the water was artfully
changed, and wine put into its place?—an impossible cheat in so large a quantity,
especially as the transmutation happened the moment the vessels were filled. We need
not then dispute with the deists, concerning the capacity of the measure mentioned by
the Evangelist: let them make it as large as they please; let them suppose it was the attic
measure of that name, equal to our firkin, and that each water-pot held three of those
measures, the miracle will still be decent, and in all respects worthy both of the wisdom
and goodness of him who performed it."
CALVI , "7.Fill the water-pots with water. The servants might be apt to look upon
this injunction as absurd; for they had already more than enough of water. But in
this way the Lord often acts towards us, that his power may be more illustriously
displayed by an unexpected result; though this circumstance is added to magnify the
miracle; for when the servants drew wine out of vessels which had been filled with
water, no suspicion can remain.
LIGHTFOOT, "7. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they
filled them up to the brim.
[Jesus said, Fill, &c.] I. It is probable that the discourse betwixt Jesus and his
mother was not public and before the whole company, but privately and betwixt
themselves: which if we suppose, the words of the son towards the mother,
"Woman, what have I to do with thee?" will not seem so harsh as we might
apprehend them if spoken in the hearing of all the guests. And although the son did
seem by his first answer to give a plain denial to what was propounded to him, yet
perhaps by something which he afterward said to her, (though not expressed by the
evangelist,) or some other token, the mother understood his mind so far, that when
they came into company again she could intimate to them, "Whatsoever he saith
unto you, do it."
II. He answered his mother, "Mine hour is not yet come": for it might be justly

expected that the first miracle he would exert should be done in Jerusalem, the
metropolis of that nation.
8 Then he told them, “ ow draw some out and
take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so,
BAR ES, "Draw out now - This command was given to the servants. It showed
that the miracle had been performed immediately. As soon as they were filled the
servants were directed to take to the governor of the feast. Jesus made no parade about
it, and it does not even appear that he approached the waterpots. He willed it, and it was
done. This was a clear exertion of divine power, and made in such a manner as to leave
no doubt of its reality.
The governor - One who presided on the occasion. The one who stood at the “head”
or upper end of the table. He had the charge of the entertainment, provided the food,
gave directions to the servants, etc.
CLARKE, "Governor of the feast - The original word, αρχιτρικλινος, signifies one
who is chief or head over three couches, or tables. In the Asiatic countries, they take
their meals sitting, or rather reclining, on small low couches. And when many people are
present, so that they cannot all eat together, three of these low tables or couches are put
together in form of a crescent, and some one of the guests is appointed to take charge of
the persons who sit at these tables. Hence the appellation of architriclinus, the chief over
three couches or tables, which in process of time became applied to the governor or
steward of a feast, let the guests be many or few; and such person, having conducted the
business well, had a festive crown put on his head by the guests, at the conclusion of the
feast. See Ecclesiasticus, 32:1-3. It is very common for the Hindoos to appoint a person
who is expert in conducting the ceremonies of a feast to manage as governor. This
person is seldom the master of the house.
And they bare it - A question has been asked, “Did our Lord turn all the water into
wine which the six measures contained?” To which I answer: There is no proof that he
did; and I take it for granted that he did not. It may be asked, “How could a part be
turned into wine, and not the whole?” To which I answer: The water, in all likelihood,
was changed into wine as it was drawn out, and not otherwise. “But did not our Lord by
this miracle minister to vice, by producing an excess of inebriating liquor?” No; for the
following reasons:
1. The company was a select and holy company, where no excess could be permitted.

And,
2. Our Lord does not appear to have furnished any extra quantity, but only what was
necessary. “But it is intimated in the text that the guests were nearly intoxicated
before this miraculous addition to their wine took place; for the evangelist says,
ᆇταν µεθυσθωσι, when they have become intoxicated.” I answer:
1. It is not intimated, even in the most indirect manner, that these guests were at
all intoxicated.
2. The words are not spoken of the persons at that wedding at all: the governor of
the feast only states that such was the common custom at feasts of this nature;
without intimating that any such custom prevailed there.
3. The original word bears a widely different meaning from that which the
objection forces upon it. The verbs µεθυσκω and µεθυω, from µεθυ, wine, which,
from µετα θυειν, to drink after sacrificing, signify not only to inebriate, but to
take wine, to drink wine, to drink enough: and in this sense the verb is evidently
used in the Septuagint, Gen_43:34; Son_5:1; 1 Maccabees 16:16; Hag_1:6;
Ecclus. 1:16. And the Prophet Isaiah, Isa_58:11, speaking of the abundant
blessings of the godly, compares them to a watered garden, which the Septuagint
translate, ᆞς κηπος µεθυων, by which is certainly understood, not a garden
drowned with water, but one sufficiently saturated with it, not having one drop
too much, nor too little.
GILL, "Governor of the feast - The original word, αρχιτρικλινος, signifies one who
is chief or head over three couches, or tables. In the Asiatic countries, they take their
meals sitting, or rather reclining, on small low couches. And when many people are
present, so that they cannot all eat together, three of these low tables or couches are put
together in form of a crescent, and some one of the guests is appointed to take charge of
the persons who sit at these tables. Hence the appellation of architriclinus, the chief over
three couches or tables, which in process of time became applied to the governor or
steward of a feast, let the guests be many or few; and such person, having conducted the
business well, had a festive crown put on his head by the guests, at the conclusion of the
feast. See Ecclesiasticus, 32:1-3. It is very common for the Hindoos to appoint a person
who is expert in conducting the ceremonies of a feast to manage as governor. This
person is seldom the master of the house.
And they bare it - A question has been asked, “Did our Lord turn all the water into
wine which the six measures contained?” To which I answer: There is no proof that he
did; and I take it for granted that he did not. It may be asked, “How could a part be
turned into wine, and not the whole?” To which I answer: The water, in all likelihood,
was changed into wine as it was drawn out, and not otherwise. “But did not our Lord by
this miracle minister to vice, by producing an excess of inebriating liquor?” No; for the
following reasons:
1. The company was a select and holy company, where no excess could be permitted.
And,
2. Our Lord does not appear to have furnished any extra quantity, but only what was
necessary. “But it is intimated in the text that the guests were nearly intoxicated

before this miraculous addition to their wine took place; for the evangelist says,
ᆇταν µεθυσθωσι, when they have become intoxicated.” I answer:
1. It is not intimated, even in the most indirect manner, that these guests were at
all intoxicated.
2. The words are not spoken of the persons at that wedding at all: the governor of
the feast only states that such was the common custom at feasts of this nature;
without intimating that any such custom prevailed there.
3. The original word bears a widely different meaning from that which the
objection forces upon it. The verbs µεθυσκω and µεθυω, from µεθυ, wine, which,
from µετα θυειν, to drink after sacrificing, signify not only to inebriate, but to
take wine, to drink wine, to drink enough: and in this sense the verb is evidently
used in the Septuagint, Gen_43:34; Son_5:1; 1 Maccabees 16:16; Hag_1:6;
Ecclus. 1:16. And the Prophet Isaiah, Isa_58:11, speaking of the abundant
blessings of the godly, compares them to a watered garden, which the Septuagint
translate, ᆞς κηπος µεθυων, by which is certainly understood, not a garden
drowned with water, but one sufficiently saturated with it, not having one drop
too much, nor too little.
HE RY, "Thirdly, The miracle was wrought suddenly, and in such a manner as
greatly magnified it.
a. As soon as they had filled the water-pots, presently he said, Draw out now (Joh_
2:8), and it was done, (a.) Without any ceremony, in the eye of the spectators. One
would have thought, as Naaman, he should have come out, and stood, and called on the
name of God, 2Ki_5:11. No, he sits still in his place, says not a word, but wills the thing,
and so works it. Note, Christ does great things and marvellous without noise, works
manifest changes in a hidden way. Sometimes Christ, in working miracles, used words
and signs, but it was for their sakes that stood by, Joh_11:42. (b.) Without any
hesitation or uncertainty in his own breast. He did not say, Draw out now, and let me
taste it, questioning whether the thing were done as he willed it or no; but with the
greatest assurance imaginable, though it was his first miracle, he recommends it to the
master of the feast first. As he knew what he would do, so he knew what he could do, and
made no essay in his work; but all was good, very good, even in the beginning.
b. Our Lord Jesus directed the servants, (a.) To draw it out; not to let it alone in the
vessel, to be admired, but to draw it out, to be drank. Note, [a.] Christ's works are all for
use; he gives no man a talent to be buried, but to be traded with. Has he turned thy
water into wine, given thee knowledge and grace? It is to profit withal; and therefore
draw out now. [b.] Those that would know Christ must make trial of him, must attend
upon him in the use of ordinary means, and then may expect extraordinary influence.
That which is laid up for all that fear God is wrought for those that trust in him (Psa_
31:19), that by the exercise of faith draw out what is laid up. (b.) To present it to the
governor of the feast. Some think that this governor of the feast was only the chief
guest, that sat at the upper end of the table; but, if so, surely our Lord Jesus should have
had that place, for he was, upon all accounts, the principal guest; but it seems another
had the uppermost room, probably one that loved it (Mat_23:6), and chose it, Luk_14:7.
And Christ, according to his own rule, sat down in the lowest room; but, though he was
not treated as the Master of the feast, he kindly approved himself a friend to the feast,

and, if not its founder, yet its best benefactor. Others think that this governor was the
inspector and monitor of the feast: the same with Plutarch's symposiarcha, whose office
it was to see that each had enough, and none did exceed, and that there were no
indecencies or disorders. Note, Feasts have need of governors, because too many, when
they are at feasts, have not the government of themselves. Some think that this governor
was the chaplain, some priest or Levite that craved a blessing and gave thanks, and
Christ would have the cup brought to him, that he might bless it, and bless God for it; for
the extraordinary tokens of Christ's presence and power were not to supersede, or jostle
out, the ordinary rules and methods of piety and devotion.
JAMIESO , "
CALVI , "8.And carry to the master of the feast. For the same reason as before,
Christ wished that the flavor of the wine should be tried by the master of the feast,
before it had been tasted by himself, or by any other of the guests; and the readiness
with which the servants obey him in all things shows us the great reverence and
respect in which he was held by them. The Evangelist gives the name of the master
of the feast to him who had the charge of preparing the banquet and arranging the
tables; not that the banquet was costly and magnificent, but because the honorable
appellations borrowed from the luxury and splendor of the rich are applied even to
the marriages of the poor. But it is wonderful that a large quantity of wine, and of
the very best wine, is supplied by Christ, who is a teacher of sobriety. I reply, when
God daily gives us a large supply of wine, it is our own fault if his kindness is an
excitement to luxury; but, on the other hand, it is an undoubted trial of our sobriety,
if we are sparing and moderate in the midst of abundance; as Paul boasts that he
had learned to know both how to be full and to be hungry, (Philippians 4:12.)
COKE, "John 2:8. Bear unto the governor of the feast.— Among the Greeks,
Romans, and Jews, it was usual at great entertainments, especially at marriage
feasts, to appoint a master of the ceremonies, who not only gave directions
concerning the form and method of the entertainment, but likewise prescribed the
regulations in respect to drinking. Jesus therefore ordered the wine which he had
formed, to be carried to the governor of the feast, that by his judgment passed upon
it, in the hearing of all the guests, it might be known to be genuine wine of the best
kind. Our Lord's furnishing wine for the feast by miracle shews, that all the
creatures which God's power hath formed for, and his bounty bestowed on man,
may be used consistently with piety, provided that the benefits be sanctified to us by
the word of God, and by prayer; that is, if they be used in moderation, as the word
of God directs, and with due expressions of thankfulness. We may observe, that
every circumstance in this miracle was wonderfully directed by our Lord to shew its
reality. For this purpose, Jesus ordered the water-pots to be filled with water; for
the servants who poured the water out of one vessel into the other, could easily see
that there was nothing but water in the vessel from which they had poured; and
when the other was filled to the brim, it was equally visible that the vessel which
they had filled, had nothing but water in it likewise. Further, it was known to all the
guests that these pots or vessels never contained any thing but water; and as all the
guests had washed themselves with the fluid contained in them, they were convinced
that they held nothing but water. The changing of the water in the vessels was

another proof to the same purpose; and the drawing out instantly shewed that there
could be no fraud. The servants were so far from being parties with Jesus in any
collusion, that they seem not to have known, or to have been willing to obey him,
had not Mary ordered them to do it; which is another proof of the reality of this
miracle. The ignorance of the governor concerning the filling of the pots, and the
change made in the water, shews that he could not have been concerned in any
deceit; as his, and not the guests tasting of the wine, and applauding it, shews that
no other person could have been a party in the fraud, if there was any. These and
other circumstances, which the diligent reader will observe, abundantly prove the
reality of the miracle, and set it above the probability of a cavil.
LIGHTFOOT, "8. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the
governor of the feast. And they bare it.
[The governor of the feast.] This governor of the feast I would understand to have
been in the place of chaplain, to give thanks, and pronounce blessings in such kind
of feasts as these were. There was the bridegroom's blessing, recited every day for
the whole space of the seven days, besides other benedictions during the whole
festival time, requisite upon a cup of wine (for over a cup of wine there used to be a
blessing pronounced;) especially that which was called the cup of good news, when
the virginity of the bride is declared and certified. He, therefore, who gave the
blessing for the whole company, I presume, might be called the governor of the
feast. Hence to him it is that our Saviour directs the wine that was made of water, as
he who, after some blessing pronounced over the cup, should first drink of it to the
whole company, and after him the guests pledging and partaking of it.
As to what is contained in verses 14, 15, and 16 of this chapter, I have already
discussed that in Matthew 21:12.
COFFMA , "Commentators have speculated at length upon WHERE the change
took place, whether in the pots, or on the way to the ruler of the feast, etc.; but if the
apostle had not intended to imply that the whole supply in the water-pots was
changed into wine, it is simply inconceivable that the number and capacity of the
pots would have been mentioned at all. One water-pot would have provided at least
one round of wine!
Along with C. S. Lewis, this writer receives this miracle as a literal creative act of
God incarnate. He said:
Every year, as part of the natural order, God makes wine. He does so by creating a
vegetable organism that can turn water, soil, and sunlight into a juice which will,
under proper circumstances, become wine .... Once, in one year only, God, now
incarnate, short-circuits the process; makes wine in a moment; uses earthenware
jars instead of vegetable fibers to hold the water.[5]
Regarding the question of what kind of wine this was, all kinds of irresponsible
speculations abound. Even Barnes gave elaborate arguments to prove that the wine

here created by the Lord was nothing more than the pure juice of grapes with no
alcohol content whatever; but, as Barnes admitted, "The wine referred to here was
doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine."[6] And it is precisely this
evident truth that rebukes any notion that this wine was merely the unfermented
juice of grapes. On Pentecost, the apostles were accused of being full of new wine
(Acts 2:3-15), to the extent of intoxication, a charge that Peter denied; but he did not
deny that the wine common in those days was capable of producing intoxication; on
the other hand, his defense tacitly admitted it. Also, the opinion of the ruler of the
feast that the wine Jesus made was superior in quality to that they had drunk
earlier, supports the conclusion that it was not merely pure grape juice. This is not
to say, however, that the wine Jesus made was supercharged with alcohol like some
of the burning liquors that are marketed today under the label of "wine". THAT we
emphatically deny; but to go further than this and read WI E as GRAPE JUICE
seems to this writer to be a perversion of the word of God.
[5] A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John (Cambridge University Press.
1965), p. 30.
[6] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 193.
9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water
that had been turned into wine. He did not realize
where it had come from, though the servants who
had drawn the water knew. Then he called the
bridegroom aside
BAR ES, "And knew not whence it was - This is said, probably, to indicate that
his judgment was not biased by any favor, or any lack of favor, toward Jesus. Had he
known what was done, he would have been less likely to have judged impartially. As it is,
we have his testimony that this was real wine, and of so fine a body and flavor as to
surpass that which had been provided for the occasion. Everything in this miracle shows
that there was no collusion or understanding between Jesus and any of the persons at
the feast.
GILL, "When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water,.... The Persic version

reads, "tasted of the wine", and adds, what is not in the text, "it was of a very grateful
savour": but the sense is, he tasted of that which was before water, but now
was made wine; not in such sense as the Papists pretend that the bread and wine, in
the Lord's supper, are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, by the
consecration of the priest; after which they appear to have the same properties of bread
and wine as before; but this water, that was turned into wine, ceased to be what it was
before, and became what it was not: it had no more the properties, the colour, and taste
of water, but of wine; of which the whole company were judges:
and knew not whence it was; from whence it came, where it was had, nor any thing
of the miracle that was wrought, and therefore was a proper person to have it put into
his hands first; since it cannot be thought he should say what he does in the following
verse, from any compact with Christ, or in favour of him.
But the servants which drew the water knew; they knew from whence they had it,
out of the water pots; and they knew that they filled them with water; and that that
liquor, which the ruler of the feast had in his hands, and commended as most excellent
wine, was drawn out of them; and that there was no juggle, nor deceit in the case: and,
upon tasting of it,
the governor of the feast called the bridegroom to him; out of the place where
he sat, and which might not be far from him.
HE RY, "When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water,.... The Persic
version reads, "tasted of the wine", and adds, what is not in the text, "it was of a very
grateful savour": but the sense is, he tasted of that which was before water, but now
was made wine; not in such sense as the Papists pretend that the bread and wine, in
the Lord's supper, are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, by the
consecration of the priest; after which they appear to have the same properties of bread
and wine as before; but this water, that was turned into wine, ceased to be what it was
before, and became what it was not: it had no more the properties, the colour, and taste
of water, but of wine; of which the whole company were judges:
and knew not whence it was; from whence it came, where it was had, nor any thing
of the miracle that was wrought, and therefore was a proper person to have it put into
his hands first; since it cannot be thought he should say what he does in the following
verse, from any compact with Christ, or in favour of him.
But the servants which drew the water knew; they knew from whence they had it,
out of the water pots; and they knew that they filled them with water; and that that
liquor, which the ruler of the feast had in his hands, and commended as most excellent
wine, was drawn out of them; and that there was no juggle, nor deceit in the case: and,
upon tasting of it,
the governor of the feast called the bridegroom to him; out of the place where
he sat, and which might not be far from him.
JAMIESO , "well drunk — “drunk abundantly” (as Son_5:1), speaking of the

general practice.
COKE, "John 2:9-10. The governor of the feast called the bridegroom,— The governor's
application to the bridegroom, and not to Jesus, shews him to have been ignorant of the
miracle; and could have proceeded from no other reason than his persuasion, that this
wine had been provided at the expence of the bridegroom. Surprised at the exquisite
delicacy of the flavour, he said to the bridegroom, "It is usualwith most men to set forth
the good wine— τον καλον οινον, —at the beginning; and when men have drank
plentifully,— οταν µεθυσθωσι,— then that which is worse: thou hast proceeded in a
different manner; thou hast kept the good wine until now." In which words every
discerning reader must remark, that there is not the least room for those many
blasphemous insults upon the pure and spotless character of the holy Jesus, which
deists and infidels have the hardiness to throw out, as we hinted on John 2:7. For, in the
first place, the governor of the feast does not say even so much as that the present guests
had drank plentifully; he only urges the common proceedings in such festivals as these;
and the words rather countenance a contrary opinion, for he says, "Every man sets forth
good wine at the beginning, and when it shall happen that men shall have drank
plentifully, then that which is worse: thou (without any connecting particle in the
original) hast kept the good wine until now. Thou hast not done as others do; the best
wine comes last." Herein is the whole of the comparison: he by no means says that they
had drank plentifully, or to excess: it is more than probable, that there was no
appearance of such irregularity or excess; seeing that the governor was thus capable of
distinguishing the relish of the good wine so instantly, which, when men have well
drunk, is not the case; and therefore it is, that, as he says, bad wine is brought last.
However, allowing, secondly, that the words, when men have well drunk, did refer to the
present guests; yet the true meaning of the original word ΄εθυσθωσι, and its use in
scripture, shew that it signifies, not criminal drinking, or drinking to excess; its proper
and immediate sense is, to drink after sacrificing, and so it is used in a religious import;
and in several instances in scripture it is applied to drinking where there could be no
excess. See Ephesians 5:18. But, thirdly, allowing both these objections to be true,
namely, that these guests had already drunk well, and that the word so rendered does
import criminal drinking; yet it will by no means follow, that the miracle which Christ
now wrought was intended to encourage any vice of this sort. Far from the mouths of
Christians, far from the hearts of men, be the least surmise or supposition of such a sort!
It is most reasonable to conclude, that the change of the water into wine drew off their
attention wholly from the feast to this divine and wonderful Person, who thus
manifested forth his glory,and obtained the faith of his disciples: it is most reasonable to
conclude, that this was a great means of sobriety and seriousness, bringing the be-
holders to the usual admiration What manner of man is this!
10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine
first and then the cheaper wine after the guests
have had too much to drink; but you have saved

the best till now.”
BAR ES, "Every man - It is customary, or it is generally done.
When men have well drunk - This word does not of necessity mean that they were
intoxicated, though it is usually employed in that sense. It may mean when they have
drunk sufficient, or to satiety; or have drunk so much as to produce hilarity, and to
destroy the keenness of their taste, so that they could not readily distinguish the good
from that which was worse. But this cannot be adduced in favor of drunkenness, even if
it means to be intoxicated; for,
1. It is not said of those who were present “at that feast,” but of what generally
occurred. For anything that appears, at that feast all were perfectly temperate and
sober.
2. It is not the saying of Jesus that is here recorded, but of the governor of the feast,
who is declaring what usually occurred as a fact.
3. There is not any expression of opinion in regard to its “propriety,” or in approval
of it, even by that governor.
4. It does not appear that our Saviour even heard the observation.
5. Still less is there any evidence that he approved such a state of things, or that he
designed that it should take place here. Further, the word translated “well drunk”
cannot be shown to mean intoxication; but it may mean when they had drunk as
much as they judged proper or as they desired. then the other was presented. It is
clear that neither our Saviour, nor the sacred writer, nor the speaker here
expresses any approval of intemperance, nor is there the least evidence that
anything of the kind occurred here. It is not proof that we approve of
intemperance when we mention, as this man did, what occurs usually among men
at feasts.
Is worse - Is of an inferior quality.
The good wine - This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should
not be deceived by the phrase “good wine.” We often use the phrase to denote that it is
good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be
attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as “good,” or
mention that as “the best wine,” which was harmless or “innocent” - poculo vini
“innocentis.” The most useful wine - “utilissimum vinum” - was that which had little
strength; and the most wholesome wine - “saluberrimum vinum” - was that which had
not been adulterated by “the addition of anything to the ‘must’ or juice.” Pliny expressly
says that a good wine was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be
assumed, therefore, that the “good wine” was “stronger” than the other: it is rather to be
presumed that it was milder.
The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine.
That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor
wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common
wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. we use the
word “wine” now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this
country - always containing a considerable portion of alcohol not only the alcohol

produced by fermentation, but alcohol “added” to keep it or make it stronger. But we
have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the
Scriptures. We should endeavor to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those
times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then,
and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the
slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the
pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that
would not be fully met by such a supposition.
No man should adduce This instance in favor of drinking wine unless he can prove
that the wine made in the waterpots of Cana was just like the wine which he proposes to
drink. The Saviour’s example may be always pleaded just as it was; but it is a matter of
obvious and simple justice that we should find out exactly what the example was before
we plead it. There is, moreover, no evidence that any other part of the water was
converted into wine than that which was “drawn out” of the water-casks for the use of
the guests. On this supposition, certainly, all the circumstances of the case are met, and
the miracle would be more striking. All that was needed was to furnish a “supply” when
the wine that had been prepared was nearly exhausted. The object was not to furnish a
large quantity for future use. The miracle, too, would in this way be more apparent and
impressive. On this supposition, the casks would appear to be filled with water only; as it
was drawn out, it was pure wine. Who could doubt, then, that there was the exertion of
miraculous power? All, therefore, that has been said about the Redeemer’s furnishing a
large quantity of wine for the newly-married pair, and about his benevolence in doing it,
is wholly gratuitous. There is no evidence of it whatever; and it is not necessary to
suppose it in order to an explanation of the circumstances of the case.
CLARKE, "The good wine until now - That which our Lord now made being
perfectly pure, and highly nutritive!
GILL, "And saith unto him,.... The following words; expressing the common custom
used at feasts:
every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; that is, it is usual with
men, when they make entertainments, first to give the guests the best, the most
generous, and strongest bodied wine; as being most suitable for them, and they being
then better able to bear it, and it being most for the credit of the maker of the feast:
and when men have well drank; not to excess, but freely, so as that they are
exhilarated; and their spirits cheerful, but their brains not intoxicated: so the word, as
answering to the Hebrew word is ‫,שכר‬ used by the Septuagint in Gen_43:34,
then that which is worse; not bad wine, but τον ελασσω, "that which is lesser"; a
weaker bodied wine, that is lowered, and of less strength, and not so intoxicating, and
which is fittest for the guests. So Martial (z) advises Sextilianus, after he had drank the
tenth cup, not to drink the best wine, but to ask his host for wine of Laletania, which was
a weaker and lower sort of wine.
But thou hast kept the good wine until now; which shows he knew nothing of the
miracle wrought. And as the bridegroom here did, in the apprehension of the ruler of the

feast, at this his marriage, so does the Lord, the husband of the church, in the marriage
feast of the Gospel; and so he will do at the marriage supper of the lamb. The Gospel,
which may be compared to wine for its purity, pleasant taste, and generous effects in
reviving drooping spirits, refreshing weary persons, and comforting distressed minds, as
also for its antiquity, was published before the coming of Christ, in the times of Adam,
Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets, but in a lower and weaker way; at
sundry times, here a little, and there a little, by piecemeals, as it were; and in divers
manners, by promises, prophecies, types, shadows, and sacrifices; and was attended
with much darkness and bondage: but under the Gospel dispensation, which is
compared to a marriage feast, it is more fully dispensed, more clearly published, and
more freely ministered. The whole of it is delivered, and with open face beheld; and
saints are made free by it; it is set in the strongest and clearest light; the best wine is
reserved till now; God has provided some better thing for us, Heb_11:40. And so with
respect to the future state of the saints, their best things are kept for them till last. They
have many good things now; as the Gospel, Gospel ordinances, the blessings, and
promises of grace, the love of God shed abroad in their hearts, presence of God, and
communion with Christ, at least at times; all which are better than wine: but then there
is an alloy to these; they are lowered by other things, as the corruptions of the heart, the
temptations of Satan, the hidings of God's face, and a variety of afflictions; but they shall
have their good and best things hereafter, and drink new wine in Christ's Father's
kingdom, without any thing to lower and weaken it: they will have full joys, and never
fading pleasures, and shall be without sin and sorrow; no more deserted, nor afflicted,
and shall be out of the reach of Satan's temptations, and with Christ for evermore.
Happy are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb.
JAMIESO , "the good wine ... until now — thus testifying, while ignorant of the
source of supply, not only that it was real wine, but better than any at the feast.
COFFMAN, "First the good wine ... then ... worse ... In these words, the ruler of the feast
unconsciously recorded the sordid economy of this world which first entices with that
which is beautiful and desirable, and then punishes and frustrates with that which is
worse. Of course, the ancient toastmaster was merely stating a commonly known fact,
but the perception of John led him to see in that chance remark a universal law with
profound applications far beyond the restricted situation that prompted its utterance. As
Morrison said:
Why, think you, did this saying so impress John that it lingered ineffaceably in his
memory? Was it merely because of the pleasure it evoked to hear his Master's handiwork
so praised? I think there was a deeper reason. John was by nature an idealist, loving to
find the abstract in the concrete; and, in the particular instance of that moment, he was
quick to see the universal law.[7]
AFTERWARD; THAT WHICH IS WORSE
1. In the history of Adam's race, first there was Paradise and the garden of Eden; then
came the temptation and fall, the curse, the expulsion, and the flaming sword that
pointed in every direction.
2. In the progression of physical life on earth, first there are the joys of childhood, the
excitement and pleasure of youth; and afterwards there are the labor and strife,

weakness, senility, and death. This physical progression to that which is worse is among
the saddest and most pitiful qualities of mortal life. Wordsworth captured the full pathos
of it thus:
The rainbow comes and goes, And lovely is the rose. Shades of the prison house begin to
close Upon the growing boy. The sunshine is a glorious birth; But yet I know, where'er I
go, That there hath passed away A glory from the earth. Where is it now, the glow and
the dream? At length the man perceives it die away And fade into the light of common
day.[8]
3. In the enticement to sin, the death's head is always hidden behind the smiling mask of
beauty and delight. The smile of the adulteress ends in blood upon the threshold, and
the sparkling cup conceals the poisonous asp at the bottom of it (Proverbs 23:21,32).
4. In life's arrangements without consideration of God, the progression is ever
downward and toward that which is worse. Marriages where God is not a partner move
unerringly in the direction of futility and sorrow. Prodigals move invariably in their
thoughtless and licentious freedom, not to honor, but to the swine pen. Many an
arrangement of business, employment, or pleasure is begun with high hopes and
expectations; but, if God is not in the arrangement, it moves inexorably to lower and
lower levels to become finally a state of crime and shame. Afterward, that which is
worse.
5. In the longer progression of unconsecrated life, as it regards time and eternity, the
same wretched deterioration occurs. However glorious or desirable the state of the
wicked in this present life may appear to be, it is only for a little while, followed by the
terrors of a hopeless grave and the punishments of hell. Some people refuse to believe in
any such thing as hell; but intelligent reasoning, as well as divine revelation, supports
the conviction that awful retribution is stored up for the wicked after death. Again from
Morrison:
I believe in law; I believe in immortality; I believe in the momentum of a life. And if the
momentum of a life be downward, and be unchecked by the strong arm of God, how can
we hope that it will be arrested by the frail and yielding barrier of the grave? ... If sin
conceals the worse that is behind tomorrow, may it not also conceal the worse that lies
behind the grave?[9]
6. In the progression of the material universe, all material things being inferior to the
great spiritual realities, there is the same downward course. The sun itself will finally
become a burned-out star and our earth but a dead speck of dust in space. As Dr. Moody
Lee Coffman stated in a lecture on The Origin of the Inanimate:
The universe must be reckoned as becoming more disordered with time. All other known
physical laws may be extrapolated backward in time as well as forward, but the second
law of thermodynamics insists that entropy monotonically increases. Time cannot be
reversed in direction to change this fact. No violation has ever been observed. All the
experience of mankind leads us to believe the universe must work its way to a uniform
heat sink with no potential for doing useful work. It is the second law of

thermodynamics.[10]
This profound observation is but the scientific way of saying, "afterward, that which is
worse." The apostles of Jesus warned people to live lives founded upon spiritual
principles and unhesitatingly predicted the end of the physical world, as, for example in
Peter's foretelling the destruction of the earth and its works (2 Peter 3:10f).
7. In the corruption and defilement of man's moral nature, through the ravages of sin, it
is always "afterward, that which is worse." Sin always begins with so-called minor
departures from the word of God; but the descent of the soul towards reprobacy and
debauchery is constant and accelerated in its declension from God. The miserable
history of Sodom and Gomorrah has been endlessly repeated by all of the nations that
have turned away from God. "Evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse,
deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:13). "Worse and worse" is the law of all sin
and turning away from God.
From the above considerations, it is clear enough that the ancient master of ceremonies
at Cana uttered a truth far more comprehensive than the primary application of it. No
wonder the apostle remembered and recorded it!
And when men have drunk freely ... People have gone to great lengths to defend the Lord
against any implied approval of excessive drinking; but no such defense is necessary. It
is not implied that any of the guests at that wedding had exceeded the bounds of
propriety. He merely stated what was publicly recognized as a fact, and there can be no
question of the truth of what he said.
Thou hast kept the good wine until now ... This is the converse of the proposition stated
above. The contrast between the way God does things and the performance of people
apart from God is dramatically stated. With sinful men, it is ever "afterward, that which
is worse"; but with God in Christ it is ever "the best wine last!" This truth also has a wide
application.
THE BEST WINE SAVED FOR LAST
1. In God's great act of creation, the best wine came last. First, the earth was without
form and void, and darkness moved upon the face of the deep. Afterward came light,
vegetation, lower forms of animal life, and finally man created in the image of God!
2. In the dispensations of God's grace, the same progressive betterment is observed. The
patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations of God's mercy appeared in ascending
order of benefit and glow.
3. In Scriptural revelation, the same progression to that which is better appears. As the
writer of Hebrews expressed it:
God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and
in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he

appointed heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2).
4. In the earthly life of our Lord, the wonder of Bethlehem and the angelic
announcement of a Saviour born culminated in the far more wonderful event of Jesus'
death and resurrection for the salvation of mankind. The best wine came last.
5. The progression of the Christian life follows the same pattern. The enthusiasm and joy
of the novice convert to Christ resolve into a far more wonderful experience of the
mature Christian.
The difference in Christ and the devil is just this, that the devil's tomorrow is worse than
his today; but the morrow of Christ, for every man who trusts him, is always brighter
and better than his yesterday. Every act of obedience on our part gives us a new vision of
his love.[11]
One of the hymns of the pioneers was "Brighter the Way Groweth Each Day"; and all
who have ever followed the Lord have found it so.
6. In time and eternity, we may be certain that God has kept the best until last. Joyful
and fulfilling as the Christian life assuredly is, the full glory of it will not be realized until
"that day" when the Lord shall provide the crown of life to all them that have loved his
appearing. No description of heaven is possible. Language itself, as a means of
communicating thought, breaks down under the weight of superlative metaphor
employed by the inspired writers who received from God visions of the Eternal City. The
throne of God is there, the river of life, the tree of life, the gates of pearl, the streets of
gold, the protective wall, and the Saviour's own face as the light - who can fully
understand such things as these? But of one thing we may be certain: when the trials,
sorrows, tribulations, heartaches, and sufferings of our earthly pilgrimage have ended,
and when we awaken to behold the Saviour's face in the eternal world, we shall cry
adoringly, "Lord, thou hast reserved the best until now."
Note: A somewhat fuller treatment of the spiritual import that may be found in John's
great signs is entered here, with reference to the first of them, than will be undertaken
with regard to the others, as an example of the kind of interpretation possible in all of
them. That such implications are indeed to be found in these mighty signs is perfectly
evident; but the critical device of making the spiritual import of these wonders the basis
of denying that they actually occurred is satanic. A lie has no spiritual import of the kind
evident in John's signs; and therefore the very quality of their spiritual application is a
proof that the events themselves happened, that they are historical facts.
[7] G. H. Morrison, The Wings of the Morning (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 1.
[8] William Wordsworth, Ode on the Intimations of Immortality.
[9] G. H. Morrison, op. cit., p. 6.
[10] Moody Lee Coffman, The Origin of the Inanimate (Atlanta, Georgia: Religion,
Science, Communication Research and Development Corporation, 1972), p. 75.

[11] G. H. Morrison, op. cit., p. 11.
11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the
first of the signs through which he revealed his
glory; and his disciples believed in him.
BAR ES, "This beginning of miracles - This his first public miracle. This is
declared by the sacred writer to be a “miracle” - that is, an exertion of divine power,
producing a change of the substance of water into wine, which no human power could
do.
Manifested forth - Showed; exhibited.
His glory - His power, and proper character as the Messiah; showed that he had
divine power, and that God had certainly commissioned him. This is shown to be a real
miracle by the following considerations:
1. Real water was placed in the vessels. This the servants believed, and there was no
possibility of deception.
2. The water was placed where it was not customary to keep wine. It could not be
pretended that it was merely a mixture of water and wine.
3. It was judged to be wine without knowing whence it came. There was no
agreement between Jesus and the governor of the feast to impose on the guests.
4. It was a change which nothing but divine power could effect. He that can change
water into a substance like the juice of the grape must be clothed with divine
power.
Believed on him - This does not mean that they did not believe on him beforehand,
but that their faith was confirmed or strengthened. They saw a miracle, and it satisfied
them that he was the Messiah. “Before this” they “believed” on the testimony of John,
and from conversation with Jesus John 1:35-51; now they saw that he was invested with
almighty power, and their faith was established.
From this narrative we may learn:
1. That marriage is honorable, and that Jesus, if sought, will not refuse his presence
and blessing on such an occasion.
2. On such an occasion the presence and approbation of Christ should be sought. No
compact formed on earth is more important; none enters so deeply into our comfort in

this world; perhaps none will so much affect our destiny in the world to come. It should
be entered into, then, in the fear of God.
3. On all such occasions, our conduct should be such that the presence of Jesus would
be no interruption or disturbance. He is holy. He is always present in every place; and on
all festival occasions our deportment should be such as that we should welcome the
presence of the Lord Jesus Christ. “That is not a proper stale of feeling or employment
which would be interrupted by the presence of the Saviour.”
4. Jesus delighted to do good. In the very beginning of his ministry he worked a
miracle to show his benevolence. This was the appropriate commencement of a life in
which he was to go about doing good. He seized every opportunity of doing it; and at a
marriage feast, as well as among the sick and poor, he showed the character which he
always sustained - that of a benefactor of mankind.
5. An argument cannot be drawn from this instance in favor of intemperate drinking.
There is no evidence that any who were present on that occasion drank too freely.
6. Nor can an argument be drawn from this case in favor even of drinking wine such as
we have. The common wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any
mixture of alcohol, and was harmless. It was the common drink of the people, and did
not tend to produce intoxication. “Our” wines are a “mixture” of the juice of the grape
and of brandy, and often of infusions of various substances to give it color and taste, and
the appearance of wine. Those wines are little less injurious than brandy, and the habit
of drinking them should be classed with the drinking of all other liquid fires.
The following table will show the danger of drinking the “wines” that are in common
use:
CLARKE, "This beginning of miracles - It was probably the first he ever
wrought: - at any rate, it was the first he wrought after his baptism, and the first he
wrought publicly.
His glory - His supreme Divinity: Joh_1:14.
His disciples believed on him - Were more abundantly confirmed in their faith,
that he was either the promised Messiah, or a most extraordinary prophet, in the fullest
intercourse with the ever blessed God.
GILL, "This beginning of miracles,.... This miracle of turning water into wine, was
the first miracle Christ ever wrought, either in public or private; for as for what miracles
he is said to do in his infancy, there is no reason to give credit to them: and this he
did in Cana of Galilee; not that this was only the first he did in that place; he
afterwards working another there, namely, the cure of a nobleman's son, Joh_4:46, but
the first he did any where, and it was in this place; and which the Syriac and Persic
versions again call Kotne of Galilee; See Gill on Joh_2:1;
and manifested forth his glory; the glory of his deity and divine sonship, which was
hid by his assumption of human nature, but broke forth and showed itself in his
miraculous operations, and particularly in this:
and his disciples believed on him; the above five disciples; see Joh_2:2; whom he

had called, and who were with him at this marriage, and were made acquainted with this
miracle: and though they believed in him before, and had declared, and professed him to
be the Messiah, Moses and the prophets spoke of, and the Son of God, and King of
Israel; yet they were, by this miracle, more and more confirmed in the faith of these
things: besides, others might be made his disciples at this time, and be hereby brought
to believe in him.
HE RY, "This beginning of miracles,.... This miracle of turning water into wine,
was the first miracle Christ ever wrought, either in public or private; for as for what
miracles he is said to do in his infancy, there is no reason to give credit to them: and this
he
did in Cana of Galilee; not that this was only the first he did in that place; he
afterwards working another there, namely, the cure of a nobleman's son, Joh_4:46, but
the first he did any where, and it was in this place; and which the Syriac and Persic
versions again call Kotne of Galilee; See Gill on Joh_2:1;
and manifested forth his glory; the glory of his deity and divine sonship, which was
hid by his assumption of human nature, but broke forth and showed itself in his
miraculous operations, and particularly in this:
and his disciples believed on him; the above five disciples; see Joh_2:2; whom he
had called, and who were with him at this marriage, and were made acquainted with this
miracle: and though they believed in him before, and had declared, and professed him to
be the Messiah, Moses and the prophets spoke of, and the Son of God, and King of
Israel; yet they were, by this miracle, more and more confirmed in the faith of these
things: besides, others might be made his disciples at this time, and be hereby brought
to believe in him.
JAMIESO , "manifested forth his glory — Nothing in the least like this is said of
the miracles of prophet or apostle, nor could without manifest blasphemy be said of any
mere creature. Observe, (1) At a marriage Christ made His first public appearance in any
company, and at a marriage He wrought His first miracle - the noblest sanction that
could be given to that God-given institution. (2) As the miracle did not make bad good,
but good better, so Christianity only redeems, sanctifies, and ennobles the beneficent
but abused institution of marriage; and Christ’s whole work only turns the water of earth
into the wine of heaven. Thus “this beginning of miracles” exhibited the character and
“manifested forth the glory” of His entire Mission. (3) As Christ countenanced our
seasons of festivity, so also that greater fullness which befits such; so far was He from
encouraging that asceticism which has since been so often put for all religion. (4) The
character and authority ascribed by Romanists to the Virgin is directly in the teeth of
this and other scriptures.
COKE, "John 2:11. And manifested forth his glory:— That is, demonstrated his power
and character to the conviction of the disciples, and in some sense and degree to that of
all the guests. This being the first miracle that they had ever seen Jesus perform, it
tended not a little to the confirmation of their faith, and made his fame spread over all
the neighbouring country. Moses confirmed his mission by producing water from a rock;
but our Lord, by changing water into wine: and by that change he manifested himself to
be the Lord of the creation. It was as easy for that Omnipotence which is the author of all

things, to do this in the present method, as it is for him to do it every year from the
moisture descending from heaven, which is imbibed by the roots of the vine, and after
frequent filtrations is ripened in the grape. It is true the frequency with which this
change occurs, renders it familiar and unnoticed; but when water is changed into wine in
the vessels, the novelty makes a stronger impression on the mind; and the effect, though
not a greater exertion of Almighty power than that which is produced by the common
course of nature, strikes us much more than that which is become familiar
COFFMAN, "Far from being presented as a mere parable, Jesus' action in changing
water into wine is here denominated the first of his mighty miracles, a positive
manifestation of the Lord's glory, and the event which issued in the faith of his disciples.
As the first of those mighty deeds which proved him to be God in the flesh, this sign of
Jesus has a breadth of meaning and depth of importance fully compatible with its
priority in the time sequence.
Compared with the first great miracle wrought by Moses, in which water was changed
into blood, this sign resembles that one, as should have been expected of type and
antitype; but it also contrasts dramatically. Moses' sign impoverished; this one enriched.
This was a source of joy, that one a source of revulsion and disgust. That changed water
into something worse; this changed water into something better. The superiority of
Christ over Moses, so starkly visible here, was to appear in all the miracles that followed.
Moses' miracle was a curse; this was a blessing. As Richard Trench noted:
This beginning of miracles is truly an introduction to all other miracles which Christ
wrought, as the parable of the Sower to all the other parables which he spoke. No other
miracle has so much of prophecy in it; no other, therefore, would have inaugurated so
fitly the whole future work of the Son of God, a work that might be characterized
throughout as an ennobling of the common, and a transmuting of the mean, a turning of
the water of earth into the wine of heaven.[12]
CHRIST AND MARRIAGE
Any full appreciation of this wonder must take account of the occasion upon which it
was enacted, namely, at a wedding feast. By such a choice of platform from which to
launch his world-saving ministry, Christ conferred upon marriage his approval,
encouragement, and blessing. Fittingly, the traditional wedding ceremony has the lines:
"... in holy matrimony, which is an honorable estate, and signifying to us the mystical
union that is betwixt Christ and his church; which holy estate Christ adorned and
beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee... etc."
Far from having been a capricious or accidental beginning of his ministry, the sign at
Cana was part of the Master Plan of the Saviour's earthly sojourn. How appropriate it is
that he who was to become the great Bridegroom of the Church in heaven and upon
earth should have begun his ministry with such a wonder as this and upon such an
occasion as the marriage in Cana of Galilee.
And manifested his glory ... Of some mere prophet, it might have been declared that
such a sign manifested God's glory; but the glory here manifested was essentially of

Christ himself, who was God incarnate. As Westcott said:
The manifestation of his glory in this "sign" must not be sought simply in what we call its
miraculous element, but in this connection with the circumstances, as a revelation of the
insight, sympathy, and sovereignty of the Son of man, who was the Word incarnate.[13]
The enrichment, that came of Christ's presence at that ancient wedding was a literal
endowment of the new family unit with an exceedingly valuable and ample supply of the
choices: wine, removing the new couple at one stroke from a status of poverty and
embarrassment to a position of abundance and plenty. The literal enrichment of that
bride and groom symbolizes the enrichment that always follows the welcoming of Christ
into the homes and hearts of people.
[12] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H.
Revell Co., 1943), p. 105.
[13] Brooks Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), p. 39.
SBC, "I. Beyond doubt this was a miracle of sympathy; and, which perhaps we should
not have expected, sympathy with festivity and joy. The hardest kind of sympathy, as
everyone who has tried it knows, is to throw a mind that is saddened—which Christ’s
mind was always—into the happiness of others. It is singular, too, that though it was a
first thing, its great point and object was to teach about the last—that with what Christ
does, and what Christ gives, unlike and the very opposite to what man does and what the
world gives, the last is always the best; and that it grows sweeter, richer, truer, even to
the end.
II. Miracles always cluster about the beginnings of new dispensations, or, which is the
same thing, about great reformations in an old religion: as Moses, and Joshua, and the
Judges, and Elijah that great reformer, and Christ. They are to establish the credibility,
the Divine mission, the glory of the leaders of a new system or the teachers of a new
faith.
III. There are many definitions of a miracle, but they all come to this—it is a suspension
of the laws of Nature, or an effect without its usual cause; and if this makes a miracle,
there is very little difference, indeed, between such a work as Christ did at Cana and
what He does in every soul which is a partaker of His grace. For in every converted heart,
the law of its own nature has been suspended; and no physical cause whatever could
account for that effect which has been produced in the change of its tastes and its
affections. And it is like the operation of the water at the marriage feast. For by a secret
and mysterious process a new principle, a virtue not its own, is introduced and mingled
with the original elements of the man’s character; and so it comes forth in a strength and
a sweetness which were never conceived before, which are for life and refreshment, and
usefulness and cheer. Yet this change is but "the beginning of miracles." Many other as
wonderful works will follow, for sustaining grace is to the full as great a marvel as
converting grace.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 7th series, p. 78.

Note:—
I. Christ’s sympathy with the relationships and gladness of man’s life.
II. His elevation of the natural into the Divine; of the common into the uncommon.
III. Can a man be really heavenly in his daily tasks and in his human friendships? Yes,
for (1) the character of man’s deeds is determined by their inner motive, not by their
outward form; (2) his sanctity is attained through the power of Christ’s love.
E. L. Hull, Sermons, 3rd series, p. 35.
I. What is a miracle? A miracle is an interference with the common course of Nature by
some power above Nature. Any one who believes in a personal Author and Governor of
Nature, will have no difficulty in believing in miracles. The same Almighty Being who
made and upholds Nature, can interfere, whenever it pleases Him, with the ordinary
course of Nature, which He has Himself prescribed. To say that He cannot do this, is
manifestly foolish and presumptuous in the extreme; we cannot set bounds to His
purposes, nor tell beforehand how He may be pleased to accomplish them.
II. As there are good and bad miracles—miracles of Divine goodness and miracles of
lying spirits—one thing must be very plain to us, viz., that by miracles alone no man can
be proved to be sent from God. What, then, were our Lord’s miracles, as regards their
place in His great work? They held a very important place, but they did not hold the chief
place, in the evidences of His mission. He turned water into wine, He spoke and the
winds were silent, He commanded diseases with a word. So far, the power might be from
above or from beneath. But, coupled with His holy and blameless life, and His love of
God and obedience to God, these works of power took another character, and became
signs—St. John’s usual word for them—signs whence He came; they became, when
viewed together with the consistent and unvarying character of His teaching and life,
most valuable and decisive evidences to His Messiahship. Our Lord’s miracles are full of
goodness to the bodies and souls of men. Each of them has its own fitness, as adapted to
His great work, and to the will of the Father, which He came to accomplish. Each one
tends to manifest forth His glory; shows forth some gracious attribute, some deep
sympathy.
III. In this particular miracle (1) our Lord, in ministering to the fulness of human joy,
shows more completely the glory of His Incarnation than if He had ministered to human
sorrow; because, under Him and in His kingdom, all sorrow is but a means to joy—all
sorrow ends in joy. (2) The gift of wine sets forth the invigorating and cheering effects of
the Spirit of God on man’s heart. (3) He kept His best to the last. (4) All this He will do,
not at our time, but at His own.
H. Alford, Sermons on Christian Doctrine, p. 82.
As of all our Lord’s miracles this was the first, so of all its symbolical character is most
plainly perceived, as lying on the very surface. That material gift of God, which He here
so abundantly and miraculously imparted, is used in Scripture as a common symbol for
the gladdening and invigorating influence of the Spirit under the new covenant. As, then,

Christ came to shed down upon the world the higher spiritual gift, so He begins His
miracles by imparting in a wonderful manner the lower and material one which
symbolises the other.
I. One great feature of the Lord’s working in this parable must not escape our notice. The
gift which He bestowed was not according to the slow progress of man’s proceeding, but
direct from His own creative hand. No ministry of man or angel intervened between His
will and the bestowal of the gift. Even so it is with His other spiritual gifts; man wrought
them not out, nor did we ourselves provide their conditions or their elements; the best
we can say of them, and all we can say of them, is that they came from Him. Man may
imitate them, may build up their likeness, but man can never endue them with life.
II. There is another particular, in our Lord’s operation on this occasion, which deserves
our notice. At first, He created out of nothing. Since that first act, however, He does so
no longer. But out of that which is poor and weak and despised, He by His wondrous
power and in His wondrous love, brings that which is rich and glorious. And thus His
glory is manifested forth. He created the wine, but it was out of water; and even so it is in
our own lives. We build not up, we provide not the materials of the spiritual state within
us; yet it is a transformation, not a creation out of nothing. In our weakness His strength
is perfected.
III. "Thou hast kept the good wine until now." This was not, is not, the way of the world.
First, the good is put forth. The show is made. All pains are spent; all appliances
collected; all costs bestowed; the image is uncovered, and the multitude fall down and
adore. But the joy wears out, the wonder departs, and the beautiful image becomes
blurred and defaced by climate and by decay. Not so is it with Him whom we love: His
beginnings are small and unobtrusive, His progress is gradual and sure. He remembers
the end, and He never does amiss.
H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. iii., p. 16.
CALVI , "11.This beginning of miracles. The meaning is, that this was the first of
Christ’s miracles; for when the angels announced to the shepherds that he was born
in Bethlehem, (Luke 2:8,) when the star appeared to the Magi, (Matthew 2:2,) when
the Holy Spirit descended on him in the shape of a dove, (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10;
John 1:32,) though these were miracles, yet, strictly speaking, they were not
performed by him; but the Evangelist now speaks of the miracles of which he was
himself the Author. For it is a frivolous and absurd interpretation which some give,
that this is reckoned the first among; the miracles which Christ performed in Cana
of Galilee; as if a place, in which we do not read that he ever was more than twice,
had been selected by him for a display of his power. It was rather the design of the
Evangelist to mark the order of time which Christ followed in the exercise of his
power. For until he was thirty years of age, he kept himself concealed at home, like
one who held no public office. Having been consecrated, at his baptism, to the
discharge of his office, he then began to appear in public, and to show by clear
proofs for what purpose he was sent by the Father. We need not wonder, therefore,
if he delayed till this time the first proof of his Divinity. It is a high honor given to
marriage, that Christ not only deigned to be present at a nuptial banquet, but
honored it with his first miracle. There are some ancient Canons which forbid the
clergy to attend a marriage. The reason of the prohibition was, that by being the
spectators of the wickedness which was usually practiced on such occasions, they

might in some measure be regarded as approving of it. But it would have been far
better to carry to such places so much gravity as to restrain the licentiousness in
which unprincipled and abandoned men indulge, when they are withdrawn from
the eyes of others. Let us, on the contrary, take Christ’s example for our rule; and
let us not suppose that any thing else than what we read that he did can be
profitable to us.
And manifested his glory; that is, because he then gave a striking and illustrious
proof, by which it was ascertained that he was the Son of God; for all the miracles
which he exhibited to the world were so many demonstrations of his divine power.
The proper time for displaying his glory was now come, when he wished to make
himself known agreeably to the command of his Father. Hence, also, we learn the
end of miracles; for this expression amounts to a declaration that Christ, in order to
manifest his glory, performed this miracle. What, then, ought we to think of those
miracles which obscure the glory of Christ?
And his disciples believed on him. If they were disciples, they must already have
possessed some faith; but as they had hitherto followed him with a faith which was
not distinct and firm, they began at that time to devote themselves to him, so as to
acknowledge him to be the Messiah, such as he had already been announced to
them. The forbearance of Christ is great in reckoning as disciples those whose faith
is so small. And indeed this doctrine extends generally to us all; for the faith which
is now full grown had at first its infancy, nor is it so perfect in any as not to make it
necessary that all to a man should make progress in believing. Thus, they who now
believed may be said to begin to believe, so far as they daily make progress towards
the end of their faith. Let those who have obtained the first-fruits of faith labor
always to make progress. These words point out likewise the advantage of miracles;
namely, that they ought to be viewed as intended for the confirmation and progress
of faith. Whoever twists them to any other purpose corrupts and debases the whole
use of them; as we see that Papists boast of their pretended miracles for no other
purpose than to bury faith, and to turn away the minds of men from Christ to the
creatures.
GREAT TEXTS OF THE BIBLE, "The First Sign
This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory;
and his disciples believed on him.—Joh_2:11.
1. Having recorded the testimony borne to Jesus by the Baptist, and having cited
instances in which the overmastering personality of Jesus elicited from simple-
hearted and godly men the acknowledgment of His majesty, St. John now proceeds
to relate the homely incident which gave occasion to the first public act in which His
greatness was exhibited.
2. The keynote of this Gospel was struck in the earlier verses of the first chapter in
the great words, “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his
glory, full of grace and truth.” To these words there is an evident reference in the

language of the text. The Evangelist regards Christ’s first miracle as the first ray of
that forth-flashing glory of the Incarnate Word.
3. Again, in the text the prediction of Jesus to athanael finds its first fulfilment.
Something of the significance of the name “Son of man” is made clear. Heaven
opens itself in grace and kindness and sympathy towards men; and He who refused
to convert stones into bread to gratify Himself, does not refuse to convert water into
wine to assist others—a speaking symbol of His whole ministry.
The threefold comment of the Evangelist is of the utmost importance: (1) This was a
sign, and Christ’s first sign; (2) in it He manifested His glory; (3) His disciples
believed on Him.
I
The Sign
“This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee.”
1. Let us recall the circumstances in which the miracle was wrought.
(1) The exact dating of this first miracle indicates an eye-witness. St. John says that
it took place three days after the first calling of athanael and Philip; and,
therefore, four days after that of Andrew and Peter, of John himself, and, in all
probability, of James.
(2) With this band of newly chosen disciples, our Lord had walked from the valley
of the Jordan—the scene of His baptism—into Galilee; and He had halted at Cana,
the native village of athanael. Modern topography inclines to identify this Cana,
not, as formerly, with Kefr Kenna, but with Kânat el-Jelil, some six miles .E. of
azareth. It is called Cana of Galilee to distinguish it from Cana in Asher, S.E. from
Tyre.
(3) A wedding feast was being kept by a poor family of Cana; the members of which
were, it is clearly implied, on terms of intimacy with our Lord’s virgin-mother, who
had lived for so many years at the neighbouring village of azareth. Mary was
present; and, as was natural, our Lord and His disciples were invited, probably
when the feast, which generally lasted some seven days, had already been continued
for three or four.
(4) The supply of wine was running short; and Mary, who, as is clear from her own
Magnificat, had inferred from the terms of the Annunciation the unique dignity and
the miraculous powers of her Divine Son, applied to Him for help in the emergency.
Whether she wished Him to work a miracle, or merely stated the case to Him,
leaving it in His hands to act as He saw best, is not clear from the narrative. But our
Lord acts as He acted when twelve years old; as He acted at a later date, when His
mother and His brethren wished to speak with Him, in the midst of a crowd of

persons whom He was addressing. He will not allow that the tenderest of earthly ties
can be permitted to affect the solemn and predestined sequence of actions in the
establishment of His Kingdom. Even Mary may not hasten His resolves. “Woman,
what common interest have we in this matter?” (such is the real force of the
original). “Mine hour for action is not yet come.” Mary does not reply; she merely
bids the servants attend strictly to her Son’s orders, whatever they might be, in the
confident expectation that He will certainly act, though she knows not how. Behind
the couches on which the guests were seated, were six vessels for holding water,
placed there with a view to that ceremonial washing of hands and vessels before and
after meals which was a matter of strict custom among the Jews. Our Lord desired
that these vessels should be filled; the amount of water poured into them would have
been, speaking roughly, about one hundred and twenty English gallons. St. John,
who was an eye-witness, gives these details with great particularity; and his silence
implies that our Lord did not mark, either by raising His hand, or uttering any
word of command or blessing, the moment of the miraculous change. But it must
have taken place immediately on the filling of the vessels, since our Lord, without
any pause, desired the servants to draw from the vessels and ask the president of the
feast to taste. Then it was that what had taken place was discovered; the president
complimented the bridegroom on the excellence of the wine, which, contrary to the
usual practice, he had reserved for a late hour in the entertainment. The president
did not know the source of the supply, as did those servants who had poured water
into and were now drawing wine from the vessels of purification. But that the water
of purification had become wine must have been gradually whispered among the
company from guest to guest.
2. The manner in which the miracle was performed deserves attention.
(1) Our Lord began His service in the little world of the Galilean and Judæan
ministrations, by being on that small stage what God is in the universe—an
anonymous, or unknown, or hardly known Being. He came to Cana, perhaps as a
stranger, possibly as a poor relation; for it was an occasion when poor relations are
in order. It does not appear that He was asked to repeat even a holy word over the
feast, for another was appointed master of the feast. The bridegroom and the bride
wore their festal crowns; as for Him, while He was in this world, He discarded His
aureole, or wore it only on rare days and in retreat, as at the Transfiguration. You
might have come to the feast, and marked all the notables, from near and far; He
would not be of them: this one is the bridegroom of the day, and this the bride; this
the bride’s father or mother; and this the ruler of the feast: and this an anonymous
Stranger, one of the azareth party; we have not seen Him in these parts before.
(2) All unobtrusively did He proceed. o stir was made in the water. o outflashing
of golden splendour startled the guests. o curious eyes were bidden watch the
strange phenomenon. o word from Christ announced the accomplishment of a
wonder. “Draw out now, and bear unto the governor,” were the simple words
addressed to the servants by the Almighty Worker. In the briefest space of time the
feat was done. So calmly, so suddenly does Christ work. So does He present the
result without revealing the process. The great God hideth Himself and yet worketh

most gloriously in nature and in man.
(3) In working the miracle, Christ made use of common things. “There were six
waterpots of stone set there.” Christ used what was set there. He observed the
greatest economy in the use of the miraculous. He did not create either the
waterpots or the water; the miracle was in the act of conversion only.
(4) The miracle required the co-operation of the servants and a signal exercise of the
obedience of faith. The waterpots had to be filled with water, and on an occasion
when to offer water to guests instead of wine would seem a serious insult and a bad
omen, these servants had to pour out what they believed to be water, as if it were
wine. We are not told when the change was wrought, at what precise moment “the
conscious water saw its God and blushed.” Probably not all the water in the
waterpots became wine, but only that which in the obedience of faith the servants
poured out into the glasses of the guests. The practical lesson, however, is obvious; it
is this: Fill the waterpots to the brim, leave the miracle to Him. He will not fail in
His part if we do ours. The water will be turned into wine, prayer will become
communion; faith will become vision; duty will become delight, and even pain a
sacrament of blessing. But we must fill the waterpots to the brim. We must give to
God full measure.
It is our part to obey God in simplicity; what is commanded we are to do, and while
we work He Himself will also work. He may do so in no visible way, as Christ here
did nothing visibly, but He will be with us, effectually working. As the will of Christ
pervaded the water so that it was endowed with new qualities, so can His will
pervade our souls, with every other part of His creation, and make them
conformable to His purpose. “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it”; this is the secret
of miracle-working. Do it, though you seem to be but wasting your strength and
laying yourself open to the scorn of onlookers; do it, though in yourself there is no
ability to effect what you are aiming at; do it wholly, up to the brim, as if you were
the only worker, as if there were no God to come after you and supply your
deficiencies, but as if any shortcoming on your part would be fatal; do not stand
waiting for God to work, for it is only in you and by you that He performs His work
among men.1 [ ote: Marcus Dods.]
(5) It was a surprise to the guests. The ruler of the feast, on tasting the wine,
unaware of any miracle, complimented the bridegroom on having acted contrary to
general usage. “Every man,” said he, “at the beginning doth set forth good wine;
and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the
good wine until now.”
One of the surprises that God treats us to in the course of our life, which will no
doubt be also the overwhelming surprise of our first review of this life from the
vantage-ground of a larger and better, consists in the disclosure of the way in which
our anonymous Lover has been besetting us behind and before, and laying His hand
upon us. How many constraints that make for salvation have never been registered
in the consciousness or printed off on the memory! how many times there are when

qualification for duty is given concerning which we shall by and by hear the voice
saying, “I girded thee, though thou hast not known me!”2 [ ote: J. Rendel Hurris,
Union with God, 12.]
Readers of Cowper’s Memoirs will remember the way in which Theodora, his
cousin, pursued him through life with gift and remembrance and token that came he
knew not from whence. At one time it was a snuff-box of tortoise-shell with a
familiar landscape on the lid, and the portrait of his three hares; at another it was a
seasonable gift of money; and tradition tells that upon one occasion, when these
nameless tokens reached him, he remarked, “Dear Anonymous is come again; God
bless him.” It is difficult to understand how a poet could have been so blind as not to
know that such nameless and appropriate gifts never come except from God, and
from good women. But even when we lay the charge of want of insight at the poet’s
door, we are checked by One who says, “Have I been so long time with you, and hast
thou not known me? Have I never looked in at thy window, or left gift at thy door?”
Yet oftentimes the expression of the conscious heart has never been raised so high as
even to the “Dear Anonymous” of the poet. It is a part of God’s loving way with us
that His criticism of our blindness towards Him is a gradual revelation; He can
always make us ashamed when He wants to.1 [ ote: J. Rendel Harris.]
3. ow consider the significance of this incident. It was a sign.
There are four chief names given to our Lord’s miracles. One of these is wonders. In
it their marvellous character is recognized. But it is very remarkable that this word
is never applied to a miracle without one of the others to qualify and explain it. It
seems as if, to the sacred writers, the marvel was the aspect of the miracle on which
they thought it least important to dwell. Another name is works. This is one often
used by our Lord Himself, and specially recorded by St. John. To the Master and
the beloved disciple the miracles were works of mercy. They were part of that great
mission for which our Lord had come to earth—the removal of sorrow and
suffering, and so the leading of all to Himself for salvation. Another of these titles is
a word meaning power. It is often applied to our Lord’s miracles, and is once or
twice translated “miracle” in our English Version, but more often “mighty work.” It
exhibits the miracles as acts of power, thus showing them to be the apparent
suspension by God of the ordinary laws of nature. The fourth name given to them is
signs. This is the word used in the text, and generally by St. John, where “miracle”
occurs in the Authorized Version. It is perhaps the most significant and spiritual of
all these designations. For it shows the miracles to be the signs of something else, to
have something behind them to which they are intended to point. It is hardly
necessary to ask what that is. It is the Divinity of Him who wrought them.
(1) This is the day of evasions and attempted explanations regarding all the
supernatural events of the Bible. The trend of much of the so-called religious
teaching of to-day is toward the removal of the miraculous, both in character and in
action, from the Gospel, and the relegation of both the Gospel and its Founder to a
place, the highest indeed, but still a place among the religious teachers and systems
of the ages. The miracles of healing, and of restoration of bodily function are, in this

view, explained as simply the result of superior knowledge of the laws of life, of
which it is said contemporary vital science is even now gaining great insight. But
here is a miracle inexplicable upon such a supposition; a miracle entering into the
domain, as nearly absolute as anything earthly can be, of natural law, where, as in
the kindred miracle of the stilling of the tempest, the Power that created, simply
controls, and the Infinite masters the finite.
(2) What is a miracle? Bishop Gore, in his Bampton Lectures, has defined a miracle
as “an event in physical nature, which makes unmistakably plain the presence and
direct action of God working for a moral end.” God, we know, is always present and
working in ature, and man was meant to recognize and praise Him in the ordinary
course of events; but, in fact, man’s sin has blinded his spiritual eye, he has lost the
power of seeing behind physical order. The prevalence of law in nature, which is its
glory and perfection, has even led men to forget God and deny His presence. ow in
a miracle God so works that man is forced to notice a presence which is no mere
blind force, but a loving personal will; God breaks into the common order of events,
that He may manifest the real meaning of nature. Hence miracles are God’s protests
against man’s blindness; protests in which He violates a superficial uniformity in
the interests of deeper law.
(3) On the Christian hypothesis, Christ is a new nature. “The Word was made
flesh,” and as a new nature it is surely to be expected that He will exhibit new
phenomena; a new vital energy will radiate from Him, for the very springs of
universal life are in Him. So in Christ we naturally expect the material body to
exhibit a far higher degree of subservience to spirit than was ever known before.
For be it remembered, Christ’s miracles were not meaningless portents; they were
redemptive acts, object-lessons teaching the same lessons of love and mercy as His
words conveyed. Given the perfect man, who is Lord of ature, surely the wonder
lies in the limitation of His power, and not in any manifestation of it. Given the
required conditions of spiritual life, nothing which does not involve contradiction is
impossible. To Him who could work, not merely on nature, but on that substance—
spirit and life—which underlies and makes nature, changing water into wine, and
stilling a storm, were works as surely according to unvarying law as the natural
growth of the vine and the calming of the tempest. We have often to attain results
laboriously and painfully, because we work, not on substance, but merely on surface
appearances or phenomena, while the Spiritual Man worked directly. The more we
contemplate the personality of Jesus Christ and His moral authority and purpose,
the more we shall find that His miracles were according to the law of His being; or,
to use an expression of Athanasius, they were “in rational sequence.” And if, as Dr.
Sanday says, we thus take the personality of our Lord as the true rationale of
miracle, “many things will be clear to us that would not be clear otherwise.”
I say, that miracle was duly wrought
When, save for it, no faith was possible.
Whether a change were wrought i’ the shows o’ the world,

Whether the change came from our minds which see
Of the shows o’ the world so much as and no more
Than God wills for His purpose,—(what do I
See now, suppose you, there where you see rock
Round us?)—I know not; such was the effect,
So faith grew, making void more miracles
Because too much: they would compel, not help.
I say, the acknowledgment of God in Christ
Accepted by thy reason, solves for thee
All questions in the earth and out of it,
And has so far advanced thee to be wise.1 [ ote: Browning, A Death in the Desert.]
4. It was the beginning of His signs. “This beginning of his signs did Jesus.” Here at
this wedding-feast He felt Himself impelled to take the step which altered the whole
character of His life. For from a private person He became by His first miracle a
public and marked character with a definite career. “To live henceforth in the
vortex of a whirlwind; to have no leisure so much as to eat, no time to pray save
when others slept, to be the gazing-stock of every eye, the common talk of every
tongue; to be followed about, to be thronged and jostled, to be gaped upon, to be
hunted up and down by curious vulgar crowds; to be hated, and detested, and
defamed, and blasphemed; to be regarded as a public enemy; to be watched and
spied upon and trapped and taken as a notorious criminal”—is it possible to
suppose that Christ was indifferent to all this, and that without shrinking He
stepped across the line which marked the threshold of His public career? The glory
that here shed a single ray into the rustic home of Cana must grow to that dazzling
and perfect noon which shone from the Cross to the remotest corner of earth. The
same capacity and willingness to bless mankind which here in a small and domestic
affair brought relief to His embarrassed friends, must be adapted to all the needs of
men, and must undauntedly go forward to the utmost of sacrifice. He who is true
King of men must flinch from no responsibility, from no pain, from no utter self-
abandonment to which the needs of men may call Him. And Jesus knew this. In
those quiet hours and long, untroubled days at azareth He had taken the measure
of this world’s actual state, and of what would be required to lift men out of
selfishness and give them reliance upon God. “I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men
unto me”—this was even now present to His mind. His glory was the glory of
absolute self-sacrifice, and He knew what that involved. His kingship was the

rendering of service no other could render.
All beginnings have a wonderful interest for us. There is a peculiar pleasure in
tracing a broad deep river, that bears upon its bosom the commerce of a nation, to
its source far up among the mountains, in a little well whose overflowing waters a
child’s hand could stop; or in going back to the origin of a mighty nation like the
Roman, in the drifting ashore, at the foot of the Palatine Hill, of the ark that
contained the infant founders. Institutions, social or benevolent, that have been
established for ages, derive a fresh charm from the consideration of their first feeble
commencement, and the contrast between what they were then and what they are
now. There is a mystery about a cloud coming all at once into the blue sky, a star
appearing suddenly amid the twilight shades, a spring welling up in the midst of a
sandy plain. It seems as if something new were being created before our eyes. A
sense of awe comes over us, as if brought into contact with another world. The
miracle of Cana comes into the midst of the previous natural life of Jesus like a star
out of the blue profound, like a well out of the dry mountain-side, like a rare,
unknown flower appearing among the common indigenous plants of a spot. It
brings us out of the narrow wall that hems us round, to the verge of God’s infinity,
where we can look over into the fathomless gulf. It is the base of that wonderful
miracle structure of the gospel, of which the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the
pinnacle.1 [ ote: H. Macmillan, The Marriage in Cana, 218.]
5. What special propriety was there in the selection of this particular work to
introduce and inaugurate the whole train? It is evident from St. John’s impressive
words that he finds a strong significance and a profound fitness in the form His
Master chose for the beginning of His signs. He can recall many other signs in which
Christ manifested forth His glory; but he seems to see a special reason why this, and
no other in that wondrous series, came first. He recognized that it was in harmony
with the whole tenor of the revelation of the Incarnate Word that this should be His
first miracle. For it gives us the key to all the miracles of our Lord.
(1) o other miracle has so much prophecy in it, no other would have inaugurated
so fitly the whole work of the Son of God, which was characterized throughout as an
ennobling of the common, a turning of the water of earth into the wine of heaven.
We recall the first miracle of Moses, the turning of water into blood, symbolic of
that law which, as St. Paul said, was “a ministration of death.” Here the Saviour’s
first miracle, a ministration of life, symbolized the turning of the thin and watery
elements of Jewish faith into that richer and nobler Christianity which makes saints
out of sinners, and a new Paradise of God out of the wilderness of earth.
(2) The turning of water into wine was a sign of the character of all the works of
goodness and wisdom under the Christian dispensation, by which humanity,
suffering from the effects of sin, was to be raised into higher states of truth and
righteousness. It combines in itself all the elements of Christ’s miracles. It is a work
of mercy; it is an emblem of a higher spiritual blessing; and it is a prophecy and a
specimen of that new genesis, under which all things shall be restored to the
primeval goodness and blessedness. Like an illuminated initial letter, which contains

in itself an illustrated epitome of the contents of the whole chronicle, it
appropriately begins the series of Christ’s beneficent works by a beautiful picture of
the nature and design of them all.
(3) In this first miracle we can see what was the motive always of Christ’s miracles.
He did not work miracles to win men’s belief in His mission. On the contrary, we
are told that it was one of His temptations, a temptation constantly resisted by Him,
to use His power for this object without any other motive. It was the reproach He
cast upon the people that except they saw signs and wonders they would not believe.
He would never work a miracle merely for the sake of manifesting His glory.
Whenever the unsympathetic, ignorant crowd clamoured for a sign; whenever with
ill-concealed dislike they cried, “How long dost thou make us to doubt? Show us a
sign from heaven, that we may believe,” He was silent. To create a mere compulsory
consent in minds which had no sympathy with Him was never a sufficient motive.
Was there a sick child tossing in fever, was there a blind beggar by the roadside,
was there a hungry crowd, was there even the joy of a feast interrupted: in these He
could find a worthy occasion for a miracle; but never did He work a miracle merely
for the sake of removing the doubts of reluctant men. His miracles were His kingly
acts, by which He suggested what man’s true life in God’s Kingdom should be and
will be. They were the utterance of what was in Him, the manifestation of His glory,
the glory of One who came to utter the Father’s heart to His strayed children.
Dear Friend! whose presence in the house,
Whose gracious word benign,
Could once, at Cana’s wedding-feast,
Change water into wine,—
Come, visit us, and when dull work
Grows weary, line on line,
Revive our souls, and make us see
Life’s water glow as wine.
Gay mirth shall deepen into joy,
Earth’s hopes shall grow divine,
When Jesus visits us, to turn

Life’s water into wine.
The social talk, the evening fire,
The homely household shrine,
Shall glow with angel-visits when
The Lord pours out the wine.
For when self-seeking turns to love,
Which knows not mine and thine,
The miracle again is wrought,
And water changed to wine.1 [ ote: James Freeman Clarke.]
II
The Glory Manifested
“And manifested his glory.”
This word glory, whether in its Greek or its Roman shape, had a very definite
meaning in the days of the Apostles. It meant the admiration of men. The Greek
word is derived from a root signifying to seem, and expresses that which a man
seems or appears to his fellow-men. The Latin word for glory is expressly defined by
Cicero to mean the love, trust, and admiration of the multitude; and a consequent
opinion that the man is worthy of honour. Glory, in fact, is a relative word, and can
be used only of any being in relation to other rational beings, and their opinion of
him. What the Romans thought glorious in their days is notorious enough. o one
can look upon the picture of a Roman triumph without seeing that their idea of
glory was force, power, brute force, self-willed dominion, selfish aggrandizement.
But this was not the glory which St. John saw in Christ, for His glory was full of
grace, which is incompatible with self-will and selfishness. The Greek’s meaning of
glory is equally notorious. He called it wisdom. We call it craft—the glory of the
sophist, who could prove or disprove anything for gain or display; the glory of the
successful adventurer, whose shrewdness made its market out of the stupidity and
vice of the barbarian. But this is not the glory of Christ, for St. John saw that it was
full of truth. Therefore, neither strength nor craft is the glory of Christ. For the
glory of Christ is the glory of God, and none other, because He is very God, of very

God begotten. In Christ, man sees the unseen, and absolute, and eternal God as He
is, was, and ever will be. And the true glory of God is that God is good.
He was always in possession of glory, but He did not always manifest it. Generally it
was veiled. It was only on rare occasions that He withdrew the veil and allowed it to
flash forth. The sun always has glory, but not always do we see it; but it is made
manifest when the gate of day is opened, when nature is sunned into one beauteous
picture. The musician always has glory, but he manifests it when he elicits from his
instrument the most delicious harmonies. Jesus had glory when His power was silent
and inoperative, but He manifested it when He changed water into wine. He then
showed that He was Lord of nature, that nature was His servant and subject to His
commands.
He believed that all things were one big Miracle, and when a man knows that much
he knows something to go upon. He knew for a certainty that there was nothing
great and nothing little in this world; and day and night he strove to think out his
way into the heart of things, back to the place whence his soul had come.1 [ ote:
Rudyard Kipling.]
To the wise man, the lightning only manifests the electric force which is everywhere,
and which for one moment has become visible. As often as he sees it, it reminds him
that the lightning slumbers invisibly in the dewdrop, and in the mist, and in the
cloud, and binds together every atom of the water that he uses in daily life. But to
the vulgar mind the lightning is something unique, a something which has no
existence except when it appears. There is a fearful glory in the lightning because he
sees it. But there is no startling glory and nothing fearful in the drop of dew,
because he does not know, what the thinker knows, that the flash is there in all its
terrors. So, in the same way, to the half-believer a miracle is the one solitary
evidence of God. Without it he could have no certainty of God’s existence.2 [ ote: F.
W. Robertson.]
We are more sure that God was in Christ when He said, “Rise up, and walk,” than
when He said, with absolving love, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee”: more certain
when He furnished wine for wedding guests, than when He said, “Father, forgive
them; for they know not what they do.” O, a strange, and low, and vulgar
appreciation this of the true glory of the Son of God, the same false conception that
runs through all our life, appearing in every form—God in the storm, and the
earthquake, and the fire, no God in the still small voice; glory in the lightning-flash,
no glory and no God in the lowliness of the dewdrop; glory to intellect and genius,
no glory to gentleness and patience; glory to every kind of power, none to the
inward, invisible strength of the life of God in the soul of Man_1:1 [ ote: F. W.
Robertson.]
In what respects, then, did this first miracle manifest the glory of Christ? What was
there in it to stir the thought and attract the adoration and trust of the disciples?
Was it worthy to be the medium of conveying to their minds the first ideas of His
glory they were to cherish? And what ideas must these have been?

1. It was the glory of creative power.—In this first miracle, Christ enters physical
nature as its King, who can use it for His high ends. ever before has He wrought a
miracle, but in this first command to nature there is no hesitation, no
experimenting, no anxiety, but the easy confidence of a Master. He is either Himself
the Creator of the world He comes to restore to worth and peace, or He is the
Delegate of the Creator. We see in this first miracle that Christ is not an alien or a
usurper, but One who has already the closest connection with us and with all things.
We receive assurance that in Him God is present.
The growth of every seed is a work of creation.2 [ ote: Luther.]
In every grape that hangs upon the vine, water is changed into wine, as the sap
ripens into rich juice. Christ had been doing that all along, in every vineyard and
orchard; and that was His glory. ow He has come to prove that; to draw back the
veil of custom and carnal sense, and manifest Himself. Men had seen the grapes
ripen on the tree; and they were tempted to say, as every one of us is tempted now,
“It is the sun, and the air, the nature of the vine and the nature of the climate, that
make the wine.” Jesus comes and answers, “ ot so; I make the wine; I have been
making it all along. The vines, the sun, the weather, are only My tools, wherewith I
worked, turning rain and sap into wine; and I am greater than they. I made them; I
do not depend on them; I can make wine from water without vines, or sunshine.
Behold, and drink, and see my glory without the vineyard, since you had forgotten
to see it in the vineyard!”1 [ ote: A. A. Brockington, The Seven Signs, 28.]
An Eastern fable says that a boy challenged his teacher to prove the existence of
God by working a miracle. The teacher, who was a Brahmin, procured a large
vessel filled with earth, in which he deposited a kernel. In the place where the kernel
was put a green shoot soon appeared; the stem put forth leaves and branches, which
soon spread over the whole apartment. It then budded with blossoms which,
dropping off, left rich ripe fruits in their place. In the space of an hour the little seed
had grown into a noble tree. The youth, overcome with amazement, exclaimed:
“ ow I know there is a God, for I have seen His power.” The priest smiled, and said,
“Simple child! that which you have seen is going on every day around you, only by a
slower process. Every cocoanut, every pineapple, every banana, every mango, every
guava, is a manifestation of Divine power, and would be considered by us
miraculous if not so common. If the stars appeared only once in a thousand years,
how we should wonder and adore! The thinking brain, the beating heart, the
vibrating nerve, the forests, fields and flowers, the earth and sea teeming with living
organisms, ranging from the jelly-fish up to man, the vast universe, with its starry
worlds, its glorious constellations, its planetary systems all moving to the motions of
the Divine will, are one great miracle. He who created still sustains. The hand that
made all things still holds all things up. In God we live and move and have our
being.”2 [ ote: L. Crookall, Topics in the Tropics, 41.]
Sick of myself and all that keeps the light

Of the blue skies away from me and mine,
I climb this ledge, and by this wind-swept pine
Lingering, watch the coming of the night.
’Tis ever a new wonder to my sight:
Men look to God for some mysterious sign,
For other stars than those that nightly shine,
For some unnatural symbol of His might:—
Would’st see a miracle as graud as those
The Prophets wrought of old in Palestine?
Come watch with me the shaft of fire that glows
In yonder west; the fair, frail palaces,
The fading alps and archipelagoes,
And great cloud-continents of sunset seas.3 [ ote: Thomas Bailey Aldrich.]
2. It was the glory of spiritual truth.—To see this is harder than to discern the
presence of creative power; it requires higher faculties in the soul. Yet most
assuredly Christ’s first miracle meant something more than a natural wonder
brought about by, and indicating the presence of, superhuman power. It was,
besides this, a parable and a prophecy; it was a discovery of laws whereby the King
of the new spiritual empire would govern His subjects.
(1) In Christ’s Kingdom, as at Cana, nature is ever being silently changed into
something higher and better than it was when He came to visit it. Its poor materials
are being gradually transfigured. Christ sits down at the board at which mankind
feasts on the good things provided by the Creator; and when nature fails, as, if
unassisted, she must fail, to satisfy man’s deeper wants, grace does the rest. The
water of man’s natural character is constantly made wine by grace. Easy good-
nature becomes charity towards God and man; well-exercised reason or far-sighted
judgment is heightened into a lively faith which deals with the unseen as with a
reality. The natural virtues, without losing their original strength, are transformed
into their spiritual counterparts; and religion bestows a grace, an intelligence, an
interest in life, a consistency and loftiness of aim, which are recognized by those who
do not comprehend its secret. When a man who has been aimless, selfish,
discontented, ill at ease with his work, and with all around him, suddenly becomes
light-hearted, cheerful, active, ready and rejoicing to spend himself for others; full

of the qualities which are as welcome to man as they are approved by God; of love,
joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance—how is this
to be accounted for, but by His Presence who proclaims, “Behold, I make all things
new!” He does not destroy what was good in the old, but He enriches it by His
invigorating and transforming power, turning the water of nature into the wine of
grace. ow, as at Cana of Galilee, men see the result; they do not see the process by
which it is reached.
(2) At Cana of Galilee, too, we note not merely the secret transforming power of
Christ in His Kingdom, but the law of continuous improvement which marks His
work. The words which the president of the feast addressed to the bridegroom were
an unconscious utterance of high spiritual truth. “Every man at the beginning doth
set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse.”
That is the way of the world; that is the history of the life of animal pleasure, and
even of the life of mental pleasure, when a man’s horizon does not extend beyond
the grave. A time comes when the keenest enjoyments of the past pall upon the taste;
when the finest faculties are sensibly giving out, and everything heralds decay. “But
thou hast kept the good wine until now.” That is the rule of Christ in His Kingdom;
a rule of continuous progress from good to better, from better to best, if man will
only will to have it so.
Whenever we make a grateful review, let it mean instant commitment to a better
future. If the mercies of God have blessedly beset us, let us not build “Three
Tabernacles,” that we may abide; but rather, like Paul, call the places where our
mercies meet us “Three Taverns,” then push on, thank God, and take courage.
Every attainment is to be a footing for new attempts, and every goal a point of
departure. “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”1
[ ote: M. D. Babcock, Thoughts for Every-Day Living, 15.]
3. It was the glory of sanctifying all things natural.—Remember what had gone
before this. The life of John the Baptist was the highest form of religious life known
in Israel. It was the life ascetic. It was a life of solitariness and penitential austerity.
He drank no wine: he ate no pleasant food: he married no wife: he entered into no
human relationship. It was the law of that stern and, in its way, sublime life, to cut
out every human feeling as a weakness, and to mortify every natural instinct, in
order to cultivate an intenser spirituality—a life in its own order grand, but
indisputably unnatural.
(1) It was Christ’s glory to declare the sacredness of all natural relationships. The
first public act of His life was to go with His disciples to a marriage. He consecrated
marriage, and the sympathies which lead to marriage. He declared the sacredness of
feelings which had been reckoned carnal, and low, and human. He stamped His
image on human joys, human connections, human relationships. He pronounced
that they are more than human—as it were sacramental: the means whereby God’s
presence comes to us; the types and shadows whereby higher and deeper
relationships become possible to us.

(2) It was His glory to declare the sacredness of all natural enjoyments. It was not a
marriage only, but a marriage-feast, to which Christ conducted His disciples. ow
we cannot get over this plain fact by saying that it was a religious ceremony; that
would be mere sophistry. It was an indulgence in the festivity of life; as plainly as
words can describe, here was a banquet of human enjoyment. The very language of
the master of the feast about men who had well drunk tells us that there had been,
not excess of course, but happiness there and merry-making. either can we explain
away the lesson by saying that it is no example to us, for Christ was there to do
good, and that what was safe for Him might be unsafe for us. For if His life is no
pattern for us here in this case of accepting an invitation, in what can we be sure it is
a pattern? Besides, He took His disciples there, and His mother was there; they were
not shielded, as He was, by immaculate purity. He was there as a guest at first, as
Messiah only afterwards: thereby He declared the sacredness of natural enjoyments.
He comes, the Man of Sorrows, with the gift of joy in His hand. It is not an
unworthy object—not unworthy, I mean, of a Divine sacrifice—to make men glad.
It is worth His while to come from Heaven to agonize and to die, in order that He
may sprinkle some drops of incorruptible and everlasting joy over the weary and
sorrowful hearts of earth. We do not always give its true importance to gladness in
the economy of our lives, because we are so accustomed to draw our joys from
ignoble sources that in most of our joys there is something not altogether creditable
or lofty. But Christ came to bring gladness, and to transform its earthly sources into
heavenly fountains; and so to change all the less sweet, satisfying, and potent
draughts which we take from earth’s cisterns into the wine of the Kingdom; the new
wine, strong and invigorating, “making glad the heart of man.”1 [ ote: A.
Maclaren.]
(3) Christ saves not from, but in, life’s common paths. He shares the joy at Cana, the
sorrow at Bethany. Heaven and holiness are not here or there. They are where Jesus
is, and Jesus walks the ordinary levels of life. The ascetic life of abstinence, of
fasting, austerity, singularity, is the lower and earthlier form of religion. The life of
godliness is the glory of Christ. It is a thing far more striking to the vulgar
imagination to be religious after the type and pattern of John the Baptist—to fast—
to mortify every inclination—to be found at no feast—to wrap ourselves in
solitariness, and abstain from all social joys; yes, and far easier so to live, and far
easier so to win a character for religiousness. A silent man is easily reputed wise. A
man who suffers none to see him in the common jostle and undress of life easily
gathers round him a mysterious veil of unknown sanctity, and men honour him for
a saint. The unknown is always wonderful. But the life of Him whom men called “a
gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners,” was a far
harder and a far heavenlier religion.
To shroud ourselves in no false mist of holiness: to dare to show ourselves as we are,
making no solemn affectation of reserve or difference from others; to be found at
the marriage-feast; to accept the invitation of the rich Pharisee Simon, and the
scorned Publican Zaccheus; to mix with the crowd of men, using no affected
singularity, content to be creatures “not too bright or good for human nature’s daily

food”; and yet for a man amidst it all to remain a consecrated spirit, his trials and
his solitariness known only to his Father—a being set apart, not of this world, alone
in the heart’s deeps with God; to put the cup of this world’s gladness to his lips, and
yet be unintoxicated; to gaze steadily on all its grandeur, and yet be undazzled, plain
and simple in personal desires; to feel its brightness, and yet defy its thrall—this is
the difficult, and rare, and glorious life of God in the soul of man. This was the
peculiar glory of the life of Christ which was manifested in that first miracle which
Jesus wrought at the marriage-feast in Cana of Galilee.1 [ ote: F. W. Robertson.]
4. It was the glory of condescending love.—The graciousness which Christ showed
at that marriage-feast is neither more nor less than the boundless love of God, who
could not live alone in the abyss, but must needs, out of His own Divine Charity,
create the universe, that He might have somewhat besides Himself whereon to pour
out the ocean of His love, which finds its own happiness in giving happiness to all
created things, from the loftiest of rational beings down to the gnat which dances in
the sun, and, for aught we know, to the very lichen which nestles in the Alpine rock.
(1) We may see in Christ’s condescending love at Cana a ray of that love which
redeemed the world. He was present, in all senses, as one of the guests; and His
conduct at the feast was marked by the tenderest consideration for the feelings of
the poor family, who were making the best of their brief day of festive joy. He saved
them from the disappointment of being unable to entertain their friends; He added
somewhat, we may well believe, to their household store besides; but He did this in
such a manner as to hide His hand, and to lay them at the moment and before the
guests under no embarrassing sense of obligation towards Himself. What is this but
the glory of God’s own bountiful Providence? Man, when he would assist his
brother man, too often parades his benevolence; God gives us all that we have so
unobtrusively that most of us altogether forget the Giver. We are the spoiled
children of His love; we credit chance, or good fortune, or our own energy or far-
sightedness, with the blessings which come only from Him. Yet He does not on that
account inflict upon us the perpetual sense of our indebtedness.
(2) We have a token of His love in that He supplies the deficiencies of earthly
sources. “The mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.” The world’s
banquet runs out, Christ supplies an infinite gift. These great waterpots that stood
there, if the whole contents of them were changed, as is possible, contained far more
than sufficient for the modest wants of the little company. The water that flowed
from each of them in obedience to the touch of the servant’s hand, if the change
were effected then, as is possible, would flow on so long as any thirsted or any asked.
And Christ gives to each of us, if we choose, a fountain that will spring up unto life
eternal. And when the world’s platters are empty, and the world’s cups are all
drained dry, He will feed and satisfy the immortal hunger and the blessed thirst of
every spirit that longs for Him.
(3) The revelation of the glory of the Son is not limited to the knowledge of the fact
of His being, and of His presence in the midst; it is a knowledge of the way in which
He works, and an imitation of the same. At Cana of Galilee He was pleased to add to

the world’s joy; He took compassion upon people whose cups were empty or half
empty, and the more compassion, perhaps, because they were acting as if the cups
were not empty. He made up that which lacked, and looked into the faces of the
guests and said, “Lacked ye anything?” and every one could have answered,
“ othing, Lord, nothing!” Hard by, on a neighbouring hillside, is a second town,
little known but for His presence, where He occupied Himself in subtracting from
the world’s pain; from ain to Cana is a very short journey geographically: how far
is it in everyday life? When there is a wedding in one street, there is always a
funeral in the next. Christ attends both, because to add to the world’s joy and to
subtract from its pain are the alternating currents of the Eternal Love; and it is in
these ministries, which belong to one sacred Person, who is equally at home in
either, because eternally occupied in both, that we see the glory of the Son, who
would not tell us by precept to rejoice with them that do rejoice and to weep with
them that weep, unless He had furnished the perfect example that corresponds to
the perfect precept. evertheless, we do not chiefly, and certainly not only, call Him
the Man of Sorrows, for His highest title is the Master of the Feast, the Bridegroom.
(4) This first miracle is emblematic of the whole redemptive work of Christ. Is it
possible that while He first put forth His power to restore the joy of these wedding
guests, He should not have seen in the wine a symbol of the blood He was to shed for
the refreshment and revival of men? The Baptist, whose mind was nourished with
Old Testament ideas, called Christ the Bridegroom, and His people the Bride. Must
not Jesus also have thought of those who believed in Him as His bride, and must not
the very sight of a marriage have set His thoughts working regarding His whole
relation to men? It is to the marriage supper of the Lamb, of Him who was slain,
and has redeemed us by His blood, that we are invited. It is the “Lamb’s wife” that
St. John saw adorned as a bride for her Husband. And whosoever would sit down at
that feast which consummates the experience of this life, terminating all its
vacillation of trust and love, and which opens eternal and unlimited joy to the
people of Christ, must wash and make white his garments in this blood. He must not
shrink from the closest fellowship with the purifying love of Christ.
Dr. Johnson, on a famous occasion, pronounced that “this merriment of parsons is
mighty offensive,” which is the judgment of Josephus repeated in another age; and
Dr. Davidson’s imagination of the child Jesus as “grave, retired and sad” is in the
same key. In a half-comic way, that has given the law for men’s behaviour in
church, where they sit with such preternatural solemnity of countenance, as if
religion were, of all interests, the most depressing. But think of Francis, that
troubadour of Christ, with his wealth of sunny inspirations, with song and laughter
and flowers woven in with that perpetual ministry to the Lord and His poor; was
that unevangelical? Or think of Pascal, when his eyes were opened, elated to such an
extent that his sister had to ask what his spiritual director would think of such a
gleeful penitent? Or, above all, think of Jesus and the disciples, these children of the
bride-chamber, who lived one day at a time, and found each as it came the very
flower and glory of days. I suspect that true souls are always hilarious, and that one
step towards the restoration of the evangel in the Church would be the breaking of
this tradition and the letting in of the sun. Dr. Davidson says of Mohammed that he

had that indispensable requisite of a great man, he could laugh with all his might.
And in a follower of Jesus something like that is still desirable.1 [ ote: W. M.
Macgregor, Jesus Christ the Son of God, 115.]
III
The Resulting Faith
“And his disciples believed on him.”
There is nothing more remarkable in the Gospel of St. John than the clearness with
which it brings before us the moral side of miracles. They are emphatically “signs”
or “works”—facts which lead us to look deeper into the mysteries of life as samples
of the silent, unnoticed action of God. And they are represented not only as signs
and works, but also as tests of faith. Christ manifested His glory, “and his disciples
believed on him.”
1. “His disciples believed on him.” It is not said that those who were before
unbelieving were overpowered by what they saw and forced into faith; it is said only
that those who had already followed Christ cast themselves, so to speak, upon Him
with an absolute trust when they recognized the workings of His Divine power. The
outward event might be disregarded or explained away or cavilled at; the inner
meaning was discernible only to the spiritual eye. The wedding guests for the most
part, so far as we know, went away unconscious of the meaning of what they had
witnessed, but the disciples believed.
2. “His disciples believed.” Those who had welcomed Christ and followed Him now
believed on Him. Their “belief” was a response of the soul to Him as one having the
glory of God. It was not necessarily a full recognition of Jesus for what He was, but
it was the personal trust that makes ever-increasing knowledge possible. And as the
disciples’ faith grew, so would their spiritual insight and understanding deepen
more and more.
(1) This was not the beginning of their faith. Jesus had already cast the unearthly
spell of His purity and beauty upon them, and drawn them to His side as the magnet
draws the iron. They had forsaken all and followed Him.
(2) or was it the miracle that first produced their faith. They had already believed,
not as the result of any display of supernatural power, but before any miracle had
been done. Had it not been for this preparedness as the result of previous belief, the
miracle of Cana, wrought as it was, so quietly and naturally, would not have
produced such a profound impression upon the disciples. But brought thus into a
state of quickened sympathy with Him, they understood the significance of the
miracle, and their faith was rewarded and confirmed by it. They knew more
perfectly who He was, and confided in Him more implicitly. The miracle was
wrought in themselves; the water of their previous weak faith was changed into the
wine of a nobler, a more devoted faith, which, working by love, purified their

hearts, and enabled them to overcome every obstacle and temptation as they
followed Jesus in the way.
(3) The disciples did not stop at this rudimentary state of faith, in which they merely
believed in Jesus. They continued to believe in Him; but to this they added in later
life many and illustrious spiritual attainments. But great as were their attainments
in faith, knowledge, righteousness, and grace in after life, they were all rendered
possible by this simple faith.
Saint Cyran was always dwelling on the difference between bodily and spiritual
medicine. A broken leg might heal completely, or a fever be successfully fought; and
then, as he says with a stray touch of humour, the doctor would be mucli annoyed if
his former patients took to haunting his consulting-room. But in spiritual medicine
the patient never got free of his Physician, nor was it fitting that he should.1 [ ote:
Viscount St. Cyres, Pascal, 230.]
3. “His disciples believed on him.” Only in two places does this expression “on him”
occur in all the Synoptic Gospels; and the Apostle Paul, whose vocabulary it more
closely resembles than that of any other Scripture writer, but very rarely uses it. It
denotes the absolute transference of trust from one’s self to another. To believe on
or in a man means so much more than simply to believe him. In believing a man we
confide in the mere truthfulness of his lips; we believe that he is incapable of telling
a falsehood. But in believing on or in a man, we trust the man’s whole being and life,
we confide in himself. The disciples of Jesus not only believed the words of Jesus,
from whose lips no guile could come; they believed in Himself as the fulfilment of all
their hopes and expectations, their highest ideal of the truth. A deeper confidence
than they could have in themselves they had in Him.
(1) Perhaps there were those present who believed the miracle of whom it could not
be said that they believed on Him. The faith of the disciples had passed from a belief
in the act to a belief in the Actor. Jesus Himself stood prominently forth in their
faith. As yet they knew little of Him and of His future plans; He had not told them
who He was; He had given them little, if any, teaching; and thus their faith at this
time was not enriched with the larger conceptions of Him which they had at a later
period. It was an elementary faith; but it had the most vital and vitalizing element,
because it was faith on Him.
(2) The ground of their faith was the knowledge they had acquired of Jesus. Faith
finds its root in knowledge; credulity in ignorance. Jesus had let a little of His glory
shine forth in a beautiful act of power. That act gave a clue to a right knowledge of
Him. By it the disciples were able to form some conception of the kind of Being He
was. And that knowledge enabled them to have faith in Him. Jesus wrought the
faith by the agency of His glory; without this self-revelation the faith would never
have come; the faith was thus His gift. And because of what they did know of Him,
they believed in Him for what they did not know. That is the way in which we, by
understanding something of God, can believe in Him where we do not understand
Him.

Christ required then, as He requires now, a faith based on reason and not on
miracles. Consequently, a miracle does not prove the truth of a doctrine; for the
doctrine must first commend itself to the conscience as good, and only then can the
miracle seal it as Divine. “Miracula sine doctrinâ nihil valent.” Therefore we must
look in every miracle, not only for the Divine power, but also for the Divine wisdom
and goodness. A miracle is not a wonder, but a sign, so that the inward meaning is
more important than the outward form.1 [ ote: G. F. Terry, The Old Theology in
the ew Age, 179.]
4. If the disciples believed on Him when they saw Him furnish these wedding guests
with wine, shall we not believe, who know that through all these ages He has
furnished the pained and the poor with hope and consolation, the desolate and
broken-hearted with restoring sympathy, the outcast with the knowledge of God’s
love, the sinner with pardon, with heaven, and with God? Is not the glory He
showed at this marriage in Cana precisely what still attracts us to Him with
confidence and affection? Can we not wholly trust this Lord who has a perfect
sympathy guiding His Divine power, who brings the presence of God into all the
details of human life, who enters into all our joys and all our sorrows, and is ever
watchful to anticipate our every need, and supply it out of His inexhaustible and all-
sufficient fulness? Happy they who know His heart as His mother knew it, and are
satisfied to name their want and leave it with Him.
All power, properly so called, is wise and benevolent. There may be capacity in a
drifting fire-ship to destroy a fleet; there may be venom enough in a dead body to
infect a nation:—but which of you, the most ambitious, would desire a drifting
kinghood, robed in consuming fire, or a poison-dipped sceptre whose touch was
mortal? There is no true potency, remember, but that of help; nor true ambition,
but ambition to save.2 [ ote: Ruskin, The Crown of Wild Olive (Works, xviii. 478).]
12 After this he went down to Capernaum with
his mother and brothers and his disciples. There
they stayed for a few days.
BAR ES, "To Capernaum - See the notes at Mat_4:13.
Not many days - The reason why he remained there no longer was that the Passover
was near, and they went up to Jerusalem to attend it.

GILL, "After this he went down to Capernaum,.... After he had been at Cana, and
at the wedding there: after he had wrought the miracle of turning water into wine; and
after he had manifested forth the glory of his deity thereby, and had confirmed the faith
of his disciples, he departed from thence, and went lower into the country of Galilee, to
Capernaum, a city near the sea of Tiberias; and which, from henceforward, he made the
more usual place of his residence, and whither he frequently resorted, and therefore it is
called his city, Mat_9:1. This refers not to the same journey recorded in Mat_4:12, for
that was after John was cast into prison, whereas this was before; see Joh_3:24; the
company that went with him, are as follow,
he, and his mother; who had been with him at Cana, and was a principal person at
the wedding: and she now returning home, he accompanies her, to see her to her own
habitation; or to settle her in Capernaum, whilst he went about discharging his public
ministry.
And his brethren; or near kinsmen, according to the flesh, the sons of Alphaeus, or
Cleophas, and Mary, sister to the mother of our Lord; whose names were James, Joses,
Simon, and Judas, three of which afterwards became his apostles:
and his disciples: as many as he had yet called, which were Andrew, and the disciple
that followed Jesus with him, and Simon Peter, and Philip, and Nathanael,
and they continued there not many days; not because of the impenitence,
unbelief, and wickedness of the place, but for the reason following.
HE RY, "I. The short visit Christ made to Capernaum, Joh_2:12. It was a large and
populous city, about a day's journey from Cana; it is called his own city (Mat_9:1),
because he made it his head-quarters in Galilee, and what little rest he had was there. It
was a place of concourse, and therefore Christ chose it, that the fame of his doctrine and
miracles might thence spread the further. Observe,
1. The company that attended him thither: his mother, his brethren, and his disciples.
Wherever Christ went, (1.) He would not go alone, but would take those with him who
had put themselves under his guidance, that he might instruct them, and that they might
attest his miracles. (2.) He could not go alone, but they would follow him, because they
liked the sweetness either of his doctrine or of his wine, Joh_6:26. His mother, though
he had lately given her to understand that in the works of his ministry he should pay no
more respect to her than to any other person, yet followed him; not to intercede with
him, but to learn of him. His brethren also and relations, who were at the marriage and
were wrought upon by the miracle there, and his disciples, who attended him wherever
he went. It should seem, people were more affected with Christ's miracles at first than
they were afterwards, when custom made them seem less strange.
2. His continuance there, which was at this time not many days, designing now only
to begin the acquaintance he would afterwards improve there. Christ was still upon the
remove, would not confine his usefulness to one place, because many needed him. And
he would teach his followers to look upon themselves but as sojourners in this world,
and his ministers to follow their opportunities, and go where their work led them. We do
not now find Christ in the synagogues, but he privately instructed his friends, and thus
entered upon his work by degrees. It is good for young ministers to accustom
themselves to pious and edifying discourse in private, that they may with the better

preparation, and greater awe, approach their public work. He did not stay long at
Capernaum, because the passover was at hand, and he must attend it at Jerusalem; for
every thing is beautiful in its season. The less good must give way to the greater, and all
the dwellings of Jacob must give place to the gates of Zion.
JAMIESO , "Capernaum — on the Sea of Galilee. (See on Mat_9:1).
his mother and his brethren — (See on Luk_2:51, and see on Mat_13:54-56).
BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. How obedient in all things Christ was to the ceremonial
law. he was not naturally subject to the law, but, to fulfil all righteousness, he kept the
passover yearly, according to the command of God, That all the males should appear
before him Exodus 23:17 in the temple at Jerusalem.
Hence it is probably concluded, that Christ came up to the passover continually during
his private life; and being now come up to Jerusalem to this first passover after his
baptism, and solemn entrance upon his office, his first walk was to purge and reform it
from abuses, not to ruin and destroy it, because it had been abused.
Now the abuse and profanation of the temple at that time was this: in the outward
court of the Gentiles, there was a public mart or market, where were sold oxen, sheep,
and doves, for sacrifice; which otherwise the people, with great labour and trouble, must
have brought up along with them for sacrifice. Therefore as a pretended ease to the
people, the priests ordered these things to be sold hard by the altar; the intention was
commendable, but the action not justifiable. No pretence of good ends can justify that
which is forbidden of God: a good end can never justify an irregular action.
Observe, 2. Our Saviour's fervent zeal in purging and reforming his Father's house.
The sight of sin in any persons, but especially in and among professors, ought to kindle
in our hearts (as it did here in Christ's breast) a burning zeal and indignation against it.
Yet was not Christ's zeal so warm as to devote the temple to destruction, because of its
abuse and profanation. Places dedicated to the worship and service of God, if
idolatrously abused, must not be pulled down, but purged; not ruined, but reformed.
There is a special reverence due to the house of God, but for the Owner's sake, and the
service's sake. Nothing but holiness becomes that place, where God is worshipped in the
beauty of holiness. Christ by purging the court of the Gentiles from merchandise, not
unlawful in itself, but necessary for the sacrifices which were offered in the temple,
though not necessary to be brought there, did plainly insinuate, that a distinction is to be
made betwixt places sacred and profane; and that what may be done as well elsewhere,
ought not to be done in the house of God, the place appointed immediately for his
worship.
Observe, 3. The greatness of this miracle, in the weakness of the means which Christ
made use of to effect and work it: he drove the buyers and sellers before him out of the
temple.
But how and with what?

St. Jerome, in Matthew 21:1 and following says , That certain fiery rays or beams,
darting from Christ's eyes, drove out these merchants from this place. I dare not avouch
this, but I am satisfied that Christ drove them out, unarmed with any weapons that
might carry dread and terror with them, at most but with a whip of small cords; which
probably might be scattered by the drovers that came thither to sell their cattle.
Behold then the weakness of the means on the one side, and consider the greatness of
the opposition on the other. Here was a confluence of people to oppose Christ, this being
the most solemn mart of the passover, and here were merchantmen, whose hearts were
set upon gain (the world's god) to oppose him. But neither the weakness of the means,
nor the greatness of the opposition, did dismay him, or cause our Saviour to desist from
the attempt of reforming what was amiss in the house of God.
Learn we hence, that it matters not how weak the means of the church-reformation is,
nor how strong the opposing power is; if we engage Christ in the undertaking, the work
shall certainly be accomplished.
O, how great was the work, and how weak and unlikely were the means here! a parcel
of sturdy fellows, whose hearts were set upon their wealth, Christ no sooner speaks to
them, and shakes his whip at them, but like a company of fearful hares they run before
him. Christ, in purging of his church, will make every thing yield and give way to his
power. Let it comfort the church under all unlikelihood of reformation. Who art thou, O
great mountain? before our spiritual Zerubbabel, thou shalt become a plain.
I shall close my observations upon this miracle of Christ's whipping the buyers and
sellers out of the temple, which both Origen and St. Jerome do make the greatest miracle
that ever Christ wrought, all circumstances considered; I shall close it with this
reflection, viz. Was there such power and terror in Christ's countenance and speech here
in the temple in the days of his flesh? Oh, how terrible then will his face and his
appearance be to the wicked and impenitent world at the great day! Lord! how fearful
will his iron courage then be; how terrifying that voice, "Depart, depart from me, depart
accursed, depart into fire: depart into everlasting fire, into a fire prepared for the
punishment of apostate spirits, the devil and his angels!" God grant we may wisely
consider it, and timely flee from the wrath to come.
HAWKER 12-17, "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his
brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days. (13) And the Jews’
passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, (14) And found in the temple
those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting: (15) And
when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the
sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; (16)
And he said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s
house an house of merchandize. (17) And his disciples remembered that it was written,
The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
I pass by every lesser consideration contained in those verses, to attend to that one event
here recorded, of our Lord’s making a scourge of small cords, and driving the buyers and
sellers out of the Temple. If the Reader coolly and deliberately turns over in his mind the

wonderful event here recorded, perhaps when all the circumstances are taken together
into one point of view, and duly pondered, he will be inclined to think, with me, that
excepting that one miracle mentioned by this same Evangelist, Joh_18:6, of the armed
soldiers falling to the ground at the mere word of Christ, in answer to their question; this
is the greatest miracle Christ wrought in the days of his flesh. Let the Reader figure to
himself the Lord Jesus, thus going into the Temple, carrying everything before him;
driving the herds of cattle; overturning the tables; and pouring out the changer’s money:
and not a creature daring to resist him! What invincible power must have shone forth in
his countenance! how their minds must have been overawed? Such indeed was the
consternation on their part, and such the majesty that shone in Christ, that it brought
the passage of the Prophet to the Apostles’ minds; and they then saw the
accomplishment of it. Psa_69:9. And to the same purport where the Lord again speaks:
Psa_119:139. And what I beg yet more particularly the Reader to notice in this miracle, is
the words of Jesus, when he was driving all before him: Make not my Father’s house an
house of merchandize! No prophet ever used such language. None but Christ ever called
God Father! Neither did ever God call any among all his prophets, Sons. It is Jesus only,
which useth this name. And Christ only whom God so owns. Let the Reader, while he
views, and reviews, this wonderful transaction, turn to the prophecy of Malachi, and
read the first five verses of the third Chapter; and then ask himself, whether this was not
the Lord of his Temple so accurately described in the Portrait of Prophecy; and so
completely answered by the original, when this event of purging the Temple took place?
I must not close my observations on this transaction, without first remarking to the
Reader, that I conceive our Lord made another visit of the same kind to the Temple, just
before his crucifixion. But if he compares the scripture where that second cleansing is
related, with this; he will find, that there is between them a difference. Indeed it could
hardly be one and the same, because this which John relates, was in the early part of
Christ’s ministry; whereas, the other was nearly at the close of it. See Mat_21:12-13.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, "After this, He went down into Capernaum
Christ at Capernaum
It is not needful to inquire what His errand was there, and upon what occasion His
mother and brethren went with Him; whether because Joseph was new dead, and so He
took care of His mother, or because they would convey Him on His way, or because His
brethren were to go up to Jerusalem with Him; only this voyage was before that Mat_
4:13), when He came to dwell in Capernaum, for then John was cast in prison (Mat_
4:12), but now he was not (Joh_3:24).
I. Christ was content to submit Himself to the wanting of a certain abode and settled
dwelling in the world, that He might sanctify our pilgrimage and tossed condition to us,
and to invite His followers willingly to be removed from place to place, as He hath
service for them. So much are we taught by this His removal.
II. Christ hath errands in eminent places as well as obscure, and will not despise them
for their eminency more than the base for their baseness; and He can make the work of
His kingdom in a land advance from obscure beginnings and places, to be more eminent
and conspicuous. So much may we gather from Christ’s going out of obscure Cana to
Capernaum, a chief city in Galilee.
III. As it is wisdom in Christ’s own to go still in His company, so others also may be with

Him so long as His way and theirs lieth together, or when He is working gloriously and
His gospel hath credit; for, after this miracle, we find not only His mother and disciples,
but His brethren or kinsfolk with Him, who yet believed not in Him (Joh_7:5).
IV. Christ may stay longer or shorter while, and do little or much in a place, as He
pleaseth; and particularly He stayeth or removeth according as may contribute to
advance the great work of His glory and of sinners’ salvation; for He continued there not
many days, as having more to do at this time in Jerusalem. (D. Dyke.)
COFFMAN, "Capernaum ... was a principal city on Lake Galilee and a scene of many of
our Lord's most notable deeds. Of this city, he said:
Thou Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt go down unto Hades:
for if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in thee, it would have
remained until this day (Matthew 11:23).
This curse upon Capernaum has been literally fulfilled, the very site of the place hardly
being known today. The fact that the mighty deeds and preaching of Christ himself were
ineffective there leads to some reflections on the subject of evangelism.
EVANGELISM
Many evangelists, especially young ones, seem to believe that given the proper methods,
reinforced with zealous and attractive personnel, just about any city or province may be
taken for the Lord. Such determination and zeal are commendable so long as it is
remembered that, in the last analysis, each community, and every person, has the final
word on whether or not it or he will serve the Lord, and that no method, personality,
system, or anything else can win the whole world for Jesus Christ, bind it in golden
chains, and lay it at the Redeemer's feet, the insurmountable obstacle being what it has
ever been, the stubborn will of sinful and unregenerated people.
Take the case of Capernaum: It must be admitted that Jesus was an effective and
powerful evangelist, being himself none other than the glorious Head of our holy
religion. Moreover, his helpers had the rank of apostles, being capable, industrious,
diligent, and intelligent persons; and they knew the territory, five of them having been
brought up in the suburbs of Capernaum. Yes, and Jesus got the community's attention.
He raised Jarius' daughter from the dead, and Jairus was the ruler of the synagogue
(Mark 5:22). He healed the centurion's servant, and the centurion commanded the
Roman military presence in the city and was doubtless the richest man in the whole
area, having built the Jews a synagogue (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-5). Also, the Lord
cured the son of the king's personal representative in that town, called "a certain
nobleman" (John 4:46ff). If such deeds did not get the total attention of Capernaum,
nothing could have done it. Add to all this the impassioned preaching of the Son of God,
and one is forced to the conclusion that there is no way that Capernaum could have been
won for the Lord. Who can doubt this? The intangible factor in evangelism is the people
themselves, every individual one of them, each having the power to oppose the heavenly
will if he so decides. Are there such places as Capernaum today? You'd better believe it.

Illustration: A large dog food company had a convention in a great city for hundreds of
their salesmen; and, with the great auditorium overflowing with salesmen, the president
of the company made his presentation.
"Look at this," he said. "This beautiful golden can with the red label holds thirteen
ounces of pure protein; it will make your dog's coat silky, his teeth white, and his
disposition adorable. It has all the vitamins and minerals added and costs only 39 cents
a can; why can't you go out and sell a billion cans of it?"
Pausing dramatically to let the import of his tremendous message sink in, he was
dumbfounded and the convention propelled into a near riot, when, from away up in the
balcony, somebody shouted, "The dogs don't like it!"
That is the way it is, alas, with the gospel of Christ. As long as people prefer to commit
fornication and drink liquor rather than serve the Lord, many a loving message of faith
and salvation shall fail of its intended fruit.
His mother and his brethren ... This is the first mention of Jesus' brothers in John; and
it is clear from John 7:5 that they did not yet believe in him. Regarding the question of
whether or not these were sons borne by the mother of Jesus, reference is made to my
Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 13:55-56. It is the conviction of this writer that there
is no good reason for understanding "brothers" in this passage in any unusual manner.
CALVI , "12.He went down to Capernaum. The Evangelist passes to an additional
narrative; for having resolved to collect a few things worthy of remembrance which
the other three had left out, he states the time when the occurrence which he is
about to relate took place; for the other three also relate what we here read that
Christ did, but the diversity of the time shows that it was a similar event, but not the
same. On two occasions, then, did Christ cleanse the temple from base and profane
merchandise; once, when he was beginning to discharge his commission, and
another time, (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45,) when he was about to
leave the world and go to the Father, (John 16:28.)
To obtain a general view of the passage, it will be necessary briefly to examine the
details in their order. That oxen, and sheep, and doves, were exposed to salein the
temple, and that money-changers were sitting there, was not without a plausible
excuse. For they might allege that the merchandise transacted there was not
irreligious, but, on the contrary, related to the sacred worship of God, that every
person might obtain, without difficulty, what he might offer to the Lord; and,
certainly, it was exceedingly convenient for godly persons to find oblations of any
sort laid ready to their hand, and in this way to be freed from the trouble of running
about in various directions to obtain them. We are apt to wonder, therefore, why

Christ was so highly displeased with it. But there are two reasons which deserve our
attention. First, as the Priests abused this merchandise for their own gain and
avarice, such a mockery of God could not be endured. Secondly, whatever excuse
men may plead, as soon as they depart, however slightly, from the command of God,
they deserve reproof and need correction. And this is the chief reason why Christ
undertook to purify the temple; for he distinctly states that the temple of God is not
a place of merchandise
But it may be asked, Why did he not rather begin with doctrine? For it seems to be a
disorderly and improper method to apply the hand for correcting faults, before the
remedy of doctrine has been applied. But Christ had a different object in view: for
the time being now at hand when he would publicly discharge the office assigned to
him by the Father, he wished in some way to take possession of the temple, and to
give a proof of his divine authority. And that all might be attentive to his doctrine, it
was necessary that something new and strange should be done to awaken their
sluggish and drowsy minds. ow,the temple was a sanctuary of heavenly doctrine
and of true religion. Since he wished to restore purity of doctrine, it was of great
importance that he should prove himself to be the Lord of the temple. Besides, there
was no other way in which he could bring back sacrifices and the other exercises of
religion to their spiritual design than by removing the abuse of them. What he did at
that time was, therefore, a sort of preface to that reformation which the Father had
sent him to accomplish. In a word, it was proper that the Jews should be aroused by
this example to expect from Christ something that was unusual and out of the
ordinary course; and it was also necessary to remind them that the worship of God
had been corrupted and perverted, that they might not object to the reformation of
those abuses
And his brethren. Why the brethren of Christ accompanied him, cannot be
determined with certainty, unless, perhaps, they intended to go along with him to
Jerusalem. The word brethren, it is well known, is employed, in the Hebrew
language, to denote cousins and other relatives.
BARCLAY, "THE A GER OF JESUS (John 2:12-16)
2:12-16 After this Jesus went down to Capernaum with his mother and his brothers
and his disciples; and they stayed there for a short time.
The Passover Feast of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the
Temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-
changers sitting at their tables. He made a scourge of cords and drove them all out
of the Temple, and the sheep and the oxen as well. He scattered the coins of the
exchangers and overturned their tables. He said to those who were selling doves:
"Take these away and stop making my Father's house a house of trade."
After the wedding feast at Cana of Galilee, Jesus and his friends returned for a
short visit to Capernaum, on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee and about twenty
miles distant.

Shortly after this Jesus set out to observe the Passover Feast in Jerusalem. The
Passover fell on the 15th isan, which is about the middle of April; and, according
to the law, it was obligatory for every adult male Jew who lived within fifteen miles
of Jerusalem to attend the feast.
Here we have a very interesting thing. At first sight John has a quite different
chronology of the life of Jesus from that of the other three gospels. In them Jesus is
depicted as going to Jerusalem only once. The Passover Feast at which he was
crucified is the only one they mention, and his only visit to Jerusalem except the visit
to the Temple when he was a boy. But in John we find Jesus making frequent visits
to Jerusalem. John tells us of no fewer than three Passovers--this present one, the
one in John 6:4 and the one in John 11:55. In addition, according to John's story,
Jesus was in Jerusalem for an unnamed feast in John 5:1; for the Feast of
Tabernacles in John 7:2; John 7:10; and for the Feast of the Dedication in John
10:22. In point of fact in the other three gospels the main ministry of Jesus is in
Galilee; in John Jesus is in Galilee only for brief periods (John 2:1-12; John 4:43-54;
John 5:1; John 6:1-7; John 14:1-31 ), and his main ministry is in Jerusalem.
The truth is that there is no real contradiction here. John and the others are telling
the story from different points of view. They do not contradict but complement each
other. Matthew, Mark and Luke concentrate on the ministry in Galilee; John
concentrates on the ministry in Jerusalem. Although the other three tell us of only
one visit to Jerusalem and one Passover there, they imply that there must have been
many others. At his last visit they show us Jesus mourning over Jerusalem: "O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!
How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood
under her wings, and you would not!" (Matthew 23:37). Jesus could never have
spoken like that if he had not made repeated appeals to Jerusalem and if the visit at
which he was crucified was his first. We ought not to talk about the contradictions
between the Fourth Gospel and the other three, but to use them all to get as
complete a picture of the life of Jesus as possible.
But there is a real difficulty we must face. This passage tells of the incident known
as the Cleansing of the Temple. John sets it right at the beginning of the ministry of
Jesus, while the other three gospel writers set it right at the end (Matthew 21:12-13;
Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46). This definitely needs explanation and various
explanations have been put forward.
(i) It is suggested that Jesus cleansed the Temple twice, once at the beginning and
once at the end of his ministry. That is not very likely, because if he had done this
staggering thing once, it is very unlikely that he would ever have had the chance to
do it again. His reappearance in the Temple would have been a sign for such
precautions to be taken that a repetition of it would not have been possible.
(ii) It is suggested that John is right and that the other three are wrong. But the
incident fits in much better at the end of Jesus' ministry. It is the natural succession

to the blazing courage of the Triumphal Entry and the inevitable prelude to the
Crucifixion. If we have to choose between John's dating and the dating of the other
three, we must choose the dating of the three.
(iii) It is suggested that when John died he left his gospel not completely finished;
that he left the various incidents written out on separate sheets of papyrus and not
bound together. It is then suggested that the sheet containing the account of this
incident got out of place and was inserted near the beginning of the manuscript
instead of near the end. That is quite possible, but it involves assuming that the
person who arranged the manuscript did not know the correct order, which is
difficult to believe when he must have known at least some of the other gospels.
(iv) We must always remember that John, as someone has said, is more interested in
the truth than in the facts. He is not interested in writing a chronological biography
of Jesus but supremely interested in showing Jesus as the Son of God and the
Messiah. It is probable that John was thinking back to the great prophecies of the
coming of the Messiah. "And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his
temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight; behold he is coming,
says the Lord of Hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming and who can
stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap ... he will
purify the sons of Levi ... till they present right offerings to the Lord. Then the
offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord, as in the days of old,
and as in former years" (Malachi 3:1-4). John had these tremendous prophecies
ringing in his mind. He was not interested to tell men when Jesus cleansed the
Temple; he was supremely interested in telling men that Jesus did cleanse the
Temple, because that cleansing was the act of the promised Messiah of God. All the
likelihood is that John put this tremendous incident here to set in the very forefront
of his story the great fact that Jesus was the Messiah of God come to cleanse the
worship of men and to open the door to God. It is not the date that John is
interested in; the date does not matter; his great concern is to show that Jesus'
actions prove him to be the promised one of God. Right at the beginning he shows us
Jesus acting as God's Messiah must act.
THE A GER OF JESUS (John 2:12-16 continued)
ow let us see why Jesus acted as he did. His anger is a terrifying thing; the picture
of Jesus with the whip is an awe-inspiring sight. We must see what moved Jesus to
this white-hot anger in the Temple Courts.
The passover was the greatest of all the Jewish feasts. As we have already seen, the
law laid it down that every adult male Jew who lived within fifteen miles of
Jerusalem was bound to attend it. But it was not only the Jews in Palestine who
came to the Passover. By this time Jews were scattered all over the world, but they
never forgot their ancestral faith and their ancestral land; and it was the dream and
aim of every Jew, no matter in what land he stayed, to celebrate at least one
Passover in Jerusalem. Astonishing as it may sound, it is likely that as many as two
and a quarter million Jews sometimes assembled in the Holy City to keep the
Passover.

There was a tax that every Jew over nineteen years of age must pay. That was the
Temple tax. It was necessary that all should pay that tax so that the Temple
sacrifices and the Temple ritual might be carried out day by day. The tax was one
half-shekel. We must always remember, when we are thinking of sums of money,
that at this time a working man's wage was about less than 4 pence per day. The
value of a half-shekel was about 6 p. It was, therefore, equivalent to almost two
days' wages. For all ordinary purposes in Palestine all kinds of currency were valid.
Silver coins from Rome and Greece and Egypt and Tyre and Sidon and Palestine
itself all were in circulation and all were valid. But the Temple tax had to be paid
either in Galilaean shekels or in shekels of the sanctuary. These were Jewish coins,
and so could be used as a gift to the Temple; the other currencies were foreign and
so were unclean; they might be used to pay ordinary debts, but not a debt to God.
Pilgrims arrived from all over the world with all kinds of coins. So in the Temple
courts there sat the money-changers. If their trade had been straightforward they
would have been fulfilling an honest and a necessary purpose. But what they did
was to charge one ma'ah, a coin worth about 1 pence, for every half-shekel they
changed, and to charge another ma'ah on every half-shekel of change they had to
give if a larger coin was tendered. So, if a man came with a coin the value of which
was two shekels, he had to pay 1 pence to get it changed, and other 3 pence to get his
change of three half-shekels. In other words the money-changers made 4 pence out
of him--and that, remember, was one day's wage.
The wealth which accrued from the Temple tax and from this method of money-
changing was fantastic. The annual revenue of the Temple from the Temple tax has
been estimated at 75,000 British pounds, and the annual profit of the money-
changers at 9,000 British pounds. When Crassus captured Jerusalem and raided the
Temple treasury in 54 B.C. he took from it 2,500,000 British pounds without coming
near to exhausting it.
The fact that the money-changers received some discount when they changed the
coins of the pilgrims was not in itself wrong. The Talmud laid it down: "It is
necessary that everyone should have half a shekel to pay for himself. Therefore
when he comes to the exchange to change a shekel for two half-shekels he is obliged
to allow the money-changer some gain." The word for this discount was kollubos
and the money-changers are called kollubistai (Greek #2855). This word kollubos
produced the comedy character name Kollybos in Greek and Collybus in Latin,
which meant much the same as Shylock in English.
What enraged Jesus was that pilgrims to the Passover who could ill afford it, were
being fleeced at an exorbitant rate by the money-changers. It was a rampant and
shameless social injustice--and what was worse, it was being done in the name of
religion.
Besides the money-changers there were also the sellers of oxen and sheep and doves.
Frequently a visit to the Temple meant a sacrifice. Many a pilgrim would wish to

make thank-offering for a favourable journey to the Holy City; and most acts and
events in life had their appropriate sacrifice. It might therefore seem to be a natural
and helpful thing that the victims for the sacrifices could be bought in the Temple
court. It might well have been so. But the law was that any animal offered in
sacrifice must be perfect and unblemished. The Temple authorities had appointed
inspectors (mumcheh) to examine the victims which were to be offered. The fee for
inspection was 1 pence. If a worshipper bought a victim outside the Temple, it was
to all intents and purposes certain that it would be rejected after examination. Again
that might not have mattered much, but a pair of doves could cost as little as 4 pence
outside the Temple, and as much as 75 pence inside. Here again was bare-faced
extortion at the expense of poor and humble pilgrims, who were practically
blackmailed into buying their victims from the Temple booths if they wished to
sacrifice at all--once more a glaring social injustice aggravated by the fact that it
was perpetrated in the name of pure religion.
It was that which moved Jesus to flaming anger. We are told that he took cords and
made a whip. Jerome thinks that the very sight of Jesus made the whip unnecessary.
"A certain fiery and starry light shone from his eyes, and the majesty of the
Godhead gleamed in his face." Just because Jesus loved God, he loved God's
children, and it was impossible for him to stand passively by while the worshippers
of Jerusalem were treated in this way.
THE A GER OF JESUS (John 2:12-16 continued)
We have seen that it was the exploitation of the pilgrims by conscienceless men
which moved Jesus to immediate wrath; but there were deep things behind the
cleansing of the Temple. Let us see if we can penetrate to the even deeper reasons
why Jesus took this drastic step.
o two of the evangelists give Jesus' words in precisely the same way. They all
remembered their own version. It is only by putting all the accounts together that
we get a true picture of what Jesus said. So then let us set down the different ways in
which the writers report the words of Jesus. Matthew gives them as: "My house
shall be called a house of prayer, but you make it a den of robbers" (Matthew
21:13). Mark has it: "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations.
But you have made it a den of robbers" (Mark 11:17). Luke has it: "My house shall
be a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of robbers" (Luke 19:46). John
has it: "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of
trade" (John 2:16).
There were at least three reasons why Jesus acted as he did, and why anger was in
his heart.
(i) He acted as he did because God's house was being desecrated. In the Temple
there was worship without reverence. Reverence is an instinctive thing. Edward
Seago, the artist, tells how he took two gypsy children on a visit to a cathedral in
England. They were wild enough children at ordinary times. But from the moment
they came into the cathedral they were strangely quiet; all the way home they were

unusually solemn; and it was not until the evening that they returned to their
normal boisterousness. Instinctive reverence was in their uninstructed hearts.
Worship without reverence can be a terrible thing. It may be worship which is
formalized and pushed through anyhow; the most dignified prayers on earth can be
read like a passage from an auctioneer's catalogue. It may be worship which does
not realize the holiness of God, and which sounds as if, in H.H. Farmer's phrase, the
worshipper was "pally with the Deity." it may be worship in which leader or
congregation are completely unprepared. It may be the use of the house of God for
purposes and in a way where reverence and the true function of God's house are
forgotten. In that court of God's house at Jerusalem there would be arguments
about prices, disputes about coins that were worn and thin, the clatter of the market
place. That particular form of irreverence may not be common now, but there are
other ways of offering an irreverent worship to God.
(ii) Jesus acted as he did in order to show that the whole paraphernalia of animal
sacrifice was completely irrelevant. For centuries the prophets had been saying
exactly that. "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have
had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in
the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.... Bring no more vain offerings" (Isaiah
1:11-17). "For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not
speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices"
(Jeremiah 7:22). "With their flocks and herds they shall go to seek the Lord, but
they will not find him" (Hosea 5:6). "They love sacrifice; they sacrifice flesh and eat
it; but the Lord has no delight in them" (Hosea 8:13). "For thou hast no delight in
sacrifice; were I to give a burnt offering, thou wouldst not be pleased" (Psalms
51:16). There was a chorus of prophetic voices telling men of the sheer irrelevancy
of the burnt offerings and the animal sacrifices which smoked continuously upon
the altar at Jerusalem. Jesus acted as he did to show that no sacrifice of any animal
can ever put a man right with God.
We are not totally free from this very tendency today. True, we will not offer animal
sacrifice to God. But we can identify his service with the installation of stained glass
windows, the obtaining of a more sonorous organ, the lavishing of money on stone
and lime and carved wood, while real worship is far away. It is not that these things
are to be condemned--far from it. They are often--thank God--the lovely offerings of
the loving heart. When they are aids to true devotion they are God-blessed things;
but when they are substitutes for true devotion they make God sick at heart.
(iii) There is still another reason why Jesus acted as he did. Mark has a curious little
addition which none of the other gospels has: "My house shall be called the house of
prayer for all the nations" (Mark 11:17). The Temple consisted of a series of courts
leading into the Temple proper and to the Holy Place. There was first the Court of
the Gentiles, then the Court of the Women, then the Court of the Israelites, then the
Court of the Priests. All this buying and selling was going on in the Court of the
Gentiles which was the only place into which a Gentile might come. Beyond that
point, access to him was barred. So then if there was a Gentile whose heart God had

touched, he might come into the Court of the Gentiles to mediate and pray and
distantly touch God. The Court of the Gentiles was the only place of prayer he
knew.
The Temple authorities and the Jewish traders were making the Court of the
Gentiles into an uproar and a rabble where no man could pray. The lowing of the
oxen, the bleating of the sheep, the cooing of the doves, the shouts of the hucksters,
the rattle of the coins, the voices raised in bargaining disputes--all these combined to
make the Court of the Gentiles a place where no man could worship. The conduct in
the Temple court shut out the seeking Gentile from the presence of God. It may well
be that this was most in Jesus' mind; it may well be that Mark alone preserved the
little phrase which means so much. Jesus was moved to the depths of his heart
because seeking men were being shut out from the presence of God.
Is there anything in our church life--a snobbishness, an exclusiveness, a coldness, a
lack of welcome, a tendency to make the congregation into a closed club, an
arrogance, a fastidiousness--which keeps the seeking stranger out? Let us remember
the wrath of Jesus against those who made it difficult and even impossible for the
seeking stranger to make contact with God.
PI K 12-25, ""After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his
brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days" (John 2:12).
This verse comes in as a parenthesis between the two incidents of the Cana
marriage-feast and the cleansing the temple. Like everything else in this chapter, it
may be studied from a twofold viewpoint, namely, its immediate application and its
remote. In both of these applications the reference to Capernaum is the key, and
Capernaum stands for two things—Divine favor and Divine judgment; see Matthew
11:23.
Taking the immediate application first, this verse tells us that for a short season
Israel occupied the position of being in God’s peculiar favor. The mother of Jesus
(as we saw in our last chapter) stands for the nation of Israel, and particularly for
Israel’s privileges—for she was the one most honored among women. "His
brethren" represents the nation of Israel in unbelief; proof of this is found in John
7:5. "His disciples" were the little remnant in Israel who did believe in Him, see
John 2:11. With these, the Lord Jesus went down to Capernaum; but they
"continued there not many days." ot for long was Israel to enjoy these special
favors of God. Soon Christ would leave them.
But this twelfth verse also has a prophetic significance. Its double application being
suggested by the twofold meaning of Capernaum. Capernaum, which was exalted to
heaven, was to be brought down to hell. Hence the force of "He went down to
Capernaum." So it was with the nation of Israel. They had been marvelously
favored of God, and they should be as severely punished. They should go down into
the place of punishment—for this is what Capernaum speaks of. And this is exactly
where the Jews have been all though this Christian dispensation. And how blessed
to note that as the mother, brethren, and disciples of Christ (who represented,
respectively, the nation of Israel privileged, but unbelieving, and the little remnant
who did believe) went down to Capernaum—the place of Divine judgment—that the

Lord Jesus went with them. So it has been throughout this Christian dispensation.
The Jews have suffered severely, under the chastisements of God, but the Lord had
been with them in their dispersion—otherwise they, had been utterly consumed
long, long ago. The statement they continued there not many days" is also in perfect
keeping with its prophetic significance and application. Only two "days" shall Israel
abide in that place of which Capernaum speaks; on the third "day" they shall be
delivered—see Hosea 6:2.
Let us now give a brief and simple Analysis of the passage which is to be before us:
the Cleansing of the Temple:—
1. The Time of the Cleansing, verse 13.
2. The eed of the Cleansing, verse 14.
3. The Method of Cleansing, verses 15, 16.
4. The Cause of the Cleansing, verse 17.
5. The Jews’ demand for a Sign and Christ’s reply, verses 18-22.
6. Christ’s miracles in Jerusalem and the unsatisfactory result, verses 23, 24.
7. Christ’s knowledge of the human heart, verse 25.
We shall study this passage in a manner similar to that followed in our exposition of
the first half of John 2, considering first, the typical meaning of the cleansing of the
Temple; and, second, its practical suggestions.
I. The Typical Meaning.
The first of the questions which we placed at the end of the last chapter, and which
we asked our readers to meditate on in preparation for this, was, "Why is the
cleansing of the temple referred to just here?" The careful student will have noticed
that in each of the other Gospels, the cleansing of the temple is placed right at the
close of our Lord’s public ministry, as one of the last things He did before His
apprehension. But here, the Holy Spirit has placed Christ’s cleansing of the temple
almost at the beginning of His public ministry. This has led the majority of the
commentators to conclude that these were two totally different occasions and
incidents, separated by a space of three years. In support of this conclusion some
plausible arguments are advanced, but we are not at all sure of their validity.
Personally, we are strongly inclined to believe that what is recorded in Matthew
21:12, 13 is the same incident as is before us here in John 2, and that the Holy Spirit
has ignored the chronological order (as is so often the case in the Gospels) for His
own good reasons. What these reasons may be we shall suggest below. Before
advancing them, let us first state why we regard the cleansing of the temple here in
John 2 as being identical with that which is described in Matthew 21:12, 13, and the
parallel passages in Mark and Luke.
The points of likeness between the two are so striking that unless there is irrefutable
evidence that they are separate incidents, it seems to us the most natural and the
most obvious thing to regard them as one and the same. We call attention to seven
points of resemblance.
First, Matthew places the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of the Passover
week, and John tells us that "the Jews" Passover was at hand (Matthew 2:12).
Second, Matthew mentions those that "sold and bought" being in the temple
(Matthew 21:12); John says the Lord found in the temple "those that sold oxen,"
etc. (John 2:14).
Third, Matthew refers to the presence of those that "sold doves" (Matthew 21:12);

John also speaks of the "doves" (John 2:16).
Fourth, Matthew tells us that Christ "overthrew the tables of the money-changers"
(Matthew 21:12); John also tells us that Christ "overthrew the tables" (John 2:15).
Fifth, Matthew mentions that Christ "cast out all them that sold and bought in the
temple" (Matthew 21:12); John declares He "drove them all out of the temple"
(John 2:15). ote, in the Greek it is the same word here translated "drove" as is
rendered "cast out" in Matthew!
Sixth, Matthew declares Christ said, "My house shall be called a house of prayer;
but ye have made it a den of thieves" (Matthew 21:13); John records that the Lord
said, "Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise" (John 2:16). We have
no doubt that the Lord made both of these statements in the same connection, but
John records the one which expressly affirmed His Divine Sonship. In each case
Christ declared the temple was God’s.
Seventh, Matthew records how Christ spent the night in Bethany, and next morning
He returned to Jerusalem, and was in the temple teaching, when the chief priests
and elders of the people came to Him and said, "By what authority doest thou these
things?" (Matthew 21:23). John also records that after Christ had cleansed the
temple, the Jews said to Him, "What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou
doest these things?" (John 2:18).
If, then, our conclusion be correct, that this cleansing of the Temple occurred at the
close of our Lord’s ministry, the question returns upon us, Why has the Holy Spirit
taken this incident out of its chronological setting and placed it by the side of our
Lord’s miracle where He changed the water into wine? We believe the answer to
this question is not far to seek. We suggest that there was a double reason for
placing this incident in juxtaposition with the Cana marriage-feast scene. First, it
furnished added proof of the abject failure of Judaism; second, it completed the
prophetic picture of Christ in the Millenium which John 2 supplies. We shall
enlarge upon each of these points below.
In the previous chapters we have pointed out how that in the opening portion of
John’s Gospel two things are noticed repeatedly—the setting aside of Judaism, and
the turning away from it to Christ. This was emphasized at some length in our last
chapter, where we showed that the giving out of the wine at the Cana marriage-
feast, and the presence of the six waterpots of stone standing there empty,
symbolized the spiritual condition of Israel at that time—they had lost the joy of
their espousals and were devoid of spiritual life.
In the passage which is now before us, an even darker picture still is presented to
view. Here all figures and symbols are dropped, and the miserable state of Judaism
is made known in pointed and plain terms. Up to this stage, Israel’s miserable
condition spiritually, had been expressed by negatives; the Messiah was there in
their midst, but, said His forerunner to the Jerusalem embassy, Him "ye know not"
(John 1:26); so, again, in the first part of chapter 2, "They have no wine" (John
2:3). But here, in the second half of John 2, the positive evil which existed is fully
exposed—the temple was profaned.
"And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem" (John 2:13).
Here is the first key to that which follows. The "Lord’s passover" (Ex. 12:11) had
degenerated into "the passover of the Jews." But this is not the particular point
upon which we would now dwell. What we would call attention to, particularly, is

the time-mark given here. Two things are linked together; the passover and the
cleansing of the temple. ow the reader will recall at once, that one of the express
requirements of God in connection with the observance of the passover was, that all
leaven must be rigidly excluded from the houses of His people. The passover was a
busy time for every Jewish family: each home was subject to a rigorous
examination, lest ceremonial defilement, in the form of leaven, should be found
therein. " o leaven in your houses" was the requirement of the Law.
ow the center of Israel’s ceremonial purity was the temple, the Father’s House.
Israel gloried in the temple, for it was one of the chief things which marked them off
from all other nations, as the favored people of God. What other race of people
could speak of Jehovah dwelling in their midst? And now Jehovah Himself was
there, incarnate. And what a sight met His eye! The House of prayer had become a
house of merchandise; the holy place of worship was now "a den of thieves." Behold
here the light shining in the darkness and exposing the real nature of things. o
doubt the custodians of the temple would have stood ready to excuse this reproach
upon God’s honor. They would have argued that these money changers and cattle
dealers, in the temple courts, were there as a convenience to those who came to the
temple to worship. But Christ lays bare their real motive. "Den of thieves" tells us
that the love of money, covetousness, lay at the bottom of it all.
And what is "covetousness?" What is the Divine symbol for it? Let us turn the light
of Scripture on these questions. otice carefully what is said in 1 Corinthians 5:6-8.
Writing to the Corinthian believers, the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul says,
"Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole
lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are
unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep
the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but
with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." To what was he referring here
under the figure of "leaven?" Mark what follows: "I wrote unto you in an epistle
not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this
world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolators" (verses 9, 10).
Leaven, then, here refers (among other things) to covetousness, extortion and
idolatry. ow go back again to John 2. The feast of the passover was at hand, when
all leaven must be removed from Israel’s dwellings. And there in the temple, were
the cattle dealers and moneychangers, actuated by covetousness and practicing
extortion. What horrible desecration was this! Leaven in the temple of God!
But let us turn on the light of one more passage. In Colossians 3:5 we read,
"covetousness, which is idolatry." Ah, does not this reveal the emptiness of Israel’s
boast! The nation prided itself upon its monotheism—they worshipped not the many
gods of the heathen. The Jews boasted that they were free from idolatry. Yet
idolatry—"covetousness"—was the very thing the Son of God found in His Father’s
House. ote again, the force of 1 Corinthians 5:10, covetousness, extortion, and
idolatry are the three things there mentioned under the symbol of "leaven." Here,
then, is the first reason why the Holy Spirit has placed this incident just where He
has in this Gospel. It furnishes a striking climax to what has gone before. Put
together these three things, and see what a glaring picture they give us of Judaism:
first, a blinded priesthood (John 1:19-26); second, a joyless nation (no "wine," John
2:3); third, a desecrated temple. (John 2:16).

We turn now to consider
II. The Practical Lessons.
1. We see here the holy zeal of Christ for the Father’s house. "Worshippers coming
from remote parts of the Holy Land, found it a convenience to be able to purchase
on the spot the animals used in sacrifice. Traders were not slow to supply this
demand, and vying with one another they crept nearer and nearer to the sacred
precincts, until some, under pretense of driving in an animal for sacrifice, made a
sale within the outer court. This court had an area of about 14 acres, and was
separated from the inner court by a wall breast high, and bearing intimations which
forbade the encroachment of Gentiles on pain of death. Round this outer court ran
marble colonnades, richly ornamented and supported by four rows of pillars, and
roofed with cedar, affording ample shade to the traders.
"There were not only cattle-dealers and sellers of doves, but also money-changers;
for every Jew had to pay to the Temple treasury an annual tax of half a shekel, and
this tax could be paid only in sacred currency. o foreign coin, with its emblem of
submission to an alien king, was allowed to pollute the Temple. Thus there came to
be need of money-changers, not only for the Jew who had come up to the feast from
a remote part of the empire, but even for the inhabitants of Palestine, as the Roman
coinage had displaced the shekel in ordinary use.
"Cattle-dealers and money-changers have always been notorious for making more
than their own out of their bargains, and facts enough are on record to justify our
Lord calling this particular market ‘a den of thieves.’ The poor were shamefully
cheated, and the worship of God was hindered and impoverished instead of being
facilitated and enriched. The worshipper who came to the temple seeking quiet and
fellowship with God had to push his way through the touts of the dealers, and have
his devotional temper dissipated by the wrangling and shouting of a cattlemarket.
Yet although many must have lamented this, no one had been bold enough to
rebuke and abolish the glaring profanation" (Dr. Dods). But the Lord Jesus Christ
could not suffer His Father’s house to be reproached thus. Zeal for God consumes
Him and without hesitation He cleanses the temple of those who defiled it.
2. "And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the
temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and
overthrew the tables" (John 2:15). How this brings out the Deity of Christ! First, He
identifies Himself with the temple, terming it "My Father’s house," and thus
affirming His Divine Sonship. This was something which none other had dreamed of
doing. either Moses, Solomon nor Ezra, ever termed the tabernacle or the temple
his "Father’s house." Christ alone could do this. Again; mark the result of His
interference. One man, single handed, takes a whip and the whole crowd flees in
fear before Him. Ah, this was no mere man. It was the terror of God that had fallen
upon them.
3. This incident brings before us a side of Christ’s character which is almost
universally ignored today. We think of the Lord Jesus as the gentle and
compassionate One. And such He was, and still is. But this is not all He is. God is
Light as well as Love. God is inflexibly righteous as well as infinitely gracious. God
is holy as well as merciful. And we do well to remind ourselves of this. Scripture
declares "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God," as all who
defy Him will yet discover. Scripture speaks of "the wrath of the lamb," and our

lesson furnishes us with a solemn illustration of this. The unresisting money-
changers and cattle-dealers, fleeing in terror before His flashing eye and upraised
hand, give warning of what shall happen when the wicked stand before the throne
of His judgment.
4. This incident rebukes the present-day desecration of the house of prayer. If the
holy anger of the Lord Jesus was stirred when He beheld the profanation of that
House which was to be a "house of prayer," if the idolatrous commercialization of it
caused Him to cleanse it in such a drastic manner, how must He now regard many
of the edifices which have been consecrated to His name! How tragically does
history repeat itself. The things which are now done in so many church-houses—the
ice cream suppers, the bazaars, the moving picture shows and other forms of
entertainment—what are these but idolatrous commercialization of these "houses of
prayer." o wonder that such places are devoid of spirituality and strangers to the
power of God. The Lord will not tolerate an unholy mixture of worldly things with
spiritual.
5. One of the questions we drew up at the close of the last chapter was, "Why did
not Christ drive out the ‘doves’?" The answer to this is found in Isaiah 52:13, where
God through His prophet, declared of the Messiah then to come, "Behold, my
servant shall deal prudently." The "prudence" of Christ was strikingly evidenced
by His mode of procedure on this occasion of the cleansing of the temple. The
attentive reader will observe that He distinguished, carefully, between the different
objects of His displeasure. The oxen and sheep He drove out, and these were in no
danger of being lost by this treatment. The money of the changers He threw on the
ground, and this could be easily picked up again and carried away. The doves He
simply ordered to be taken away: had He done more with them, they might have
flown away, and been lost to their owners. Thus, the perfect One combined wisdom
with zeal. How differently would Moses or Elijah have acted under similar
circumstances. But even in His anger Christ deals in prudence. Christ rebuked all,
yet none were really injured, and nothing was lost. O that we may learn of Him
Who has left us such a perfect example.
6. "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us
seeing that thou doest these things?" (John 2:18). This demand for a "sign"
evidenced their blindness, and gave proof of what the Baptist had said—"There
standeth one among you whom ye know not" (John 1:26). To have given them a
sign, would only have been to confirm them in their unbelief. Men who could
desecrate God’s house as they had, men who were utterly devoid of any sense of
what was due Jehovah, were judicially blinded, and Christ treats them accordingly:
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up" (verse 19). He spoke in language which was quite unintelligible to them.
"Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou
rear it up in three days? But He spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:20, 21).
But why should the Lord express Himself in such ambiguous terms? Because, as He
Himself said on another occasion, "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because
seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand"
(Matthew 13:13). Yet, in reality, our Lords’ reply to these Jews was much to the
point. In raising Himself from the dead He would furnish the final proof that He
was God manifest in flesh, and if God, then the One Who possessed the unequivocal

right to cleanse the defiled temple which bore His name. It is very significant to
compare these words of Christ here with what we find in Matthew 21:24-27, spoken,
we doubt not, on the same occasion. When challenged as to His authority, Matthew
tells us He appealed to the witness of His forerunner, which was primarily designed
for the Jews after the flesh. But John mentions our Lord’s appeal to His own
resurrection, because this demonstrated His Deity, and has an evidential value for
the whole household of faith.
7. Another of the questions asked at the close of the previous chapter was "Did the
Lord’s own disciples believe in the promise of His resurrection?" The answer is, o,
they did not. The evidence for this is conclusive. The death of the Savior shattered
their hopes. Instead of remaining in Jerusalem till the third day, eagerly awaiting
His resurrection they retired to their homes. When Mary Magdalene went to tell His
disciples that she had seen the risen Christ, they "believed not" (Mark 16:11). When
the two disciples returned from Emmaus and reported unto the others how the
Savior had appeared unto them and had walked with them, we are told, "neither
believed they them" (Mark 16:13). The testimony of these eyewitnesses seemed to
them as idle tales (Luke 24:11). But how is this to be explained? How can we
account for the persistent unbelief of these disciples? Ah, is not the answer to be
found in the Lord’s teaching in the Parable of the Sower? Does He not there warn
us, that the great Enemy of souls comes and catches away the "seed" sown! And this
is what had taken place with these disciples. They had heard the Savior say He
would raise up the temple of His body in three days, but instead of treasuring up
this precious promise in their hearts, and being comforted by it, they had, through
their unbelief, allowed the Devil to snatch it away. Their unbelief, we say, for in
verse 22 we are told, "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples
remembered he had said this unto them; and they believed the Scriptures, and the
word which Jesus had said." It was not until after He had risen that they
"remembered" and "believed" the word which Jesus had said. And what was it that
enabled them to "remember" it then? Ah, do we not recall what Christ had said to
them on the eve of His crucifixion, "But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26). What a striking
and beautiful illustration of this is given us here in John 2:22!
8. " ow when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast, many believed in his
name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself
unto them, because he knew all" (John 2:23, 24). What a word is this! How it
evidences human depravity! Fallen man is a creature that God will not trust. In
Eden Adam showed that man after the flesh is not to be trusted. The Law had
proved him still unworthy of the confidence of God. And now this same character is
stamped upon him by the Lord Jesus Himself. As another has said, "Man’s
affections may be stirred, man’s intelligence informed, man’s conscience convicted;
but still God cannot trust him." (J. E. B.). Man in the flesh is condemned. Only a
new creation avails before God. Man must be "born again."
9. "Jesus did not commit himself unto them" (verse 24). The Lord’s example here is
a warning for us. We do well to remember that all is not gold that glitters. It is not
wise to trust in appearances of friendliness on short acquaintance. The discreet man
will be kind to all, but intimate with few. The late Bishop Ryle has some practical

counsels to offer on this point. Among other things he said, "Learn not to place
yourself rashly in the power of others. Study to develop a wise and a happy
moderation between universal suspiciousness and that of making yourself the sport
and prey of every pretender and hypocrite."
10. "Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all, and needed not
that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man" (John 2:24, 25). Here
we are shown the Savior’s perfect knowledge of the human heart. These men could
not impose upon the Son of God. He knew that they were only "stony ground"
hearers, and therefore, not to be depended upon. They were only intellectually
convinced. Our Lord clearly discerned this. He knew that their profession was not
from the heart. And reading thus their hearts He manifested His omniscience. The
force of what is said in these closing words of John 2 will be made more evident if
we compare them with 1 Kings 8:39: "Hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place, and
forgive whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of
all the children of all men.)"
It only remains for us to point out how that there is a series of most striking
contrasts between the two incidents recorded in the first and second parts of this
chapter—the making of water into wine at the Cana marriage-feast, and the
cleansing of the Temple. 1. In the one we have a festive gathering; in the other a
scene of Divine judgment. 2. To the former the Lord Jesus was invited; in the later
He took the initiative Himself. 3. In the former case He employed human
instruments; in the latter He acted all alone. 4. In the former He supplied the wine;
in the latter He emptied the temple. 5. In the former, His fact of making the wine
was commended; in the cleansing of the temple, He was challenged. 6. In the former
Christ pointed forward to His death (John 2:4); in the latter He pointed forward to
His resurrection (John 2:19, 21). 7. In the former He "manifested forth his glory"
(John 2:11); in the latter He manifested His "zeal" for His Father’s House (John
2:17).
Jesus Clears the Temple Courts
13 When it was almost time for the Jewish
Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
BAR ES, "The Jews’ passover - The feast among the Jews called the Passover.
See the notes at Mat. 26:2-17.
And Jesus went up to Jerusalem - Every male among the Jews was required to

appear at this feast. Jesus, in obedience to the law, went up to observe it. This is the first
Passover on which he attended after he entered on the work of the ministry. It is
commonly supposed that he observed three others one recorded Luk_6:1; another Joh_
6:4, and the last one on the night before he was crucified, Joh_11:55. As his baptism
when he entered on his ministry had taken place some time before this - probably not far
from six months - it follows that the period of his ministry was not far from three years
and a half, agreeably to the prophecy in Dan_9:27.
CLARKE, "And the Jews’ passover was at hand - This was the reason why he
stayed but a few days at Capernaum, Joh_2:12, as he wished to be present at the
celebration of this feast at Jerusalem.
This was the first passover after Christ’s baptism. The second is mentioned, Luk_6:1.
The third, Joh_6:4. And the fourth, which was that at which he was crucified, Joh_
11:55. From which it appears,
1. That our blessed Lord continued his public ministry about three years and a half,
according to the prophecy of Daniel, Dan_9:27. And,
2. That, having been baptized about the beginning of his thirtieth year, he was
crucified precisely in the middle of his thirty-third. See Martin.
GILL, "And the Jews' passover was at hand,.... That feast which was kept on the
fourteenth day of Nisan, in commemoration of the Lord's passing over, and by the
houses of the Israelites, when he slew the firstborn in Egypt: and it is called the Jews'
passover, because they only were obliged to keep it: nor was it obligatory upon the
Gentiles; and, besides, was now abolished when John wrote this Gospel, though still
retained by the Jews. And moreover, John was now among the Gentiles, and for whose
sake he penned this Gospel; and therefore so distinguishes this feast, which was typical
of the Christian passover, or of Christ our passover that is sacrificed for us. This was the
first "passover" after Christ's baptism, which is generally thought to have been about
half a year before; though so much time cannot be made out from the scriptural account;
for from his baptism, to his return out of the wilderness to John, were forty days; and
from thence, to his coming to Cana, four or, five days more; and perhaps he might be
seven days in Cana; for so long a wedding was usually kept; and his stay at Capernaum
was but a few days; all which do not amount to above eight or nine weeks at most: the
second passover after this, is, by some, thought to be the feast mentioned in Joh_5:1,
and the third in Joh_6:4, and the fourth and last, at which he suffered, in Joh_18:28.
The Evangelist John is the only writer that gives an account of the passovers after Christ
entered on his public ministry; by which is known the duration of it, which is generally
thought to be about three years and a half. "Three years and a half", the Jews say (a), the
Shekinah sat upon the Mount of Olives, expecting that the Israelites would repent, but
they did not; and this seems to be the term of time for disciples to learn of their masters:
it is said (b), one came from Athens to Jerusalem, and he served "three years and a half"
to learn the doctrine of wisdom, and he learned it not.
And Jesus went up to Jerusalem; not alone, but his disciples with him, as appears
from Joh_2:17, to keep the passover as he had been wont to do, and as the law required;

and he being under the law, as a son of Abraham, and the surety of his people, it became
him to fulfil all righteousness, ceremonial, as well as moral, and which he strictly
observed. He is said to go up to Jerusalem, because that stood on higher ground than the
low lands of Galilee, and was the only place where the passover might be kept; see Deu_
16:2.
HE RY, "II. The passover he kept at Jerusalem; it is the first after his baptism, and
the evangelist takes notice of all the passovers he kept henceforward, which were four in
all, the fourth that at which he suffered (three years after this), and half a year was now
past since his baptism. Christ, being made under the law, observed the passover at
Jerusalem; see Exo_23:17. Thus he taught us by his example a strict observance of
divine institutions, and a diligent attendance on religious assemblies. He went up to
Jerusalem when the passover was at hand, that he might be there with the first. It is
called the Jews' passover, because it was peculiar to them (Christ is our Passover); now
shortly God will no longer own it for his. Christ kept the passover at Jerusalem yearly,
ever since he was twelve years old, in obedience to the law; but now that he has entered
upon his public ministry we may expect something more from him than before; and two
things we are here told he did there: -
JAMIESO , "Joh_2:13-25. Christ’s first Passover - First cleansing of the Temple.
COFFMAN, "CLEANSING THE TEMPLE
The passover of the Jews ... Writing near the end of the first century, John no longer
referred to the passover as a feast of God, but of the "Jews". Whatever ordinances or
observances are undertaken upon man's initiative only, such ordinances, even though
originally commanded by God, become in a special sense the ordinances of men. Jesus'
saying of the temple, "Behold your house is left unto you desolate" (Matthew 23:38), is
in the same vein of thought.
The cleansing of the temple about to be related should not be confused with a second
cleansing during the final week of our Lord's life on earth (Matthew 21:12f; Mark 11:15;
Luke 19:45). In this cleansing, Jesus made use of a scourge, but none was mentioned in
the synoptic accounts of the second cleansing. Far from being any difficulty, John's
relation of this dramatic cleansing gives the explanation of the implacable hatred of the
Pharisees and other keepers of the temple concessions, the hatred being evident enough
in the synoptics, but this practical reason for it at so early a date appearing only in John.
CALVI , "13.And the passover of the Jews was at hand; therefore Jesus went up to
Jerusalem. The Greek words καὶ ἀνέβη, may be literally rendered, and he went up;
but the Evangelist has used the copulative and instead of therefore; for he means
that Christ went up at that time, in order to celebrate the passover at Jerusalem.
There were two reasons why he did so; for since the Son of God became subject to
the Law on our account, he intended, by observing with exactness all the precepts of
the Law, to present in his own person a pattern of entire subjection and obedience.
Again, as he could do more good, when there was a multitude of people, he almost
always availed himself of such an occasion. Whenever, therefore, we shall

afterwards find it said that Christ came to Jerusalem at the feast, let the reader
observe that he did so, first, that along with others he might observe the exercises of
religion which God had appointed, and, next, that he might publish his doctrine
amidst a larger concourse of people.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 13-17, "The Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus
went up to Jerusalem.
Christ’s first passover
I. HIS ATTENDANCE AT THE PASSOVER, One of the three great annual festivals
which all males were required to attend. None excused but the sick and the disabled.
God made the ordinance peremptory, to teach
(1) That His worship and service were the chief things.
(2) That God’s house was to be the centre of the moral universe, and that all
nations would flow to it. Christ’s attendance showed
1. His fulfilling of all righteousness. He came not to destroy.
2. His communion with believers of the Old Testament. Partaking of their
sacraments, He declared Himself of one body and spirit with them, just as by
instituting sacraments for New Testament believers He declared Himself of one body
and spirit with them. Thus Christ is the bond of both dispensations.
3. Himself and His mission to the nation. The promise was that He should come to
His temple. Here the people could identify Him if they chose.
II. THE CONDITION IN WHICH HE FOUND THE TEMPLE, AND HIS
INTERFERENCE THEREWITH. The market was going on in the outer courts of the
Gentiles. The sheep, etc., were sold there to save the inconvenience of individual Jews
bringing their offerings from a distance. The money-changers were there, to exchange
foreign money for the half-shekel of the sanctuary. The abuse consisted in making God’s
house a house of merchandise, in which the priests themselves profited. Christ
interfered to show His official assumption and exercise of legitimate authority in His
own house. The cattle were driven out, the money-tables overthrown; but the doves
ordered to be taken away, so that they might not be harmed. Nothing harmful or cruel
was done. In this interference we see His glory as the “Son of God” and His
administrative authority as “King of Israel.” Unsupported Himself, all fled before Him.
III. THE CONVICTION WROUGHT IN THE MINDS OF SERVANTS (Joh_2:17).
1. We have here the love of Christ, and His earnestness for their salvation and God’s
glory: typical of His whole work.
2. Christ’s example to us.
(1) Our zeal must begin with ourselves.
(2) Must concern itself with God’s honour and man’s salvation.
(3) Must be actuated by love. (A. Beith, D. D.)
The temple market

I. THE MARKET.
1. Described. Jerusalem was in all its glory. Its inhabitants were astir in the early
morning, enjoying the cool of the day and the excitement of the season. The streets
were blocked by crowds from all parts, who had to make their way to the temple past
flocks of sheep and droves of cattle. Sellers of all possible wares beset the pilgrim, for
the feasts were the traders’ harvests. Inside the temple space the noise and pressure
were, if possible, worse. The outer court was in part covered with pens for sheep and
oxen. It was, in fact, the yearly fair of Jerusalem, and the crowds added to the din
and tumult, till the services in the neighbouring courts were sadly disturbed.
2. Accounted for. It seems strange that the priests should have permitted it, but the
explanation throws light on Christ’s conduct. The priests made pecuniary profit of it.
The sale of doves was almost wholly in their hands, and the rent for the rest was very
large. The money-changers were usurers and tricksters, and augmented the priests’
revenue out of their unlawful gains.
3. Christ’s indignation was, therefore, natural. He had come fresh from the
manifestation of His glory, with all the enthusiasm natural to a Jewish prophet and
inspired with His Divine mission, to testify to the nation as a whole where it could be
best reached. Behold, then, His Father’s house invaded by a troop of mercenaries
and hucksters!
II. THE EXHIBITION OF CHRIST’S WONDROUS MORAL POWER. There was no
physical power displayed, nor any exciting contention with the profaners of the temple.
The scourge was only an emblem of power and chastisement, the sight of which was
sufficient, and at which they all unresistingly fled. How could one man effect such a
clearance, unknown, a Galilean, with no formal authority, priestly power, or following?
It was perhaps due to the “solar light” of His countenance, behind which was the
unspeakable power of perfect holiness (Mat_17:2), which made Him attractive to the
virtuous and devout, but awful to mere money-grubbers. They were dumb and helpless,
because conscience-stricken, in the presence of Incarnate Righteousness.
III. THE PROFOUND SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS ACT. Spiritual cleansing. The temple
may be considered as a symbol
1. Of the heart defiled by selfishness and sin, to be cleansed by the expulsive power of
Christ’s love.
2. Of society or the world, to be cleansed by Christ’s redeeming grace.
3. Of the Church, to be cleansed from superstition, and worldliness, and bigotry, by
truth, purity, and charity. (J. E. Flower, M. A.)
The profaned temple
I. THE SIGN AND ITS APPLICABILITY. The temple a symbol of the temple of
humanity, built of living stones. To cleanse this He entered on His ministry; and if He
had a right to do the greater work, He had a right to do the lesser.
II. THOUGHTS SUGGESTED BY THE SIGN.
1. All men are created to form part of God’s temple. The Divine idea of humanity is
an organic whole—Christ the centre, the shrine; human hearts grouped round Him
forming the courts. Contrast the ideal with the actual. Yet in the midst of chaos God

is working out His purpose, and will not rest till the idea is realized.
2. Men have misused the courts as markets. Commerce is good, but its place is
outside the heart, not inside. It defiles when it intrudes on the sanctuary. Yet how
hard even in the most sacred seasons to exclude their profane associations. Business
for most is more absorbing than God and His will.
3. Christ has power and authority to cleanse the courts.
(1) With His scourge He may drive away the property which usurps His Father’s
place.
(2) He may scatter the money-changers’ money, and leave him at leisure to
reflect with out it.
(3) He may speak His orders to those who defile the sanctuary with lighter
profanations through judgment and disease.
4. The time will come when the temple shall be purified. In the Revelation we see the
design perfected. A city without a temple, because itself is a temple. There shall be
gold there, and all the good things of the earth shall be sanctified to Divine uses. (C.
A. Goodhart, M. A.)
The purging of the temple
I. APPROPRIATE to
1. The place: the metropolis, the centre of the Theocracy, the predicted theatre of
Messiah’s self-revelation (Zec_2:10-11; Zec 9:9).
2. The time: at the passover, when the paschal lamb, of which He was the antitype,
was about to be offered, and when the vast crowd gathered afforded a favourably
opportunity for impressing the national mind and conscience.
3. The condition of the temple: whose forecourt, reserved for the worship of
proselytes, was transformed into a market and fair under the pretence of religion—a
melancholy, because faithful, picture of the secularization of the Jewish religion by
the Pharisees.
4. The character of Him who carried it through. The Father’s Son had a right to
purge His Father’s house.
II. SUPERNATURAL. As much so as the turning of water into wine. The manifest
insufficiency of the means places it in the same category as Joh_18:6. Its suddenness
also surprised, and inward consciousness of guilt paralyzed, the traders. Natural and
supernatural causes were thus combined.
III. SIGNIFICANT. Designed to be a revelation to the ecclesiastical authorities of His
Messiahship (Psa_69:9; Mal_3:2-6).
IV. SUGGESTIVE. Recalling to the disciples the words of the Psalmist, it confirmed
their recently formed convictions.
V. ALARMING. It startled the Sanhedrim, who recognized the Messianic character of
the action, but wanted to know whether He was Messiah. Secretly they must have
dreaded this. But because He was different from what they expected, they declined to
receive Him. They trifled with their consciences by asking for a sign. They preferred the

darkness, although the light had now conspicuously dawned. Lessons:
1. The duty and privileges of the ordinances of religion. Christ at the passover.
2. The need of purity and order in the sanctuary—Christ purging the temple court.
3. The danger of a worldly spirit intruding into the domain of religion—the traders in
the sacred edifice.
4. The propriety of being zealously affected in Divine service—Christ’s example. (T.
Whitelaw, M. A.)
Christ’s principles of action
Had Christ appeared as a teacher it would have been a great benevolence: but He would
hardly have had so widespread an influence. Teaching was only one part of His task, the
other was to ordain a fellowship. So He needed to appear as the reformer of religion. The
temple was the centre of religious life: here then the reformation must begin. See then
the principles of Christ as a religious reformer.
I. HE DID NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO PURIFY AND FINISH. But why trouble
Himself about an institution that was to pass away? (Joh_4:24). The answer is that
Jesus did wish to erect the new on the ruins of the old, but since so much depended on
the old, this, when reformed, should attach itself to that. We should be like Christ in this,
not to destroy but to reform and build up.
II. THE ZEAL OF THE REDEEMER WAS INTENDED TO BANISH EVERYTHING
THAT MIGHT ENTANGLE MEN AGAIN IN WORLDLY THOUGHTS AND
ANXIETIES. The really devout and upright as well as the frivolous might see no evil nor
distracting influence in these things. The temple was large enough. All these
arrangements had to do with religious life. Was it not a matter of indifference whether
they were carried on within or in the neighbourhood of the temple. Those whose
thoughts would be disturbed by them would be disturbed without them. But human
prudence is one thing; the judgment of Christ another. Whatever draws men to and
keeps men near God must be kept pure and free from desecration. The weakness of the
human heart forbids the worldly and the Divine mingling with one another. The germ of
the Jewish corruption lay in the mixing of the two. Let then our church, life ordained by
that Lord who here cleared the temple, be free from foreign admixture.
III. WHAT RIGHT HAD CHRIST TO ACT IS THIS WAY? Did He not overstep the
bounds of His authority. No, according to the free customs of that people and age it was
competent to any one to assail anything that was at variance with public law. There was
ever scope for honest zeal. Christ found it so, and would have us find it so and lift our
voices for what is right and good, to win public opinion to them. We Christians are a
priestly people called to keep pure the temple of God upon earth. (Schleiermacher.)
Christ at Jerusalem
We see
I. HOW MUCH CHRIST DISAPPROVES OF IRREVERENT BEHAVIOUR IN THE
HOUSE OF GOD. Are there none who bring to church their money, their lands, their
cattle, etc.; who bring their bodies only to a place of worship and are “almost in all evil,

in the congregation” (Pro_5:14).
II. HOW MEN MAY REMEMBER WORDS OF RELIGIOUS TRUTH LONG AFTER
THEY ARE SPOKEN, and may one day see in them a meaning which they now do not
see (Joh_2:19; Joh 2:22). Sermons preached to apparently heedless ears are not all lost
and thrown away; nor are texts taught by teachers or parents to children. There is often a
resurrection of the good seed sown after many 1Co_15:58; Ecc_11:1).
III. HOW PERFECT IS OUR LORD’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE HUMAN HEART (verses
24-25). He saw beneath their superficial faith that they were not disciples indeed. This
thought ought to make hypocrites and false professors tremble. They may deceive men
but they cannot deceive Christ. But it is a word of encouragement to real Christians. (Bp.
Ryle.)
Transition
It is impossible not to feel the change which at this point comes over the narrative.
I. There is A CHANGE.
1. Of place: Jerusalem and Cans.
2. Of occasion: the passover and the marriage feast.
3. Of manner of action: the stern Reformer and the sympathizing Guest.
II. THE SPIRITUAL LESSONS WHICH THE TWO SIGNS CONVEY ARE ALSO
COMPLEMENTARY.
1. One represents the ennobling of common life and the other the purification of
Divine worship.
2. One is a revelation of the Son of peace, the other a revelation of the Christ, the
Fulfiller of the hope and purpose of Israel. (Bp. Westcott.)
The desecration of the living temple
Alas! that even in the restored and consecrated temple of man’s soul, scenes are at times
enacted, of which the sacrilege in the Jewish temple was but a feeble emblem. It is a
desecration, Dot of a material building but of God’s spiritual house—the merchandise,
not of sheep and oxen but of sins. The pollution is not in the “outermost court of the
Gentiles, but in the inmost sanctuary where God delights to dwell”—in man’s heart. Too
often is there rebellion, even in the believer’s soul, against the authority of the Lord; and
giving to Him a divided heart. Too often are the living temples thronged with carnal
things, earthly affections and desires. Too often is the lowing of oxen and the bleating of
sheep heard, and the tables of the money Changers planted, within the precincts of God’s
house. Alas! how often is the silent and solemn devotion of the believer’s heart distracted
by the noise of conflicting passions, and its purity defiled by low and grovelling
affections. Holy thoughts and desires, like the poor, despised Gentiles, are turned out of
their proper place, and thrust into a corner. Oh, this is monstrous incongruity. Have you
not here a temple which you have sacrilegiously profaned; and has not your passion for
sordid gain and worldly occupation so entirely engaged and absorbed you, that all your
feelings and faculties seem to be expended on earthly vanities, and your affections
settled down to the dust? You profane that which God has made holy—that which He has

set apart for Himself, and where He would delight to dwell. “My house shall be called a
house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.” (W. Chalmers, M. A.)
Money changers
in the temple are those who pursue secular interests in the church; and God’s house is
made a house of merchandise, not only by those who seek to obtain money or praise, or
honour by means of holy orders, but by those also who exercise the sacred ministry, or
dispense sacred gifts, with a view to human rewards and not with simplicity of intention.
(Bp. Wordsworth.)
14 In the temple courts he found people selling
cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables
exchanging money.
BAR ES, "Found in the temple ... - The transaction here recorded is in almost all
respects similar to that which has been explained in the notes at Mat_21:12. This took
place at the commencement of his public ministry; that at the close. On each occasion he
showed that his great regard was for the pure worship of his Father; and one great
design of his coming was to reform the abuses which had crept into that worship, and to
bring man to a proper regard for the glory of God. If it be asked how it was that those
engaged in this traffic so readily yielded to Jesus of Nazareth, and that they left their
gains and their property, and fled from the temple at the command of one so obscure as
he was, it may be replied,
1. That their consciences reproved them for their impiety, and they could not set up
the “appearance” of self-defense.
2. It was customary in the nation to cherish a profound regard for the authority of a
prophet; and the appearance and manner of Jesus - so fearless, so decided, so
authoritative led them to suppose “he” was a prophet, and they were afraid to
resist him.
3. Even then, Jesus had a wide reputation among the people, but it is not improbable
that many supposed him to be the Messiah.
4. Jesus on all occasions had a most wonderful control over people. None could resist
him. There was something in his manner, as well as in his doctrine, that awed
men, and made them tremble at his presence. Compare Joh_18:5-6. On this
occasion he had the manner of a prophet, the authority of God, and the testimony
of their own consciences, and they could not, therefore, resist the authority by

which he spoke.
Though Jesus thus purified the temple at the commencement of his ministry, yet in
three years the same scene was to be repeated. See Mat_21:12. And from this we may
learn:
1. How soon people forget the most solemn reproofs, and return to evil practices.
2. That no sacredness of time or place will guard them from sin. In the very temple,
under the very eye of God, these people soon returned to practices for which their
consciences reproved them, and which they knew that God disapproved.
3. We see here how strong is the love of gain - the ruling passion of mankind. Not
even the sacredness of the temple, the presence of God, the awful ceremonials of
religion, deterred them from this unholy traffic. So wicked men and hypocrites will
always turn “religion,” if possible, into gain; and not even the sanctuary, the
Sabbath, or the most awful and sacred scenes, will deter them from schemes of
gain. Compare Amo_8:5. So strong is this grovelling passion, and so deep is that
depravity which fears not God, and regards not his Sabbaths, his sanctuary, or his
law.
CLARKE, "Found in the temple those that sold oxen, etc. - This is a similar
fact to that mentioned Mat_21:12; Mar_11:15; Luk_19:45. See it explained on Mat_21:12
(note). If it be the same fact, then John anticipates three years of time in relating it here;
as that cleansing of the temple mentioned by the other evangelists took place in the last
week of our Lord’s life. Mr. Mann, Dr. Priestley, and Bp. Pearce, contend that our Lord
cleansed the temple only once; and that was at the last passover. Calvin, Mr. Mede,
L’Enfant and Beausobre, Dr. Lardner, Bp. Hurd, and Bp. Newcome, contend that he
purged the temple twice; and that this, mentioned by John, was the first cleansing,
which none of the other evangelists have mentioned. Let the reader, says Bp. Newcome,
observe the order of events.
“Jesus works his first miracle at Cana of Galilee, Joh_2:11; then he passes a few days
at Capernaum, which bring him on his way to Jerusalem, Joh_2:12. The passover being
near, he goes up to Jerusalem, Joh_2:13, and casts the traders out of the temple, Joh_
2:15, Joh_2:16, At the passover he works many miracles, Joh_2:23. While he is in
Jerusalem, which city he does not leave till, Joh_3:22, Nicodemus comes to him by
night, Joh_3:1, Joh_3:2. Joh_3:2 contains a reference to Joh_2:23. After these things,
Jesus departs from Jerusalem, and dwells and baptizes in Judea, Joh_3:22. And all
these incidents take place before John was cast into prison, Joh_3:24. But the second
cleansing of the temple happens most clearly during the last week of our Lord’s life, after
the death of the Baptist, and at a time when it would be absurd to say that afterwards
Jesus dwelt and baptized in Judea.”
The vindication of God’s house from profanation was the first and the last care of our
Lord; and it is probable he began and finished his public ministry by this significant act.
It certainly appears that John directly asserts an early cleansing of the temple, by the
series of his history; as the other three evangelists assert a later cleansing of it. And
though the act mentioned here seems to be nearly the same with that mentioned by the
other evangelists, yet there are some differences. St. John alone mentions the scourge of
rushes, and the casting out of the sheep and oxen. Besides, there is a considerable
difference in our Lord’s manner of doing it: in the cleansing mentioned by the three
evangelists, he assumes a vast deal of authority, and speaks more pointedly concerning
himself, than he appears to do in this cleansing mentioned by St. John: the reason which

has been given is, In the first cleansing he was just entering upon his public ministry,
and therefore avoided (as much as was consistent with the accomplishment of his work)
the giving any offense to the Jewish rulers; but, in the last cleansing, he was just
concluding his ministry, being about to offer up his life for the salvation of the world, in
consequence of which he speaks fully and without reserve. For answers to all the
objections made against two cleansings of the temple, see the notes at the end of Bp.
Newcome’s Greek Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 7-9.
GILL, "And found in the temple,.... Not in the holy place itself, nor in the court of
the priests, where the sacrifices were offered, nor in the court of the women, nor in the
court of the Israelites, where the people worshipped; but in the court of the Gentiles, or
the outward court, even all that space of ground which was between the wall which
divided the whole from common ground, and the buildings of the temple, and which was
open to the air; for the whole sacred enclosure, or all within the wall, went by the name
of the temple. Into this all strangers might come; and the passover now being at hand,
here were
those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves: the oxen, or bullocks, were for the
Chagigah, or feast kept on the second day of the passover; See Gill on Joh_18:28; and
the sheep, or lambs, as the Persic version reads, for the passover supper; and the doves
were for the offerings of the poorer sort of new mothers: with these they were supplied
from the Mount of Olives. It is said (c),
"there were two cedar trees on the Mount of Olives, and under one of them were four
shops of them that sold things for purification; and out of one of them they brought forty
bushels of young doves every month: and out of them the Israelites had enough for the
nests, or the offerings of turtle doves;''
See Gill on Mat_21:12;
and the changers of money sitting: who changed foreign money into the current
coin of the Jews, strangers coming, at this feast, from several parts of the world; and
sometimes there was need of changing shekels into half shekels, which, at certain times,
were paid for the ransom of Israelites; see the note on the place above mentioned.
HE RY, "1. He purged the temple, Joh_2:14-17. Observe here,
(1.) The first place we find him in at Jerusalem was the temple, and, it should seem, he
did not make any public appearance till he came thither; for his presence and preaching
there were that glory of the latter house which was to exceed the glory of the former,
Hag_2:9. It was foretold (Mal_3:1): I will send my messenger, John Baptist; he never
preached in the temple, but the Lord, whom ye seek, he shall suddenly come to his
temple, suddenly after the appearing of John Baptist; so that this was the time, and the
temple the place, when, and where, the Messiah was to be expected.
(2.) The first work we find him at in the temple was the purging of it; for so it was
foretold there (Mal_3:2, Mal_3:3): He shall sit as a refiner and purify the sons of Levi.
Now was come the time of reformation. Christ came to be the great reformer; and,
according to the method of the reforming kings of Judah, he first purged out what was
amiss (and that used to be passover-work too, as in Hezekiah's time, 2Ch_30:14, 2Ch_

30:15, and Josiah's, 2Ki_23:4, etc.), and then taught them to do well. First purge out the
old leaven, and then keep the feast. Christ's design in coming into the world was to
reform the world; and he expects that all who come to him should reform their hearts
and lives, Gen_35:2. And this he has taught us by purging the temple. See here,
[1.] What were the corruptions that were to be purged out. He found a market in one
of the courts of the temple, that which was called the court of the Gentiles, within the
mountain of that house. There, First, They sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, for
sacrifice; we will suppose, not for common use, but for the convenience of those who
came out of the country, and could not bring their sacrifices in kind along with them; see
Deu_14:24-26. This market perhaps had been kept by the pool of Bethesda (Joh_5:2),
but was admitted into the temple by the chief priests, for filthy lucre; for, no doubt, the
rents for standing there, and fees for searching the beasts sold there, and certifying that
they were without blemish, would be a considerable revenue to them. Great corruptions
in the church owe their rise to the love of money, 1Ti_6:5, 1Ti_6:10. Secondly, They
changed money, for the convenience of those that were to pay a half-shekel in specie
every year, by way of poll, for the service of the tabernacle (Exo_30:12), and no doubt
they got by it.
[2.] What course our Lord took to purge out those corruptions. He had seen these in
the temple formerly, when he was in a private station; but never went about to drive
them out till now, when he had taken upon him the public character of a prophet. He did
not complain to the chief priests, for he knew they countenanced those corruptions. But
he himself,
First, Drove out the sheep and oxen, and those that sold them, out of the temple. He
never used force to drive any into the temple, but only to drive those out that profaned
it. He did not seize the sheep and oxen for himself, did not distrain and impound them,
though he found them damage faissant - actual trespassers upon his Father's ground;
he only drove them out, and their owners with them. He made a scourge of small cords,
which probably they had led their sheep and oxen with, and thrown them away upon the
ground, whence Christ gathered them. Sinners prepare the scourges with which they
themselves will be driven out from the temple of the Lord. He did not make a scourge to
chastise the offenders (his punishments are of another nature), but only to drive out the
cattle; he aimed no further than at reformation. See Rom_13:3, Rom_13:4; 2Co_10:8.
JAMIESO 14-17, "in the temple — not the temple itself, as Joh_2:19-21, but the
temple-court.
sold oxen, etc. — for the convenience of those who had to offer them in sacrifice.
changers of money — of Roman into Jewish money, in which the temple dues (see
on Mat_17:24) had to be paid.
COKE, "John 2:14. And found in the temple— Moses, in Deuteronomy 14:24-25 from
considering the necessity of the Jews resorting to the capital of their country, and the
inconveniences which would attend the driving the cattle which were to be offered, and
could be offered only there, gave them liberty, under the direction of Jehovah, to
carrymoney with them, and purchase their victims on the spot. When, therefore, the
Jews were dispersed among all nations, this injunction seemed not only convenient and
prudent, but even necessary; and therefore it was appointed that those animals which
were used in sacrifices, should be sold without the temple near the gates. This institution
whichwas so convenient, was in process of time turned into abuse; and the market was
at length kept in the very court of the Gentiles, the only place which was allotted to the

Gentiles to worship in. The noise of the cattle, and the hurry of the place, were great
obstacles to worship, especially when we consider that the numbers who thronged this
court, amounted at one passover to no less than 3,000,000; when, according to
Josephus, no less than 256,500 victims were offered. But the abuse did not rest here; for
it is generally supposed that the priests let out this part of the temple for profit; and that
the sellers, to enable themselves to pay the rent of their shops and stalls, demanded an
exorbitant price for their commodities. Nay, it is said, that the priests and Levites very
often sold the animals which they had received for sacrifices, to the dealers in cattle at a
lower rate, that they might sell them again with profit; so that the same sacrifice was
often sold to different persons, and the spoils or gains of the sacrifices were divided
between the priests and the salesmen. In order to expedite this traffic, there were
money-changers at hand, who gave the Jews of foreign countries the current money of
Judea, in lieu of the money of the countries whence they came; and for this service they
took a premium, which upon the whole became very considerable. Thus was the temple
profaned by the avarice of the priests, and literally made a den of thieves. When our
Lord viewed this scene of iniquity, we need not wonder at his indignation; for it was a
zeal, which shewed his high regard to religion, and his implacable enmity to vice; while
at the same time it illustrated the character given him by the prophet Malachi 3:1.
COFFMAN, "These animals and birds were required offerings in the Jewish sacrifices,
but the worshipers were required to purchase them from the temple functionaries and
were not allowed to bring their own; and even in circumstances where the worshiper
might have been permitted to bring his own offering, the element of convenience
naturally turned all to the supply provided by the temple. Also, the only money that
could be used in such purchases was the coinage or currency controlled by the temple.
The denarius and other coins were prohibited, for example, as bearing Caesar's image.
Thus, with the temple concessionaires having the only supply of animals and the only
supply of money by which they could have been purchased, the suffering people were
gouged unmercifully. No wonder Jesus denounced that crowd of cheaters as "thieves
and robbers." It was particularly an act of aggravation that the money-changers had
actually moved into the sacred area of the temple itself.
Modern Christians have little reason to be critical of the commercialization of the
ancient temple. As Gaebelein said:
So-called churches have become houses of merchandise, places of amusement,
theatricals, moving pictures, dancing for young people, etc. .... Evangelistic campaigns
led by evangelists who are incorporated, aiming at big collections to which saints and
sinners, Jews and Gentiles, are urged to give ... schemes to raise big sums of money - all
these are greater evils than selling sheep and oxen in the temple court of Israel.[14]
Of course, Christian houses of worship correspond in no way to the ancient temple of the
Jews, being in no sense "the Lord's house," except in the most accommodative sense;
and yet it is still true that in places set apart for prayer and the ministry of the word of
God, reverence and spirituality should prevail within them.
ENDNOTE:
[14] Arno Gaebelein, op. cit., p. 51.

15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all
from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he
scattered the coins of the money changers and
overturned their tables.
BAR ES, "A scourge - A whip.
Of small cords - This whip was made as an emblem of authority, and also for the
purpose of driving from the temple the cattle which had been brought there for sale.
There is no evidence that he used any violence to the men engaged in that unhallowed
traffic. The original word implies that these “cords” were made of twisted “rushes” or
“reeds” - probably the ancient material for making ropes.
GILL, "And when he had made a scourge of small cords,.... That is, Jesus, as the
Persic version expresses it. This scourge might be made either of thongs cut out of the
hides of beasts slain in sacrifice; or of the cords, with which the owners of the cattle had
brought them to this place; or with which they had fastened them in it. And it seems to
be made, and used, not so much for force and terror, as to intimate, that these persons,
the violators of the holy place, deserved the scourge of divine wrath and punishment; as
well as to show the miraculous power of Christ in driving such a number of men before
him, with so small and insignificant a weapon; for the phrase is diminutive. The reason
given by Dr. Lightfoot, and others, why Christ made use of a whip, or scourge, rather
than a staff, is, because it was contrary to a Jewish canon (d) to go into the mountain of
the house, or temple, with a staff in the hand; and yet the man of the mountain of the
house, or the master of it, who used to go about every ward with torches burning before
him, if he found a Levite asleep in his ward (e), struck him ‫,במקלו‬ with his staff, and had
power to burn his clothes.
He drove them all out of the temple; that is, he drove out "the men", as the Persic
version reads; the merchants, the sellers of oxen, sheep, and doves, and the money
changers: "and the sheep, and the oxen" likewise; the Persic version adds, "doves"; but
these are after mentioned:
and poured out the changers money; off of the tables, or out of the boxes, or
dishes, or drawers, or purses, in which it was put:
and overthrew the tables; at which they sat, and on which they told their money.

HE RY, "Secondly, He poured out the changers' money, to kerma - the small money
- the Nummorum Famulus. In pouring out the money, he showed his contempt of it; he
threw it to the ground, to the earth as it was. In overthrowing the tables, he showed his
displeasure against those that make religion a matter of worldly gain. Money-changers in
the temple are the scandal of it. Note, In reformation, it is good to make thorough work;
he drove them all out; and not only threw out the money, but, in overturning the tables,
threw out the trade too.
JAMIESO , "small cords — likely some of the rushes spread for bedding, and
when twisted used to tie up the cattle there collected. “Not by this slender whip but by
divine majesty was the ejection accomplished, the whip being but a sign of the scourge of
divine anger” [Grotius].
poured out ... overthrew — thus expressing the mingled indignation and authority
of the impulse.
SBC, ""My Father’s House.".
I. In this passage we find our Lord, in the first instance, disconnecting, jealously
disconnecting, all temporal from spiritual things; endeavouring to do away with that
worldly spirit which comes into our holy things. Now, in the letter of the thing, we are
not in danger in the present day of any exact parallel to that which drew down our
Saviour’s indignant reproof upon those who kept the market, and came with beasts and
money within the precincts of the Jewish Temple. Yet let us never forget that, before
God, the inner life of thought is as real life as the outer life of action. Therefore, thoughts
in the house of God are as real to our Heavenly Father as any act can be. If, when within
the sacred walls, to think of secular transactions be reprehensible in the sight of God,
which of us is not brought in guilty before His omniscient eye.
II. It was Christ’s desire to purify His spiritual house. It is for the purity of that Church
that our blessed Lord and Master is so anxious, and for which He prays, and for which
He shed His Blood; and for which now, in heaven, He intercedes; and for the sake of
which He looks to His Second Advent. There is a wonderful prophecy in Mal_3:1: "The
Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His Temple, even the Messenger of the
Covenant, whom ye delight in... but who may abide the day of His coming?" In this verse
you will notice that the Lord who is to come to His Temple is to come as the Jews’
delight, and He is to come suddenly. The Lord did come suddenly on the occasion of my
text. He appeared suddenly among the Jews, who then despised Him, but He did not
come as the Lord in His glory. But He is to come again to His Church; and if, as we
believe, in the restoration of the Jews to their own country, they shall rear again
Ezekiel’s temple, then in Ezekiel’s temple literally the Lord Himself shall come, even the
Messenger of the Covenant, whom they shall delight in. Not as the carpenter’s son, but
as the Lord in His glory; and He will come, and come to purify.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 2nd series, p. 171.
COFFMAN, "It is said that Jesus never used force, but this verse proves otherwise. It is a
moot question whether or not Jesus actually used a whip on any of the money changers,
the usual interpretation being that he did not; but the very existence of such a weapon in
the strong hand of the vigorous young carpenter from Nazareth was a threat of force

sufficient to deter any of the money-changers from contesting it. The whip was necessary
in driving out the animals; but, with regard to the money-changers, the moral
indignation of the Holy One crying out against the callous commercialization of the very
house of God was far more effective than any physical threat could have been. Needless
to say, such action by Jesus was requited by the undying hatred of the godless Sadducees
who were the principal operators of the temple concessions. Their financial interests had
been jeopardized; and one may be sure that from this day forward murderous schemes
were devised for getting rid of Jesus.
This further comment on the meaning of "all" in this verse comes from Hendriksen:
The KJV and RSV favor the idea that Jesus actually drove out all the wicked traffickers
together with the sheep and oxen. In the second cleansing of the temple (Matthew
21:12), it is definitely stated that the cattle dealers were themselves driven out. If that
happened then, we may take for granted that it took place now.[15]
ENDNOTE:
[15] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 123.
16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out
of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a
market!”
GILL, "And said unto them that sold doves,.... For as these were kept in coups, or
cages, they could not be drove, as the sheep and oxen, nor could they be let out, and fly,
without the loss of the owners: and therefore Christ said to them,
take these things hence; not only the doves, but the pens, coups, or cages, in which
they were, and both together:
make not my Father's house an house of merchandise; so he calls the temple,
which was built as an house for God, and where he took up his residence; where were the
symbols of his presence; where his worship was kept, and sacrifices offered to him: and
he asserts God, whose house this was, to be his Father, and himself to be his son, as

none of the prophets that went before him did; and in such sense as neither men nor
angels are; and which carries in it a reason why he was so much concerned for the
honour of God, and so much resented the profanation of his house, because he was his
Father. A like action with this, done by Christ at another time, is recorded in Mat_21:12.
This was at the beginning of his ministry, that at the close of it, in which he expressed
himself with more warmth and severity than here: here he only charges them with
making his Father's house an house of merchandise, but there with making it a den of
thieves; since they had not only slighted, and despised his first reproof, but had returned
to their evil ways, and might grow more wicked and audacious. This instance of Christ
now coming into the temple as a public minister, and which was the first time of his
entrance into it, after he had taken this character, was a further accomplishment of Mal_
3:1, for he now went into it, as the Lord and proprietor of it; and which this action of his
in driving out the merchants, with their cattle, shows; and was a surprising instance of
his divine power; and is equal to other miracles of his, that a single person, a stranger,
one of no power and authority in the government, unassisted and unarmed, with only a
scourge of small cords, should carry such awe and majesty with him, and inject such
terror into, and drive such a number of men before him, who were selling things for
religious uses, and were supported in it by the priests and sanhedrim of the nation.
HE RY, "Thirdly, He said to them that sold doves (sacrifices for the poor), Take
these things hence. The doves, though they took up less room, and were a less nuisance
than the oxen and sheep, yet must not be allowed there. The sparrows and swallows
were welcome, that were left to God's providence (Psa_84:3), but not the doves, that
were appropriated to man's profit. God's temple must not be made a pigeon-house. But
see Christ's prudence in his zeal. When he drove out the sheep and oxen, the owners
might follow them; when he poured out the money, they might gather it up again; but, if
he had turned the doves flying, perhaps they could not have been retrieved; therefore to
them that sold doves he said, Take these things hence. Note, Discretion must always
guide and govern our zeal, that we do nothing unbecoming ourselves, or mischievous to
others.
Fourthly, He gave them a good reason for what he did: Make not my Father's house a
house of merchandise. Reason for conviction should accompany force for correction.
a. Here is a reason why they should not profane the temple, because it was the house
of God, and not to be made a house of merchandise. Merchandise is a good thing in the
exchange, but not in the temple. This was, (a.) to alienate that which was dedicated to
the honour of God; it was sacrilege; it was robbing God. (b.) It was to debase that which
was solemn and awful, and to make it mean. (c.) It was to disturb and distract those
services in which men ought to be most solemn, serious, and intent. It was particularly
an affront to the sons of the stranger in their worship to be forced to herd themselves
with the sheep and oxen, and to be distracted in their worship by the noise of a market,
for this market was kept in the court of the Gentiles. (d.) It was to make the business of
religion subservient to a secular interest; for the holiness of the place must advance the
market, and promote the sale of their commodities. Those make God's house a house of
merchandise, [a.] Whose minds are filled with cares about worldly business when they
are attending on religious exercises, as those, Amo_8:5; Eze_33:31. [b.] Who perform
divine offices for filthy lucre, and sell the gifts of the Holy Ghost, Act_8:18.
b. Here is a reason why he was concerned to purge it, because it was his Father's
house. And, (a.) Therefore he had authority to purge it, for he was faithful, as a Son over
his own house. Heb_3:5, Heb_3:6. In calling God his Father, he intimates that he was
the Messiah, of whom it was said, He shall build a house for my name, and I will be his

Father, 2Sa_7:13, 2Sa_7:14. (b.) Therefore he had a zeal for the purging of it: “It is my
Father's house, and therefore I cannot bear to see it profaned, and him dishonoured.”
Note, If God be our Father in heaven, and it be therefore our desire that his name may
be sanctified, it cannot but be our grief to see it polluted. Christ's purging the temple
thus may justly be reckoned among his wonderful works. Inter omnia signa quae fecit
Dominus, hoc mihi videtur esse mirabilius - Of all Christ's wonderful works this
appears to me the most wonderful. - Hieron. Considering, [a.] That he did it without the
assistance of any of his friends; probably it had been no hard matter to have raised the
mob, who had a great veneration for the temple, against these profaners of it; but Christ
never countenanced any thing that was tumultuous or disorderly. There was one to
uphold, but his own arm did it. [b.] That he did it without the resistance of any of his
enemies, either the market-people themselves, or the chief priests that gave them their
licences, and had the posse templi - temple force, at their command. But the corruption
was too plain to be justified; sinners' own consciences are reformers' best friends; yet
that was not all, there was a divine power put forth herein, a power over the spirits of
men; and in this non-resistance of theirs that scripture was fulfilled (Mal_3:2, Mal_3:3),
Who shall stand when he appeareth?
JAMIESO , "my Father’s house — How close the resemblance of these
remarkable words to Luk_2:49; the same consciousness of intrinsic relation to the
temple - as the seat of His Father’s most august worship, and so the symbol of all that is
due to Him on earth - dictating both speeches. Only, when but a youth, with no
authority, He was simply “a SON IN His own house”; now He was “a SON OVER His
own house” (Heb_3:6), the proper Representative, and in flesh “the Heir,” of his
Father’s rights.
house of merchandise — There was nothing wrong in the merchandise; but to
bring it, for their own and others’ convenience, into that most sacred place, was a high-
handed profanation which the eye of Jesus could not endure.
CALVI , "16.Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise. At the second
time that he drove the traders out of the Temple, the Evangelists relate that he used
sharper and more severe language; for he said, that they had made the Temple of
God a den of robbers, (Matthew 21:13;) and this was proper to be done, when a
milder chastisement was of no avail. At present, he merely warns them not to
profane the Temple of God by applying it to improper uses. The Temple was called
the house of God; because it was the will of God that there He should be peculiarly
invoked; because there He displayed his power; because, finally, he had set it apart
to spiritual and holy services.
My Father’s house. Christ declares himself to be the Son of God, in order to show
that he has a right and authority to cleanse the Temple. As Christ here assigns a
reason for what he did, if we wish to derive any advantage from it, we must attend
chiefly to this sentence. Why, then, does he drive the buyers and sellers out of the
Temple? It is that he may bring back to its original purity the worship of God,
which had been corrupted by the wickedness of men, and in this way may restore
and maintain the holiness of the Temple. ow that temple, we know, was erected,
that it might be a shadow of those things the lively image of which is to be found in

Christ. Thai; it might continue to be devoted to God, it was necessary that it should
be applied exclusively to spiritual purposes. For this reason he pronounces it to be
unlawful that it should be converted into a market-place; for he founds his
statement on the command of God, which we ought always to observe. Whatever
deceptions Satan may employ, let us know that any departure — however small —
from the command of God is wicked. It was a plausible and imposing disguise, that;
the worship of God was aided and promoted, when the sacrifices which were to be
offered by believers were laid ready to their hand; but as God had appropriated his
Temple to different purposes, Christ disregards the objections that might be offered
against the order which God had appointed.
The same arguments do not apply, in the present day, to our buildings for public
worship; but what is said about the ancient Temple applies properly and strictly to
the Church, for it is the heavenly sanctuary of God on earth. We ought always,
therefore, to keep before our eyes the majesty of God, which dwells in the Church,
that it may not be defiled by any pollutions; and the only way in which its holiness
can remain unimpaired is, that nothing shall be admitted into it that is at variance
with the word of God.
COFFMA , "The doves, in cages, could not be driven out, hence the Lord's
command that they be carried out.
House of merchandise ... Among the differences in this cleansing and the second is
this order of the Lord for them to cease and desist from such practices. At the
second cleansing, it was too late to command them to cease, and they were at that
time denounced as "thieves and robbers." Their day of grace had passed.
My Father's house ... "My" indicates the unique sonship of Jesus. and focuses on the
Messianic import of this event of cleansing. As Hunter noted, "The cleansing is far
more than a Jewish reformer's act; it is a sign of the advent of the Messiah."[16] In
Malachi 3:1f, it is written: "The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his
temple ... but who may abide the day of his coming? ... and he shall purify the sons
of Levi." Also, in Zechariah 14:1, we have, "And there shall no longer be a trader in
the house of the Lord of hosts on that day" (RSV). Thus, very early in his ministry,
Jesus laid claim by these bold deeds to his rightful position as the long-awaited
Messiah of Israel and head of the Theocracy.
E D OTE:
[16] A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 33.
MACLARE , "CHRIST CLEANSING THE TEMPLE
JOHN ii. 16.
The other Evangelists do not record this cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of

Christ’s ministry, but, as we all know, tell of a similar act at its very close. John, on the
other hand, has no notice of the latter incident. The question, then, naturally arises, are
these diverse narratives accounts of the same event? The answer seems to me to be in
the negative, because John’s Gospel is evidently intended to supplement the other three,
and to record incidents either unknown to, or unnoticed by, them, and, as a matter of
fact, the whole of this initial visit of our Lord to Jerusalem is omitted by the three
Evangelists. Then the two incidents are distinctly different in tone, in setting, and in the
words with which our Lord accompanies them. They are both appropriate in the place in
which they stand, the one as the initial and the other as all but the final act of His
Messiahship. So we may learn from the repetition of this cleansing the solemn lesson:
that outward reformation of religious corruptions is of small and transient worth. For in
three years-perhaps in as many weeks-the abuse that He corrected returned in full force.
Now, this narrative has many points of interest, but I think I shall best bring out its
meaning if I remind you, by way of introduction, that the Temple of Jerusalem was
succeeded by the Temple of the Christian Church, and that each individual Christian
man is a temple. So there are three things that I want to set before you: what Christ did
in the Temple; what He does in the Church; what He will do to each of us if we will let
Him.
I. First, then, what Christ did in the Temple.
Now, the scene in our narrative is not unlike that which may be witnessed in any Roman
Catholic country in the cathedral place or outside the church on the saint’s day, where
there are long rows of stalls, fitted up with rosaries, and images of the saint, and candles,
and other apparatus for worship.
The abuse had many practical grounds on which it could be defended. It was very
convenient to buy sacrifices on the spot, instead of having to drag them from a distance.
It was no less convenient to be able to exchange foreign money, possibly bearing upon it
the head of an emperor, for the statutory half-shekel. It was profitable to the sellers, and
no doubt to the priests, who were probably sleeping partners in the concern, or drew
rent for the ground on which the stalls stood. And so, being convenient for all and
profitable to many, the thing became a recognised institution.
Being familiar it became legitimate, and no one thought of any incongruity in it until this
young Nazarene felt a flash of zeal for the sanctity of His Father’s house consuming Him.
Catching up some of the reeds which served as bedding for the cattle, He twisted them
into the semblance of a scourge, which could hurt neither man nor beast. He did not use
it. It was a symbol, not an instrument. According to the reading adopted in the Revised
Version, it was the sheep and cattle, not their owners, whom He ‘drove out.’ And then,
dropping the scourge, He turned to the money-changers, and, with the same hand,
overthrew their tables. And then came the turn of the sellers of doves. He would not hurt
the birds, nor rob their owners. And so He neither overthrew nor opened the cages, but
bade them ‘Take these things hence’; and then came the illuminating words, ‘Make not
My Father’s house a house of merchandise.’
Now this incident is very unlike our Lord’s usual method, even if we do not exaggerate
the violence which He employed. It is unlike in two respects: in the use of compulsion,
and in aiming at mere outward reformation. And both of these points are intimately
connected with its place in His career.
It was the first public appearance of Jesus before His nation as Messiah. He inaugurates
His work by a claim-by an act of authority-to be the King of Israel and the Lord of the
Temple. If we remember the words from the last prophet, in which Malachi says that ‘the

Messenger of the Covenant . . . shall suddenly come to His Temple, and purify the sons
of Levi,’ we get the significance of this incident. We have to mark in it our Lord’s
deliberate assumption of the role of Messiah; His shaping His conduct so as to recall to
all susceptible hearts that last utterance of prophecy, and to recognise the fact that at the
beginning of His career He was fully conscious of His Son-ship, and inaugurated His
work by the solemn appeal to the nation to recognise Him as their Lord.
And this is the reason, as I take it, why the anomalous incident is in its place at the
beginning of His career no less than the repetition of it was at the close. And this is the
explanation of the anomaly of the incident. It is His solemn, authoritative claiming to be
God’s Messenger, the Messiah long foretold.
Then, further, this incident is a singular manifestation of Christ’s unique power. How
did it come that all these sordid hucksters had not a word to say, and did not lift a finger
in opposition, or that the Temple Guard offered no resistance, and did not try to quell
the unseemly disturbance, or that the very officials, when they came to reckon with Him,
had nothing harsher to say than, ‘What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing that Thou
doest these things’? No miracle is needed to explain that singular acquiescence. We see
in lower forms many instances of a similar thing. A man ablaze with holy indignation,
and having a secret ally in the hearts of those whom He rebukes, will awe a crowd even if
he does not infect them. But that is not the full explanation. I see here an incident
analogous to that strange event at the close of Christ’s ministry, when, coming out from
beneath the shadows of the olives in the garden, He said to the soldiers ‘Whom seek ye?’
and they fell backwards and wallowed on the ground. An overwhelming impression of
His personal majesty, and perhaps some forth-putting of that hidden glory which did
swim up to the surface on the mountain of Transfiguration, bowed all these men before
Him, like reeds before the wind. And though there was no recognition of His claim, there
was something in the Claimant that forbade resistance and silenced remonstrance.
Further, this incident is a revelation of Christ’s capacity for righteous indignation. No
two scenes can be more different than the two recorded in this chapter: the one that took
place in the rural seclusion of Cana, nestling among the Galilean hills, the other that was
done in the courts of the Temple swarming with excited festival-keepers; the one
hallowing the common joys of daily life, the other rebuking the profanation of what
assumed to be a great deal more sacred than a wedding festival; the one manifesting the
love and sympathy of Jesus, His power to ennoble all human relationships, and His
delight in ministering to need and bringing gladness, and the other setting forth the
sterner aspect of His character as consumed with holy zeal for the sanctity of God’s name
and house. Taken together, one may say that they cover the whole ground of His
character, and in some very real sense are a summary of all His work. The programme
contains the whole of what is to follow hereafter.
We may well take the lesson, which no generation ever needed more than the present,
both by reason of its excellences and of its defects, that there were no love worthy of a
perfect spirit in which there did not lie dormant a dark capacity of wrath, and that Christ
Himself would not have been the Joy-bringer, the sympathising Gladdener which He
manifested Himself as being in the ‘beginning of miracles in Cana of Galilee’ unless, side
by side, there had lain in Him the power of holy indignation and, if need be, of stern
rebuke. Brethren, we must retain our conception of His anger if we are not to maim our
conception of His love. There is no wrath like the wrath of the Lamb. The Temple court,
with the strange figure of the Christ with a scourge in His hand, is a revelation which this
generation, with its exaggerated sentimentalism, with its shrinking, by reason of its good
and of its evil, from the very notion of a divine retribution based upon the eternal

antagonism between good and evil, most sorely needs.
II. Now, secondly, notice what Christ does in His Church.
I need not remind you how God’s method of restoration is always to restore with a
difference and a progress. The ruined Temple on Zion was not to be followed by another
house of stone and lime, but by ‘a spiritual house,’ builded together for ‘a habitation of
God in the Spirit.’ The Christian Church takes the place of that material sanctuary, and is
the dwelling-place of God.
That being so, let us take the lesson that that house, too, may be desecrated. There may
be, as there were in the original Temple, the externals of worship, and yet, eating out the
reality of these, there may be an inward mercenary spirit.
Note how insensibly such corruption creeps in to a community. You cannot embody an
idea in a form or in an external association without immediately dragging it down, and
running the risk of degradation. It is just like a drop of quicksilver which you cannot
expose to the air but instantaneously its brightness is dimmed by the scum that forms on
its surface. A church as an outward institution is exposed to all the dangers to which
other institutions are exposed. And these creep on insensibly, as this abuse had crept on.
So it is not enough that we should be at ease in our consciences in regard to our practices
as Christian communities. We become familiar with any abuse, and as we become
familiar we lose the power of rightly judging of it. Therefore conscience needs to be
guided and enlightened quite as much as to be obeyed.
How long has it taken the Christian Church to learn the wickedness of slavery? Has the
Christian Church yet learned the unchristianity of War? Are there no abuses amongst us,
which subsequent generations will see to be so glaring that they will talk about us as we
talk about our ancestors, and wonder whether we were Christians at all when we could
tolerate such things? They creep on gradually, and they need continual watchfulness if
they are not to assume the mastery.
The special type of corruption which we find in this incident is one that besets the
Church always. Of course, if I were preaching to ministers, I should have a great deal to
say about that. For men that are necessarily paid for preaching have a sore temptation to
preach for pay. But it is not only we professionals who have need to lay to heart this
incident. It is all Christian communities, established and non-established churches,
Roman Catholic and Protestant. The same danger besets them all. There must be money
to work the outward business of the house of God. But what about people that ‘run’
churches as they run mills? What about people whose test of the prosperity of a
Christian community is its balance-sheet? What about the people that hang on to
religious communities and services for the sake of what they can make out of them? We
have heard a great deal lately about what would happen ‘if Christ came to Chicago.’ If
Christ came to any community of professing Christians in this land, do you not think He
would need to have the scourge in His hand, and to say ‘Make not My Father’s house a
house of merchandise’? He will come; He does come; He is always coming if we would
listen to Him. And at long intervals He comes in some tremendous and manifest fashion,
and overthrows the money-changers’ tables.
Ah, brethren! if Jesus Christ had not thus come, over and over again, to His Church,
Christian men would have killed Christianity long ago. Did you ever think that
Christianity is the only religion that has shown recuperative power and that has been
able to fling off its peccant humours? They used to say-I do not know whether it is true
or not-that Thames water was good to put on board ship because of its property of
corrupting and then clearing itself, and becoming fit to drink. We and our brethren, all

through the ages, have been corrupting the Water of Life. And how does it come to be
sweet and powerful still? This tree has substance in it when it casts its leaves. That
unique characteristic of Christianity, its power of reformation, is not self-reformation,
but it is a coming of the Lord to His temple to ‘purify the sons of Levi, that their offering
may be pleasant as in days of yore.’
So one looks upon the spectacle of churches labouring under all manner of corruptions;
and one need not lose heart. The shortest day is the day before the year turns; and when
the need is sorest the help is nearest. And so I, for my part, believe that very much of the
organisations of all existing churches will have to be swept away. But I believe too, with
all my heart-and I hope that you do-that, though the precious wheat is riddled in the
sieve, and the chaff falls to the ground, not one grain will go through the meshes.
Whatever becomes of churches, the Church of Christ shall never have its strength so
sapped by abuses that it must perish, or its lustre so dimmed that the Lord of the Temple
must depart from His sanctuary.
III. Lastly, note what Christ will do for each of us if we will let Him.
It is not a community only which is the temple of God. For the Apostles in many places
suggest, and in some distinctly say, ‘ye are the temples’ individually, as well as the
Temple collectively, of the Most High. And so every Christian soul-by virtue of that
which is the deepest truth of Christianity, the indwelling of Christ in men’s hearts by
faith-is a temple of God; and every human soul is meant to be and may become such.
That temple can be profaned. There are many ways in which professing Christians make
it a house of merchandise. There are forms of religion which are little better than
chaffering with God, to give Him so much service if He will repay us with so much
Heaven. There are too many temptations, to which we yield, to bring secular thoughts
into our holiest things. Some of us, by reason not of wishing wealth but of dreading
penury, find it hard to shut worldly cares out of our hearts. We all need to be on our
guard lest the atmosphere in which we live in this great city shall penetrate even into our
moments of devotion, and the noise of the market within earshot of the Holy of Holies
shall disturb the chant of the worshippers. It is Manchester’s temptation, and it is one
that most of us need to be guarded against.
So engrossed, and, as we should say, necessarily engrossed-or, at all events, legitimately
engrossed-are we in the pursuits of our daily commerce, that we have scarcely time
enough or leisure of heart and mind enough to come into ‘the secret place of the Most
High.’ The worshippers stop outside trading for beasts and doves, and they have no time
to go into the Temple and present their offerings.
It is our besetting danger. Forewarned is forearmed, to some extent. Would that we
could all hear, as we go about our ordinary avocations, that solemn voice, ‘Make not My
Father’s house a house of merchandise,’ and could keep the inner sanctuary still from
the noises, and remote from the pollutions, of the market hard by!
We cannot cast out these or any other desecrating thoughts and desires by ourselves,
except to a very small degree. And if we do, then there happens what our Lord warned us
against in profound words. The house may be emptied of the evil tenant in some
measure by our own resolution and self-reformation. But if it is not occupied by Him, it
remains ‘empty,’ though it is ‘swept and garnished.’ Nature abhors a vacuum, and into
the empty house there come the old tenant and seven brethren blacker than himself. The
only way to keep the world out of my heart is to have Christ filling it. If we will ask Him
He will come to us. And if He has the scourge in His hand, let Him be none the less
welcome a guest for that. He will come, and when He enters, it will be like the rising of

the sun, when all the beasts of the forest slink away and lay them down in their dens. It
will be like the carrying of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord of the whole earth into the
temple of Dagon, when the fish-like image fell prone and mutilated on the threshold. If
we say to Him, ‘Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest, Thou and the Ark of Thy strength,’ He will
enter in, and by His entrance will ‘make the place of His feet glorious’ and pure.
17 His disciples remembered that it is written:
“Zeal for your house will consume me.”[c]
BAR ES, "It was written ... - This is recorded in Psa_69:9. Its meaning is, that he
was affected with great zeal or concern for the pure worship of God.
The zeal of thine house - “Zeal” is intense ardor in reference to any object. The
“zeal of thine house” means extraordinary concern for the temple of God; intense
solicitude that the worship there should be pure, and such as God would approve.
Hath eaten me up - Hath absorbed me, or engaged my entire attention and
affection; hath surpassed all other feelings, so that it may be said to be the one great
absorbing affection and desire of the mind. Here is an example set for ministers and for
all Christians. In Jesus this was the great commanding sentiment of his life. In us it
should be also. In this manifestation of zeal he began and ended his ministry. In this we
should begin and end our lives. We learn, also, that ministers of religion should aim to
purify the church of God. Wicked men, conscience-smitten, will tremble when they see
proper zeal in the ministers of Jesus Christ; and there is no combination of wicked men,
and no form of depravity, that can stand before the faithful, zealous, pure preaching of
the gospel. The preaching of every minister should be such that wicked men will feel that
they must either become Christians or leave the house of God, or spend their lives there
in the consciousness of guilt and the fear of hell.
CLARKE, "The zeal of thine house - See Psa_59:10. Zeal to promote thy glory,
and to keep thy worship pure.
GILL, "And his disciples remembered that it was written,.... In Psa_69:9,
which Psalm belongs to the Messiah, as is manifest from the citations out of it in the
New Testament, and the application of them to Christ, as in Joh_15:25, compared with
Psa_69:4. Christ is represented in it, as suffering for the sins of his people; for he
himself was innocent; and was hated without a cause; but having the sins of his people

imputed to him, he made satisfaction for them, and so restored what he took not away.
His sufferings are spoken of in it as very great; and from it we learn, that they are fitly
called, by himself, a baptism, which he desired to be baptized with, Luk_12:50, since the
waters are said to come into his soul, and he to be in deep waters, where the floods
overflowed him; so that he was as one immersed in them: it is not only prophesied of
him in it, that he should be the object of the scorn and contempt of the Jewish nation,
and be rejected by them, and treated with the utmost indignity, and loaded with
reproaches; but it foretold, that they should give him gall to eat, and vinegar to drink,
which were literally fulfilled in him: and even the Jews themselves seem to be under
some conviction, that the Psalm has respect to him; for Aben Ezra, a noted commentator
of theirs, on the last words of the Psalm, has this note;
"the sense is, they and their children shall inherit it in the days of David, or in the days of
the Messiah.''
It appears from hence, that the disciples of Christ were acquainted with the sacred
writings, and had diligently read them, and searched into them, and had made them
their study; and upon this wonderful action of Christ, called to mind, and reflected upon
the following passage of Scripture, which they judged very proper and pertinent to him:
the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. This passage, so far as it is cited, agrees
exactly, word for word, with the original text in Psa_69:9, wherefore it is very strange
that Surenhusius (f) should remark a difference, and give himself a good deal of trouble
to reconcile it: he observes, that in the Hebrew text, it is read, ‫יהוה‬ ‫,קנאת‬ "the zeal of the
Lord", in the third person; whereas it is there, ‫ביתך‬ ‫,קנאת‬ "the zeal of thine house", as
here, in the second person: indeed, the word ‫,כי‬ "for", is left out, as he remarks, there
being no need of it in the citation; the evangelist only historically relating the
accommodation of it to Christ, by the disciples; whereas in the original text, the words
contain a reason of the reproach and shame which Christ endured, and was put to by the
Jews on account of his zeal for the house, honour, and worship of God; and the latter
part of the text is not produced at all, being not for the present purpose, though very
applicable to Christ; and is cited, and applied to him by the apostle, in Rom_15:3. Such
was Christ's regard to his Father's house, and which was typical of the church of God;
and such his concern for his honour, ordinances, and worship, that when he saw the
merchandise that was carried on in the temple, his zeal, which was a true and hearty
affection for God, and was according to knowledge, was stirred up in him, and to such a
degree, that it was like a consuming fire within him, that ate up his spirits; so that he
could not forbear giving it vent, and expressing it in the manner he did, by driving those
traders out of it. Phinehas and Elias were in their zeal, as well as other things, types of
Christ; and in the Spirit and power of the latter he came; and Christ not only expressed a
zeal for the house of God, the place of religious worship, but for the church and people of
God, whose salvation he most earnestly desired, and most zealously pursued: he showed
his strong, and affectionate regard to it, by his suretyship engagements for them, by his
assumption of their nature, by his ardent desire to accomplish it, and by his voluntary
and cheerful submission to death on account of it. And such was his zeal for it, that it eat
him up, it inflamed his Spirit and affections, consumed his time and strength, and, at
last, his life: and he also showed a zeal for the discipline of God's house, by his severe
reflections on human traditions; by asserting the spirituality of worship; by
commanding a strict regard to divine institutions; and by sharply inveighing against the

sins of professors of religion: and he discovered a warm zeal for the truths of the Gospel,
by a lively and powerful preaching of them; by his constancy and assiduity in it; by the
many fatiguing journeys he took for that purpose; by the dangers he exposed himself to
by it; and by the care he took to free the Gospel from prejudice and calumnies: and it
becomes us, in imitation of our great master, to be zealous for his truths and ordinances,
and for the discipline of his house, and not bear with either the erroneous principles, or
the bad practices of wicked men.
HE RY, "Fifthly, Here is the remark which his disciples made upon it (Joh_2:17):
They remembered that it was written, The Zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. They
were somewhat surprised at first to see him to whom they were directed as the Lamb of
God in such a heat, and him whom they believed to be the King of Israel take so little
state upon him as to do this himself; but one scripture came to their thoughts, which
taught them to reconcile this action both with the meekness of the Lamb of God and
with the majesty of the King of Israel; for David, speaking of the Messiah, takes notice of
his zeal for God's house, as so great that it even ate him up, it made him forget himself,
Psa_69:9. Observe, 1. The disciples came to understand the meaning of what Christ did,
by remembering the scriptures: They remembered now that it was written. Note, The
word of God and the works of God do mutually explain and illustrate each other. Dark
scriptures are expounded by their accomplishment in providence, and difficult
providences are made easy by comparing them with the scriptures. See of what great use
it is to the disciples of Christ to be ready and mighty in the scriptures, and to have their
memories well stored with scripture truths, by which they will be furnished for every
good work, 2. The scripture they remembered was very apposite: The zeal of thine house
hath eaten me up. David was in this a type of Christ that he was zealous for God's house,
Psa_132:2, Psa_132:3. What he did for it was with all his might; see 1Ch_29:2. The
latter part of that verse (Psa_69:9) is applied to Christ (Rom_15:3), as the former part of
it here. All the graces that were to be found among the Old Testament saints were
eminently in Christ, and particularly this of zeal for the house of God, and in them, as
they were patterns to us, so they were types of him. Observe, (1.) Jesus Christ was
zealously affected to the house of God, his church: he loved it, and was always jealous for
its honour and welfare. (2.) This zeal did even eat him up; it made him humble himself,
and spend himself, and expose himself. My zeal has consumed me, Psa_119:139. Zeal for
the house of God forbids us to consult our own credit, ease, and safety, when they come
in competition with our duty and Christ's service, and sometimes carries on our souls in
our duty so far and so fast that our bodies cannot keep pace with them, and makes us as
deaf as our Master was to those who suggested, Spare thyself. The grievances here
redressed might seem but small, and such as should have been connived at; but such was
Christ's zeal that he could not bear even those that sold and bought in the temple. Si ibi
ebrios inveniret quid faceret Dominus! (saith St. Austin.) If he had found drunkards in
the temple, how much more would he have been displeased!
JAMIESO , "eaten me up — a glorious feature in the predicted character of the
suffering Messiah (Psa_69:9), and rising high even in some not worthy to loose the
latchet of His shoes. (Exo_32:19, etc.).
BURKITT, "The disciples upon this occasion called to remembrance the words of David,
The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up: Psalms 69:9 which was verified in Christ as
well as in David.

Where observe, 1. The grace described, zeal, which is the ardour of the affections,
carrying forth a man to the utmost for God's glory, and his church's good. Zeal is not so
much one affection, as the intense degree of all the affections.
Observe, 2. The object about which our Saviour's zeal was conversant, God's house, that
is, all things relating to the worship of God, temple, tabernacle, ark, &c. which were the
pledges of God's presence.
Observe, 3. The effect of this, it hath eaten me up, like fire that eats up and devours that
whereon it lights. What was said of St. Peter, That he was a man made up all of fire; and
of St. Paul in respect of his sufferings, that he was a spark of fire burning in the midst of
the sea, may much more truly be said of Christ, when he was engaged in the work of
church-reformation.
Learn, That as Christ was, so Christians ought to be, very zealous for the glory of God,
the honour of his house, and the purity of his worship. The zeal of thine house, that is,
for the honour of thine house, hath eaten me up, &c.
COFFMAN, "This quotation is Psalms 69:9; and, again from Hendriksen:
The disciples witnessing this manifestation of the zeal of their Lord for the house of his
Father, are filled with fear that Jesus may suffer what David had to endure in his day,
namely, that his zeal in some way would result in his being consumed.[17]
And of course, as noted above, it was precisely this manifestation of the Saviour's zeal
that set in motion against him the murderous animosity of the religious apparatus in
Jerusalem, which never relented until a cross arose upon Golgotha.
Jesus never lost sight of the Messianic implications of the temple cleansings; and, in the
second instance of it, he reminded the selfish concessionaires that the house of God's
holy religion had never been intended as their private privilege and personal domain,
but that "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations" (Mark 11:17; Isaiah
56:7), indicating that "all nations," including the Gentiles, were intended to be benefited
through the coming Messiah. Thus, the sin of the money-changers was not merely
against Israel, but against all mankind also. The strong Messianic implications of this
bold deed were not altogether lost on the priests, for they immediately demanded a sign
that would confirm Jesus' implied claim of Messiahship. The cleansing itself was an
excellent sign, but that they rejected.
ENDNOTE:
[17] William Hendriksen, op. cit., p. 123.
CALVI , "17.And his disciples remembered. It is to no purpose that some people
tease themselves with the inquiry how the disciples remembered a passage of
Scripture, with the meaning of which they were hitherto unacquainted. For we must

not understand that this passage of Scripture came to their remembrance at that
time; but afterwards, when, having been taught by God, they considered with
themselves what was the meaning of this action of Christ, by the direction of the
Holy Spirit this passage of Scripture occurred to them. And, indeed, it does not
always happen that the reason of God’s works is immediately perceived by us, but
afterwards, in process of time, He makes known to us his purpose. And this is a
bridle exceedingly well adapted to restrain our presumption, that we may not
murmur against God, if at any time our judgment does not entirely approve of what
he does. We are at the same time reminded, that when God holds us as it were in
suspense, it is our duty to wait for the time of more abundant knowledge, and to
restrain the excessive haste which is natural to us; for the reason why God delays
the full manifestation of his works is, that he may keep us humble.
The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. The meaning is, that the disciples at
length came to know, that the zeal for the house of God, with which Christ burned,
excited him to drive out of it those profanations. By a figure of speech, in which a
part is taken for the whole, David employs the name of the temple to denote the
whole worship of God; for the entire verse runs thus:
the zeal of thy house hath eaten me up, and the reproaches of them who reproached
thee have fallen on me, (Psalms 69:9.)
The second clause corresponds to the first, or rather it is nothing else than a
repetition explaining what had been said. The amount of both clauses is, that
David’s anxiety about maintaining the worship of God was so intense, that he
cheerfully laid down his head to receive all the reproaches which wicked men threw
against God; and that he burned with suchzeal, that this single feeling swallowed up
every other. He tells us that he himself had such feelings; but there can be no doubt
that he described in his own person what strictly belonged to the Messiah.
Accordingly, the Evangelist says, that this was one of the marks by which the
disciples knew that it was Jesus who protected and restored the kingdom of God.
ow observe that they followed the guidance of Scripture, in order to form such an
opinion concerning Christ as they ought to entertain; and, indeed, no man will ever
learn what Christ is, or the object of what he did and suffered, unless he has been
taught and guided by Scripture. So far, then, as each of us shall desire to make
progress in the knowledge of Christ, it will be necessary that Scripture shall be the
subject of our diligent and constant meditation. Igor is it without a good reason that
David mentions the house of God, when the divine glory is concerned; for though
God is sufficient for himself, and needs not the services of any, yet he wishes that his
glory should be displayed in the Church. In this way he gives a remarkable proof of
his love towards us, because he unites his glory — as it were, by an indissoluble link
— with our salvation.
ow as Paul informs us that, in the example of the head, a general doctrine is
presented to the whole body, (Romans 15:3,) let each of us apply to the invitation of
Christ, that — so far as lies in our power — we may not permit the temple of God to

be in any way polluted. But, at the same time, we must beware lest any man
transgress the bounds of his calling. All of us ought to have zeal in common with the
Son of God; but all are not at liberty to seize a whip, that we may correct vices with
our hands; for we have not received the same power, nor have we been entrusted
with the same commission.
SBC, "I. Zeal is one of the elementary religious qualifications—that is, one of those
which are essential to the very notion of a religious man. A man cannot be said to be in
earnest in religion till he magnifies his God and Saviour; till he so far consecrates and
exalts the thought of Him in his heart, as an object of praise and adoration and rejoicing,
as to be pained and grieved at dishonour shown to Him, and eager to avenge Him. In a
word, a religious temper is one of loyalty towards God; and we all know what is meant by
being loyal from the experience of civil matters. To be loyal is not merely to obey, but to
obey with promptitude, energy, dutiful ness, disinterested devotion, disregard of
consequences. And such is zeal, except that it is ever attended with that reverential
feeling which is due from a creature and a sinner towards his Maker, and towards Him
alone.
II. On the other hand, zeal is an imperfect virtue; that is, in our fallen state, it will ever be
attended by unchristian feelings if it is cherished by itself. (1) Love perfects zeal,
purifying and regulating it. (2) Faith is another grace which is necessary to the
perfection of zeal. We have need of faith, not only that we may direct our actions to a
right object, but that we may. perform them rightly; it guides us in choosing the means
as well as the end. Now, zeal is very apt to be self-willed; it takes upon itself to serve God
in its own way. Patience, then, and resignation to God’s will, are tempers of mind of
which zeal stands especially in need—that dutiful faith which will take nothing for
granted on the mere suggestion of nature, looks up to God with the eyes of a servant
towards his master, and, as far as may be, ascertains His will before he acts. If this
heavenly corrective be wanting, zeal becomes what is called political. Christian zeal plans
no intrigues; it recognises no parties; it relies on no arm of flesh. It looks for no essential
improvements or permanent reformations in the dispensation of those precious gifts
which are ever pure in their origin, ever corrupted in man’s use of them. It acts
according to God’s will, this time or that, as it comes, boldly and promptly; yet letting
each act stand by itself, as a sufficient service to Him, not connecting them in one, or
working them into system, further than He commands. In a word, Christian zeal is not
political.
J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. ii., p. 379.
BARCLAY, "THE EW TEMPLE (John 2:17-22)
2:17-22 His disciples remembered that there is a scripture which stands written:
"For zeal for your house has consumed me." Then the Jews demanded of him:
"What sign do you show us to justify your acting in this way?" Jesus answered:
"Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up." Then the Jews said: "It
has taken forty-six years to build the Temple so far, and are you going to raise it up
in three days?" But he was speaking about the temple of his body. So when he was
raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they

believed on the scripture and on the word which Jesus spoke.
It was quite certain that an act like the cleansing of the Temple would produce an
immediate reaction in those who saw it happening. It was not the kind of thing that
anyone could look at with complete indifference. It was much too staggering for
that.
Here we have two reactions. First, there is the reaction of the disciples which was to
remember the words of Psalms 69:9. The point is that this Psalm was taken to refer
to the Messiah. When the Messiah came he would be burned up with a zeal for the
house of God. When this verse leapt into their minds, it meant the conviction that
Jesus was the Messiah seized the minds of the disciples even more deeply and more
definitely. This action befitted none but the Messiah, and they were surer than ever
that Jesus was in fact the Anointed One of God.
Second, there is the reaction of the Jews, a very natural one. They asked what right
Jesus had to act like that and demanded that he should at once prove his credentials
by some sign. The point is this. They acknowledged the act of Jesus to be that of one
who thereby claimed to be the Messiah. It was always expected that when the
Messiah came he would confirm his claims by doing amazing things. False Messiahs
did in fact arise and promise to cleave the waters of Jordan in two or make the walls
of the city collapse at a word. The popular idea of the Messiah was connected with
wonders. So the Jews said: "By this act of yours you have publicly claimed to be the
Messiah. ow show us some wonder which will prove your claim."
Jesus' reply constitutes the great problem of this passage. What did he really say?
And what did he really mean? It is always to be remembered that John 2:21-22 are
John's interpretation written long afterwards. He was inevitably reading into the
passage ideas which were the product of seventy years of thinking about and
experience of the Risen Christ. As Irenaeus said long ago: " o prophecy is fully
understood until after the fulfilment of it." But what did Jesus originally say and
what did he originally mean?
There is no possible doubt that Jesus spoke words which were very like these, words
which could be maliciously twisted into a destructive claim. When Jesus was on
trial, the false witness borne against him was: "This fellow said, I am able to destroy
the temple of God, and to build it in three days" (Matthew 26:61). The charge
levelled against Stephen was: "We have heard him say that this Jesus of azareth
will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us"
(Acts 6:14).
We must remember two things and we must put them together. First, Jesus certainly
never said he would destroy the material Temple and then rebuild it. Jesus in fact
looked for the end of the Temple. He said to the woman of Samaria that the day was
coming when men would worship God neither in Mount Gerizim, nor in Jerusalem,
but in spirit and in truth (John 4:21). Second, the cleansing of the Temple, as we
have seen, was a dramatic way of showing that the whole Temple worship with its

ritual and its sacrifice was irrelevant and could do nothing to lead men to God. It is
clear that Jesus did expect that the Temple would pass away; that he had come to
render its worship unnecessary and obsolete; and that therefore he would never
suggest that he would rebuild it.
We must now turn to Mark. As so often, we find the little extra suggestive and
illuminating phrase there. As Mark relates the charge against Jesus, it ran: "I will
destroy this Temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another
not made with hands" (Mark 14:58). What Jesus really meant was that his coming
had put an end to all this man-made, man-arranged way of worshipping God and
put in its place a spiritual worship; that he put an end to all this business of animal
sacrifice and priestly ritual and put in its place a direct approach to the Spirit of
God which did not need an elaborate man-made Temple and a ritual of incense and
sacrifice offered by the hands of men. The threat of Jesus was: "Your Temple
worship, your elaborate ritual, your lavish animal sacrifices are at an end, because I
have come." The promise of Jesus was: "I will give you a way to come to God
without all this human elaboration and human ritual. I have come to destroy this
Temple in Jerusalem and to make the whole earth the Temple where men can know
the presence of the living God."
The Jews saw that. It was in 19 B.C. that Herod had begun to build that wondrous
Temple; it was not until A.D. 64 that the building was finally finished. It was forty-
six years since it had been started; it was to be another twenty before it was ended.
Jesus shattered the Jews by telling them that all its magnificence and splendour and
all the money and skill that had been lavished on it were completely irrelevant; that
he had come to show men a way to come to God without any Temple at all.
That must be what Jesus actually said; but in the years to come John saw far more
than that in Jesus' saying. He saw in it nothing less than a prophecy of the
Resurrection; and John was right. He was right for this basic reason, that the whole
round earth could never become the temple of the living God until Jesus was
released from the body and was everywhere present; and until he was with men
everywhere, even to the end of the world.
It is the presence of the living, risen Christ which makes the whole world into the
Temple of God. So John says that when they remembered, they saw in this a
promise of the Resurrection. They did not see that at the time; they could not; it was
only their own experience of the living Christ which one day showed them the true
depth of what Jesus said.
Finally John says that "they believed the scripture." What scripture? John means
that scripture which haunted the early church--". . . or let thy godly one see the Pit"
(Psalms 16:10). Peter quoted it at Pentecost (Acts 2:31); Paul quoted it at Antioch
(Acts 13:35). It expressed the confidence of the church in the power of God and in
the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We have here the tremendous truth that our contact with God, our entry into his

presence, on our approach to him is not dependent on anything that men's hands
can build or men's minds devise. In the street, in the home, at business, on the hits,
on the open road, in church we have our inner temple, the presence of the Risen
Christ for ever with us throughout all the world.
18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign
can you show us to prove your authority to do all
this?”
BAR ES, "What sign ... - What “miracle” dost thou work? He assumed the
character of a prophet. He was reforming, by his “authority,” the temple. It was natural
to ask by what authority this was done; and as they had been accustomed to miracles in
the life of Moses, and Elijah, and the other prophets, so they demanded evidence that he
had authority thus to cleanse the house of God.
Seeing that thou doest - Rather “by what title or authority thou doest these things.”
Our translation is ambiguous. They wished to know “by what miracle” he had shown, or
could show, his right to do those things.
CLARKE, "What sign showest thou - See on Mat_12:38 (note); Mat_16:1 (note).
When Moses came to deliver Israel, he gave signs, or miracles, that he acted under a
Divine commission. What miracle dost thou work to show us that thou art vested with
similar authority?
GILL, "Then answered the Jews, and said unto him,.... They did not lay hands
on him, or offer any violence to him; they did not, as the inhabitants of Nazareth did,
thrust him out, and lead him to a precipice, to cast him down headlong; nor did they
take up stones to stone him, as they afterwards did, when he asserted his deity: and it is
surprising, that they did not rise up and destroy him at once, a single man, unarmed,
and without assistance, having so highly provoked them; the restraint upon them must
be his almighty power: nor do they deny what he suggested, that they had made his
Father's house an house of merchandise; nor do they offer to vindicate their profanation
of the temple, or object to the purging of it; only demand a proof of his right to do it: and
which demand was made, not by the common people, or by the sellers of oxen, sheep,
and doves, and the money changers, who were drove out, and had not spirit to rally
again; but by the chief priests and elders, the sanhedrim of the nation, who had the care
and government of the temple, and under whose authority the above persons acted; and
whose gain and worldly interest were promoted hereby, as a like demand was afterwards
made by the same persons; see Mat_21:23;

what sign shewest thou unto us, seeing thou dost these things? they argued,
that either he did these things of himself, by his own authority, and then they must be
deemed rash and unjustifiable; or he did it by the authority of others: they knew it was
not by theirs, who were the great council of the nation, from whom he should have had
his instructions and orders, if he acted by human authority; and if he pretended to a
divine authority, as they supposed he did, then they insisted upon a sign or miracle to be
wrought, to prove that God was his Father, as he suggested; and that he was the
proprietor and owner of the temple, and had a right to purge it, as he had done; see 1Co_
1:22.
HE RY, "2. Christ, having thus purged the temple, gave a sign to those who
demanded it to prove his authority for so doing. Observe here,
(1.) Their demand of a sign: Then answered the Jews, that is the multitude of the
people, with their leaders. Being Jews, they should rather have stood by him, and
assisted him to vindicate the honour of their temple; but, instead of this, they objected
against it. note, Those who apply themselves in good earnest to the work of reformation
must expect to meet with opposition. When they could object nothing against the thing
itself, they questioned his authority to do it: “What sign showest thou unto us, to prove
thyself authorized and commissioned to do these things?” It was indeed a good work to
purge the temple; but what had he to do to undertake it, who was in no office there?
They looked upon it as an act of jurisdiction, and that he must prove himself a prophet,
yea, more than a prophet. But was not the thing itself sign enough? His ability to drive
so many from their posts, without opposition, was a proof of his authority; he that was
armed with such a divine power was surely armed with a divine commission. What ailed
these buyers and sellers, that they fled, that they were driven back? Surely it was at the
presence of the Lord (Psa_114:5, Psa_114:7), no less a presence.
JAMIESO , "What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these
things? — Though the act and the words of Christ, taken together, were sign enough,
they were unconvinced: yet they were awed, and though at His very next appearance at
Jerusalem they “sought to kill Him” for speaking of “His Father” just as He did now
(Joh_5:18), they, at this early stage, only ask a sign.
BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. How exceedingly offended the Jews were at the reformation
which our Saviour had made in the house of God; they were awed indeed with the
majesty of this great work, and durst not openly oppose, but secretly malign it.
Thence note, That redress of abuses in God's worship, especially if it crosses our ease,
and controls our profit, (as this did), is usually distasted.
Observe, 2. How these Jews discover their old inveterate disease of infidelity; they
require a sign, and call for a miracle to justify Christ's commission. Why! had they not a
miracle before their eyes? Was not the work of purging the temple a wonderful miracle?
Yet they demanded another miracle to make this good.
Learn thence, That obstinate infidelity will not be satisfied with the most sufficient
means for satisfaction, but still object and oppose against the clearest, the fullest, and

most convincing evidence. What sign showest thou us? says the Jews, when they had so
many signs and wonders daily before their eyes.
Observe, 3. The Jews demanding a sign. our Saviour grants them one; he remits them to
his death and resurrection, to prove that he was the true Messiah. Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up. That is, "I know you will destroy this temple of my
body, by putting me to deaeth; but I will raise myself again from the grave the third day."
Christ did not command them to destroy his body, but only foretold that they would do
it. Non est verbum Praecepti, sed Praedictionis: "The words are not imperative, but only
predictive and permissive." Christ did not bid them destroy his body, but foretells what
they would do. "Ye will destroy this temple, but after three days I will raise it up."
Where note, That Christ asserts his own power in raising his own body from the dead.
True! The Father is often said to raise him, and it is necessary that it be so said, that it
might appear that divine justice was fully satisfied for our sins, in that he was by him
delivered from that death which he underwent for us.
But yet it is often asserted, That Christ raised himself, and that he was quickened by the
Spirit, which was as well the Spirit of the Son, as of the Father, dwelling essentially in
him.
Now from Christ's foretelling his passion and resurrection, learn thence, that all our
Saviour's sufferings wee foreknown unto him, were foretold by him; he would not
prevent them, but willingly permitted them, and cheerfully underwent them. Destroy
this temple.
Note here, 1. The state and dignity of Christ's holy body: 'Tis a temple. He spake of the
temple of his body. The saints' bodies are temples by special sanctification: Christ's body
was a temple by substantial inhabitation. The divinity of Christ dwelt in his humanity
personally and immediately. God dwells in saints by regal authority; he dwelt in Christ's
humanity by personal residence.
Note, 2. The violence and indignity offered to this holy temple at our Saviour's death, it
was pulled down and destroyed; death dissolved the union betwixt our Saviour's soul
and body; but there was a closer union, which no violence of death could dissolve:
namely, the union of his godhead with his manhood; this was incapable either of
dissolution or destruction.
Note, 3. The repairing, restoring, and raising up of this temple out of the ruins of it, by
our Saviour's resurrection. In three days I will raise it up.
Observe, A full proof of our Saviour's divinity. To raise a dead man exceeds the power of
nature; but for a dead man to raise himself, requires the power of God. We read of dead
men raised by others; but none but Christ ever raised himself. The Jews could not say,
he raised others from the grace, himself he could not raise.
Inference, 1. Was Christ's body a temple? so shall ours be too; temples for the Holy

Ghost to dwell in. Temples by special appropriation, temples by solemn consecration,
temples by actual employment: If any man defile this temple, him will God destroy.
2. Was the temple of Christ's body pulled down by death, and destroyed; so must also
the temples of our bodies ere long. The temple of his body was pulled down for our sin;
the temples of our bodies ruined by our sin. Sin brought mortality into our natures, and
the wages of our sin is death.
3. Was the temple of Christ's body repaired in the morning of the resurrection? So shall
the temple of our bodies also, if we be the members of Christ by a vital union. Thy dead
men, O blessed redeemer! shall live; together with thy dead body shall they arise. Awake
then and sing, ye that dwell in the dust, for the dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth
shall cast out the dead, Isaiah 26:19
CALVI , "18.What sign showest thou to us? When in so large an assembly no man
laid hands on Christ, and none of the dealers in cattle or of the money-changers
repelled him by violence, we may conclude that they were all stunned and struck
with astonishment by the hand of God. And, therefore, if they had not been utterly
blinded, this would have been a sufficiently evident miracle, that one man against a
great multitude, an unarmed man against strong men, all unknown man against so
great rulers, attempted so great an achievement. For since they were far stronger,
why did they not oppose him, but because their hands were loosened and — as it
were — broken?
Yet they have some ground for putting the question; for it does not belong to every
man to change suddenly, if any thing is faulty or displeases him in the temple of
God. All are, indeed, at liberty to condemn corruptions; but if a private man put
forth his hand to remove them, he will be accused of rashness. As the custom of
selling in the temple had been generally received, Christ attempted what was new
and uncommon; and therefore they properly call on him to prove that he was sent
by God; for they found their argument on this principle, that in public
administration it is not lawful to make any change without an undoubted calling
and command of God. But they erred on another point, by refusing to admit the
calling of Christ, unless he had performed a miracle; for it was not an invariable
rule that the Prophets and other ministers of God should perform miracles; and
God did not limit himself to this necessity. They do wrong, therefore, in laying down
a law to God by demanding a sign. When the Evangelist says that the Jews asked
him, he unquestionably means by that term the multitude who were standing there,
and, as it were, the whole body of the Church; as if he had said, that it was not the
speech of one or two persons, but of the people.
COKE, "John 2:18. Then answered the Jews, &c.— A fact so public and
remarkable as this, could not but immediately come to the knowledge of the priests
and rulers of the Jews, whose supreme council sat in a magnificent chamber
belonging to the temple; a fine rotunda, called from its beautiful pavement, Lishcath
Hagazith, which stood on the wall of the temple, part of it within, and part of it

without its sacred precincts. There seems to be no doubt that the Jews here
mentioned were rulers; because we know that the great assembly of the Jewish
rulers,—the sanhedrim,—sat in the temple. Christ's driving out the buyers and
sellers must undoubtedly have come to their knowledge; and as their office seemed
to authorise them to call him to an account, we are sure that their prejudicesagainst
him would incline them to do it. The truth is, this affair had the mark of
anextraordinary zeal; a zeal nothing inferior to that for which the prophets were
famed; and this was the reason why the rulers came to him, desiring to know by
what authority he had undertaken singly to make such reformation in the house and
worship of God, especially in reference to matters which had been declared lawful
by the council, and by doctors of the greatest reputation: and if he had any real
authority for doing such things, they required him to shew it them, by working a
miracle for that purpose. See John 2:23.
LIGHTFOOT, "[What sign showest thou unto us?] " oah, Hezekiah, &c., require a
sign; much more the wicked and ungodly."
Since there had been so many, no less than four hundred years past, from the time
that the Holy Spirit had departed from that nation, and prophecies had ceased, in
which space there had not appeared any one person that pretended to the gift either
of prophesying or working miracles, it is no wonder if they were suspicious of one
that now claimed the character, and required a sign of him.
HAWKER 18-22, "Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, What sign shewest
thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? (19) Jesus answered and said unto
them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. (20) Then said the Jews,
Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
(21) But he spake of the temple of his body. (22) When therefore he was risen from the
dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them: and they believed the
scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
It really should seem, by the conduct of those men, and their asking Christ to shew them
some sign, for such an exercise of his authority; as if for the moment, they had been
overawed, and more than half convinced, who Christ was. Had this not been the case,
one should have expected to have seen them to a man reddened with anger, and seizing
Jesus, to bring him to punishment. Whereas, they never attempted to oppose what the
Lord did; neither to gainsay what the Lord said. Jesus called God his Father; and in
confirmation purged the Temple, which they had profaned. To all which; the whole body
of them made no resistance; but after a pause, they asked him for some further sign in
proof of his mission.
Doth my Reader also wonder in beholding them thus panic struck? Surely not. He, I
hope, can well explain the cause. Did not the countenance of the Lord Jesus, as well as
his actions, manifest somewhat both of his Almighty Person, and Power? If the zeal of
his Father’s house had eaten him up; (as he himself expresses it;) did not his face
bespeak it? Reader! think, I beseech you, if in the days of Christ’s flesh such glory
occasionally broke forth, as in this, instance, to the confusion of all his enemies; (See
also Joh_18:6) and as in another, to the joy of his friends; (See Mat_17:1-5.) what will be

his appearance in that day, when the ungodly shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; and when he
shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe? 2Th_
1:9-10. Oh! the forbearance of our adorable Lord, when driving those buyers and sellers
from the temple, that he drove them not into hell!
But I pray the Reader yet further to observe, the Lord’s grace to his Church and people,
in the sign he gave, to the demand of his foes. It is his redeemed, and not others, for
whom this precious sign was meant; and to whom it ministers blessedness. When Jesus
thus spake of the destruction of the temple, the Holy Ghost would not leave the Church
to make her own comment upon it; but by the mouth of the Apostles, taught his
redeemed, that Jesus spake of the temple of his body. So that when Jesus arose from the
dead, which was at the distance of three years after this conversation the Lord held with
the Jews, they called to mind what had then passed, and felt as we now feel under the
divine conviction, the blessed testimony to the whole; they believed the scripture, and
the word which he had spoken.
I must not suffer the Reader to overlook the greatness and compleatness of this sign;
which, while it acted to those blind Jews as a stone of stumbling, and rock of offence; to
the enlightened believer, it becomes a blessed testimony to that glorious Rock which
Jehovah laid in Zion. They made this sign of Jesus the great charge of blasphemy against
Christ, when arraigned before Pilate. Mat_26:61. And, Reader! you and I, if taught of
God, make it a most precious evidence of his eternal Power, and Godhead. Destroy this
temple, (said the Lord,) this temple of my body; and in three days I will raise it up! The
former was done, when (as Peter under the Holy Ghost charged them) with wicked
hands, Jesus was taken by them and crucified and slain. Act_2:23. And Jesus
accomplished the latter, when by his own Almighty Power, he arose from the dead.
Observe the expression which Christ made use of, I will raise it up! And if you ask the
cause? the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of Peter answers; having loosed (said he) the pains
of death, because it was not possible that He should be holden of it. Act_2:24. But it
would not only have been possible, but certain and sure, that the pains of death, which
are the wages of sin, would have held any man and every man a prisoner, which died for
sin; had not the divine nature of Christ, been in this solemn transaction. But in the
Person of Christ, God and Man in One, it became impossible. The Prophets which
foretold his death, foretold at the same time, that his soul should not be left in hell;
neither God’s holy one to see corruption. Psa_16:10. Hence, as the Holy Ghost by Peter,
in another scripture, hath said; Christ was put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the
Spirit. 1Pe_3:18. Reader! what are now your apprehensions of this blessed sign?
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 18-22, "What sign showest Thou?
Christ and the rulers
I. THE DISPUTE WHICH FOLLOWED HIS PROCEEDING IN THE TEMPLE.
1. The remonstrance addressed to Him by the Jews. The parties were the authorities
of the Temple who, by their question, espoused the cause of the traffickers. “The
Jews require a sign,” and for the want of one to their liking, the Gospel was here as
ever a stumbling block. There was nothing unreasonable in the request. The
cleansing bore a Messianic stamp; but the request was made in anger at the
disappointment that their gains had been interfered with, and not with desire to
receive information. The very cleansing ought to have been a sufficient sign.

2. The reply of Jesus might be understood to mean the Temple itself, or what He
intended: the temple of His body. They misconstrued it into speaking against the
sacred fabric, which became one of the fatal accusations against Him afterwards. In
the true sense Christ only is the temple of God, although in a secondary sense
believers are also, and the universe. The death and resurrection of this temple was to
be the sign both for them and for believers. “He was delivered for our offences an d
rose again for our justification,” by which “He was declared to be the Son of God with
power.”
II. THE PRESENT AND REMOTE EFFECTS OF CHRIST’S REPLY ON THE MINDS OF
THE DISCIPLES.
1. As to the effect at the time there seems to have been none. Of many things,
including Christ’s death and resurrection, they were ignorant, and remained so up to
those events, and even then they were slow to believe. This was owing to their secular
views of the Messiah. And how often is such obtuseness the case with believers now.
Theirs was removed by experience, so must ours be.
2. The remote effect was on the fulfilment of His Word, most blessed (Joh_2:22).
The spirit eventually quickened the seed sown in good ground Joh_14:26). Exactly
similar is the experience of the Church at all times. The truth may lay dormant for
years, but when the Spirit comes it germinates. What an argument for teaching the
young whether they understand or not. (A. Beith, D. D.)
Christ’s sign
It would have been a great one in their sense of it. Zerubbabel and Herod had raised the
Temple, and other great persons buildings as great. But the temple of the body, if ever
that were down, all the temple builders that ever were would never get it up more. So
great, indeed, was it that he in hell could not desire a greater (Luk_16:30).
I. CHRIST’S BODY IS THIS TEMPLE. The Pharisees mistook the term. Christ could not
have meant God’s house, the zeal of which consumed Him, and which He had just
purged. Only polluted temples are destroyed. Christ, who knew His own meaning best,
has interpreted it, and perhaps then pointed to His body.
1. A body a temple? How? Because God dwelleth there. There are temples of flesh
and bone as well as of lime and stone. Our bodies are called houses because tenanted
by souls, temples when tenanted by and used in the service of God.
2. Christ’s body a temple seems only such by some gift or grace, but in Christ
dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead (1Co_2:9), and always pure and employed in the
Father’s service.
3. Christ’s body “this” temple.
(1) The two temples began alike at Bethlehem (Psa_132:6; Mat_2:1).
(2) Both were destroyed and reared again. The Chaldees destroyed the one and
Zerubbabel raised it. The Jews destroyed the other, and Christ Himself raised it.
(3) Both were consecrated to like uses. There, the only true holocaust of His
entire obedience, which burnt in Him bright and clear all His life long Lev_6:9).
There the only true trespass-offering of His death, satisfactory to the full for all
the transgressions of the whole world Lev_5:6). There the meat and drink

offering of His blessed body and blood (Lev_2:1).
II. THE DISSOLUTION OF IT BY DEATH.
1. The saying.
(1) Death is a dissolving, a loosing the cement with which body and soul are held
together.
(2) This temple drops not down from age or weakness, dissolves not of itself, but
by force and violence.
(3) Violent on their part, voluntary on His. He could have avoided it, and must
have said it, or they could not have done it.
2. The saying no command, which would have been an order to commit sacrilege or
murder; but
(1) A prediction to warn them of what they were now casting about.
(2) A permission which is always in the imperative; permitted for a greater good
the destroying of sin by destroying this temple; for a greater good still to raise it
again.
3. The doing. He said dissolve; they said crucify. The roof of this temple, His head,
was loosed with thorns; the foundation, His feet, with nails; the side aisles, his
hands, both likewise; the sanctum sanctorum, His heart, with a spear. They did
more, they violently loosed the temple. And remember it was one of flesh and bone,
not of lime and scone. Yet the ruins of a temple of senseless stone will excite pity;
how much more the sensible temple of His body which, even before its dissolution,
was strangely dissolved in bloody sweat, nor was it alone dissolved.
(1) The veil of the material temple split from top to bottom, as it were, for
company, or in sympathy with Him.
(2) The great temple of the universe in a manner dissolved: its face black, the
earth quaking, the stones rending, the graves opening.
III. THE REARING IT UP AGAIN BY HIS RESURRECTION. The saying was spoken by
way of triumph over all they could do to Him.
1. The act.
(1) ᅞγερω is a raising from sleep, and sleep we know is not destruction. It is to
show us that He would turn death into a rest in hope, both His and ours.
(2) They should therefore miss their purpose. They reckoned to destroy Him, but
would only prepare Him a short rest.
(3) The ease with which He would do it—with no more difficulty than waking
from sleep, or tying an unloosed knot.
2. The person rising. Not “destroy you and some other shall raise,” but I will do it.
An argument of His Divine nature. None could do it but God.
3. The thing raised. The same and no other.
(1) In substance.
(2) But not in quality; in a far better estate than before (Hag_2:9). In the
morning after sleep the body riseth more fresh and full of vigour. So His body

and ours (1Co_15:42-43) and henceforth this temple, dissolved in death, should
be indissoluble by reason of resurrection.
IV. THE TIME TO DO IT IN. Within three days; and He did it within the time. Our duty
then is
1. To rejoice. At Easter we celebrate the feast of dedication, which was ever a feast of
great joy.
(1) His dissolution means the loosing us from our sins and their consequences.
(2) His resurrection is a promise of what He will do for another temple: the
temple of His body mystical, of which we are parts—living stones.
2. To templify our bodies, which in many are far from temples; houses of trade,
pleasure, idolatary, which must be dissolved to be made God’s houses. Then God
must come in and sanctify them. (Bp. Andrewes.)
Christ’s sign
I. LIFE THROUGH DEATH.
II. CONSTRUCTION THROUGH DISSOLUTION. III. THE USE OF THE NEW
THROUGH THE FALL OF THE OLD. (Bp. Westcott.)
The temple of Christ’s body
The metaphor was not dragged into conversation, but the temple He had just purged
was shown to be a figure of something greater than itself.
I. THE ENIGMA. Christ cast a shadow over truths, the full disclosure of which might
have altered the conduct of the Jews and the character of His mission. His hearers were
puzzled and their after thoughts excited. What good man could propose such a
destruction? What sane man could promise such a restoration? Yet it made such an
impression that it was misquoted against Christ in the high priest’s palace, and as He
hung upon the cross (Mat_26:60-61; Mar_14:57-58; Mar 15:29-30).
II. THE TYPE. The tabernacle and temple were significant preparations for the time
when God would become flesh and tabernacle among men. Christ knew and proclaimed
Himself to be the antitype; this new temple, in which the fulness of the godhead dwelt
bodily, was consecrated when Jesus was anointed with the Holy Ghost.
III. THE LESSONS.
1. Christ foresaw clearly that the Jews would destroy this temple. To this He was
reconciled and longed for it, inasmuch as His sphere of influence was now
circumscribed; but the destroyed temple would be rebuilt on a scale more glorious,
and all nations called to it.
2. The words, “I will raise it again,” are significant
(1) Of the identity of the body in which Christ rose with that in which He
suffered. No doubt the transformation was great. The conditions of an
incorruptible body are not known to us. But these words prove the link of
continuity, and if there was such a link in the case of Christ, so also there will be

one in the case of the saints whose bodies are to be like unto His.
(2) Of the power Christ had over His own future. His authority to cleanse the
temple had been called in question. He affirmed that He had power not only to
do this, but to raise up one which men could destroy but could not construct
(Joh_10:18).
3. As He is risen Christ is a temple for all nations. In Him God dwells accessible to
all: anywhere, irrespective of sacred times and places.
(1) The place of reconciliation, the refuge for sinners.
(2) The home of communion, the resort of saints; a temple that shall never be
subverted.
4. The epistles carry this view of thought further.
(1) Every Christian is a temple of the living God; a motive for holiness far higher
than moralists have dreamed of in their theories of the dignity of man, and the
elevating power of self-respect (1Co_6:15; 1Co 6:19).
(2) More frequently Christians are living stones which collectively form a great
temple or “habitation of God in the Spirit.”
5. A local church, also, as representing the Church Catholic, is also a temple of God
(1Co_3:16; Eph_2:21-22; 1Pe_2:5).
6. The life which animates the stones, and so pervades the temple, emanates from
the living foundation stone—the risen Christ. But this cannot now be fully manifest,
just as our Lord was not understood at Jerusalem. The inner life of Christians is not
seen. The Lord’s body is not discerned in the Church. But the temple is so being built
that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
7. In such a world as this the holy temple encounters risk.
(1) The traders desecrated the Temple, worldly Christians secularize and degrade
the Church of God; but such, sooner or later, the Lord will drive out and disown.
(2) Greater still is the fault of those who by strife and schism tend to destroy the
temple; against this Paul lifts a stern warning (1Co_3:17). (Donald Fraser, D. D.)
The mysterious sign
A word
I. ENIGMATICAL, conveying one thing to unbelief and another to faith. Under the
figure of a destroyed and rebuilded temple Christ announced that His death, brought
about by them and His resurrection effected by Himself, would legitimize His recent
action and demonstrate who He was. The same sign was subsequently given in Galilee
(Mat_12:40).
II. MISUNDERSTOOD.
1. By the Pharisees through
(1) Slavish adherence to the letter of Scripture (2Co_3:6).
(2) Spiritual blindness occasioned by hypocrisy (Mar_3:25; Rom_11:25).

(3) Positive aversion, arising from inward moral corruption (Joh_3:20; Joh
8:43-44).
2. By the disciples. They had begun to see the light, but, like men with eyes only just
opened, they were unable to discern accurately the objects the light revealed (Mar_
8:24).
III. MEMORABLE. Hid away, this word was never afterwards lost. It recurred after the
Resurrection illuminated by the fact to which it pointed, and thus helped to seal their
faith (Act_4:10; Act 26:23; Rom_1:4, 1Pe_1:3). Lessons:
1. The complete ability of Christ to justify all His ways to God and man. Christ’s
readiness to furnish a “sign.”
2. The irrefragable certainty of Christ’s death and resurrection, attested by the
knowledge and experience of His disciples.
3. The veiled secret of Holy Scripture; the testimony of Jesus.
4. The blessedness of faith, however immature. (T. Whitelaw, D. D.)
The temple of His body
I. THE DIGNITY OF OUR LORD’S BODY. The bodies of believers are called temples
because God dwells in them by a communication of grace, but the humanity of Christ is
God’s temple by a substantial inhabitation, immediately and personally—“In Him
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead.” God dwells in the Church as a King among His
subjects, in Christ’s humanity as a King in His royal palace.
1. In the Epistle to the Hebrews Christ is the mystery shadowed forth by the outward
sanctuary: The similitude will appear if we consider
(1) They were alike in building; both under the immediate and special direction
of God.
(2) In the ornaments by which they were beautified.
(3) In Him the import of the sacred vessels is fulfilled.
(4) Christ’s body was like the Temple, as it regards those religious services which
were performed in it.
(a) In the Temple was a standing oracle; in Christ’s humanity dwelt the true
and living oracle of heaven.
(b) In the Temple was the altar of sacrifice and the atonement for sin. Both
derived their efficacy from Him who His own self bore our sins.
(c) The Temple was the house of prayer: in the days of His flesh what
prevailing supplications Christ offered, and He now even liveth to make
intercession.
2. To this temple must every acceptable worshipper approach.
(1) The Spirit of Christ must inspire their prayers.
(2) His name must authorize them.
(3) His merit must perfume them.

(4) His advocacy must recommend them.
II. THE VIOLENCE AND DISHONOUR WHICH THE TEMPLE WAS DOOMED TO
SUFFER AT THE HANDS OF HIS ENEMIES.
1. The nature of His passion was a dissolution, a full and complete death.
2. The extent of this passion. Death severed soul and body, but this was all—the
union of the Godhead with the manhood was indestructible.
3. The circumstances by which this event was accomplished and wherein their
aggravation consists.
(1) Violence and wickedness on man’s part.
(2) Voluntariness and love on His.
III. THE GLORY TO WHICH IT WAS TO BE RAISED BY HIS ALMIGHTY POWER.
1. The agent, “I.” Dead men were raised by others. Christ by Himself. He is a
quickening spirit for Himself and for us.
2. The subject—the self-same temple.
3. The state.
(1) Substantial—“A spirit hath not flesh and bones,” etc.
(2) Entire—nothing wanting to its perfection.
(3) Glorious. (J. Styles, D. D.)
Christ’s human body the temple of God
I. THE DWELLING-PLACE OF GOD. As soon as the first temple at Jerusalem was built.
“The glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord.” This splendid manifestation passed
away, but the Lord did not depart. To the very moment when the building was destroyed
a shining cloud constantly abode over the mercy-seat as a symbol of Jehovah. The
second temple was without this, but still God was there, dwelling unseen within it. And
this fact was in our Lord’s mind, for He calls the Temple “His Father’s house.” He dwells
indeed in His Church and in every soul which He has redeemed, because He is
continually acting by His Holy Spirit. But when He speaks of dwelling in the Man Christ
Jesus, He means much more than this. There is an actual passing of the Godhead into
that frame of dust, a union so close and entire, that wherever that human frame is, there
is God. Is this mysterious to you? It was mysterious to Paul. Great is the mystery of
godliness; to angels. We cannot explain it; but Scripture, which calls on you most plainly
to believe it. “God was in Christ.” “In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily,” not by a figure; but really, substantially. God dwells in His Church as the light of
day dwells in our houses; He dwells in Christ as the same light dwells in the sun. He
dwells among His people as the ocean dwells in the rivers whither the swelling tide
carries it; He dwells in the incarnate Jesus as that ocean dwells in its bed.
II. A MANIFESTATION OF GOD. And herein also the resemblance between Him and
both the Jewish temples holds good. When God entered that, He entered not spiritually
only, but visibly; a bright cloud was the symbol of His presence. To understand the
application of all this to Christ we must bear in mind
1. Though we ourselves are spiritual beings, we can form no conception of any being

that is purely spiritual. This incapacity arises from the constitution of our nature.
God is a spirit. It will follow, then, that unless something is done to help us, we can
never have any right idea of God. We may form some conceptions of His attributes;
but as for God Himself, He can have no place in our minds. But He meets this
weakness of our nature. We cannot get into that spiritual world which He inhabits;
He comes, therefore, within our range, into the world of matter, and embodies
Himself in the human nature of Christ, and then says to an astonished universe,
“Behold your God!”
2. We can form no adequate idea of the character of any being, unless we see him in
action, or are made acquainted with his actions. Now, had God merely embodied
Himself in a human frame, and then just shown Himself to the earth and
disappeared, we should not have been advanced materially in our knowledge of Him.
Hence He “dwelt among us,” spoke and acted; and in so doing made a revelation of
Himself. By the truths Christ taught, by the powers He exercised, by the dispositions
He manifested, and above all, by His sufferings and death; He has unfolded to us the
Divine character. Something was known of God before. The heavens had declared
His glory. His law too had asserted His authority and holiness, and His providence
had borne witness to His justice, His goodness and truth. But what was all this?
Nothing, when compared with the person, and work, and cross of Christ.
III. A MONUMENT TO GOD’S PRAISE. We wonder not that lofty structures were
raised to the gods of the heathen, and that the heathen thought they honoured their gods
by raising them. They did honour them. Their gods were men like themselves. But as for
building a temple to the living Jehovah’s glory, the thought of it seems at first
confounding. We think of Him who has heaven for His throne and the earth for His
footstool Yet God did allow a temple to be built to Him, and that temple did show forth
His praise. It was a public acknowledgment of Him. Christ’s human nature glorifies God
while it reveals Him. He is “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God,” “the
brightness of the Father’s glory.” (G. Bradley, M. A.)
The three temples of the one God
I. THEIR ONE PURPOSE (cf. Psa_68:29; 2Co_6:16)
. The essential idea of a temple is that of a place where God manifests Himself to man,
and where man dedicates himself to God. The first of these is realized by the Shekinah;
by the power and character of Christ; by the holiness Of Christly souls in each of the
three temples respectively. The second is attained in each: by the altar of the Jewish
Temple, by the cross, by consecration.
II. THEIR SIMILAR HISTORY. In their
1. Origin. There was silence and mystery in each. The temple noiselessly built, Christ
obscurely born, the Christian spiritually quickened.
2. Materials: Glorious in each. In the Temple gold, precious stones, fragrant woods.
In Christ a specially prepared sinless body. In Christians fearful and wonderful
elements.
3. Sufferings. One besieged, the second crucified, the third hated by the world.
4. Divine desertion. The first was “left desolate,” the second “forsaken,” the third
often loses God as in eclipse.

5. Destruction. The Temple was more than once destroyed; the Saviour gave up the
Ghost; the Christian descends into the grave.
6. Restoration. The first was restored and may be again, Christ rose again the third
day, Christians shall rise so that the temple shall be completed and the top stone laid
with rejoicings. “Grace, grace unto it.”
Lessons:
1. For those who refuse to be identified with the Temple: What glory you lose; what a
destiny you miss.
2. For those who are identified with the Temple: Be enduring; be pure; fulfil your
high end. (U. R. Thomas.)
The crowning act
I. A CERTAIN DEMAND. It is shown
1. What they required—a sign, often requested in our Lord’s day and afterwards.
2. Why they required it—because of the extraordinary cleansing of the temple.
II. A SIGNIFICANT ANSWER. There is here
1. An exalted claim. The temple was the abode of God.
2. A striking prediction.
3. A wonderful declaration.
III. A GROSS MISREPRESENTATION.
1. How it originated; in applying literally what was only meant figuratively.
2. The feeling it produced—ridicule or contempt.
3. The explanation which the Evangelist supplies.
IV. AN IMPORTANT RESULT. “When therefore,” etc. From this we see
1. That the words of Christ were not forgotten.
2. The effect such remembrance produced. (Miracles of our Lord.)
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple,
and I will raise it again in three days.”

BAR ES, "Destroy this temple - The evangelist informs us Joh_2:21 that by
“temple,” here, he meant his body. It is not improbable that he pointed with his finger to
his body as he spoke. The word “destroy,” used here in the “imperative,” has rather the
force of the “future.” Its meaning may thus be expressed: “You are now profaners of the
temple of God. You have defiled the sanctuary; you have made it a place of traffic. You
have also despised my authority, and been unmoved by the miracles which I have
already performed. But your wickedness will not end here. You will oppose me more and
more; you will reject and despise me, until in your wickedness you will take my life and
‘destroy’ my body.” Here was therefore a distinct prediction both of his death and the
cause of it. The word “temple,” or “dwelling,” was not unfrequently used by the Jews to
denote the “body” as being the residence of the spirit, 2Co_5:1. Christians are not
unfrequently called the temple of God, as being those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells on
earth, 1Co_3:16-17; 1Co_6:19; 2Co_6:16. Our Saviour called his body a temple in
accordance with the common use of language, and more particularly because “in him the
fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily,” Col_2:9. The temple at Jerusalem was the
appropriate dwelling-place of God. His visible presence was there especially manifested,
2Ch_36:15; Psa_76:2. As the Lord Jesus was divine - as the fulness of the Godhead
dwelt in him so his body might be called a “temple.”
In three days I will raise it up - The Jews had asked a “miracle” of him in proof of
his authority that is, a proof that he was the Messiah. He tells them that a full and
decided proof of that would be his “resurrection from the dead.” Though they would not
be satisfied by any other miracle, yet by this they ought to be convinced that he came
from heaven, and was the long-expected Messiah. To the same evidence that he was the
Christ he refers them on other occasions. See Mat_12:38-39. Thus early did he foretell
his death and resurrection, for at the beginning of his work he had a clear foresight of all
that was to take place. This knowledge shows clearly that he came from heaven, and it
evinces, also, the extent of his love that he was “willing” to come to save us, knowing
clearly what it would cost him. Had he come “without” such an expectation of suffering,
his love might have been far less; but when he fully knew all that was before him, when
he saw that it would involve him in contempt and death, it shows compassion “worthy of
a God” that he was willing to endure the load of all our sorrows, and die to save us from
death everlasting. When Jesus says, “‘I’ will raise it up,” it is proof, also, of divine power.
A mere “man” could not say this. No deceased “man” can have such power over his body;
and there must have been, therefore, in the person of Jesus a nature superior to human
to which the term “I” could be applied, and which had power to raise the dead - that is,
which was divine.
CLARKE, "Destroy this temple - Τον ναον τουτον, This very temple; perhaps
pointing to his body at the same time.
GILL, "Jesus answered and said unto them,.... In a dark and enigmaticai way,
though very properly and pertinently; since it was with respect to the temple, and his
power over it, and right to purge it, that a sign was required of him:
destroy this temple; pointing, as it were, with his finger to his body; for of that he
spake, as appears from Joh_2:21, the dissolution of which, by death he means, the
separation of his soul from his body, though not of either from his divine person: and it

is to be understood, not as a command, or a grant, or as an exhortation, and advice to
them, to kill his body; but rather as a prophecy of what they would do; or as putting the
case, that should they, as he knew they would, destroy his body, then says he, as a sign of
having a power to do what I have done,
in three days I will raise it again; by which he would appear to be the Son of God,
with power, that had power of laying down his life, and taking it up again; and is the very
sign, namely, his resurrection from the dead on the third day, he gives the Jews, when
they sought one of him at another time, and upon another occasion.
HE RY, "(2.) Christ's answer to this demand, Joh_2:19. He did not immediately
work a miracle to convince them, but gave them a sign in something to come, the truth
of which must appear by the event, according to Deu_18:21, Deu_18:22.
Now, [1.] The sign that he gives them is his own death and resurrection. He refers
them to that which would be, First, His last sign. If they would not be convinced by what
they saw and heard, let them wait. Secondly, The great sign to prove him to be the
Messiah; for concerning him it was foretold that he should be bruised (Isa_53:5), cut off
(Dan_9:26), and yet that he should not see corruption, Psa_16:10. These things were
fulfilled in the blessed Jesus, and therefore truly he was the Son of God, and had
authority in the temple, his Father's house.
[2.] He foretels his death and resurrection, not in plain terms, as he often did to his
disciples, but in figurative expressions; as afterwards, when he gave this for a sign, he
called it the sign of the prophet Jonas, so here, Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it up. Thus he spoke in parables to those who were willingly ignorant, that they
might not perceive, Mat_13:13, Mat_13:14. Those that will not see shall not see. Nay,
this figurative speech used here proved such a stumbling-block to them that it was
produced in evidence against him at his trial to prove him a blasphemer. Mat_26:60,
Mat_26:61. Had they humbly asked him the meaning of what he said, he would have
told them, and it had been a savour of life unto life to them, but they were resolved to
cavil, and it proved a savour of death unto death. They that would not be convinced were
hardened, and the manner of expressing this prediction occasioned the accomplishment
of the prediction itself. First, He foretels his death by the Jews' malice, in these words,
Destroy you this temple; that is, “You will destroy it, I know you will. I will permit you to
destroy it.” Note, Christ, even at the beginning of his ministry, had a clear foresight of all
his sufferings at the end of it, and yet went on cheerfully in it. It is good, at setting out, to
expect the worst. Secondly, He foretels his resurrection by his own power: In three days
I will raise it up. There were others that were raised, but Christ raised himself, resumed
his own life.
[3.] He chose to express this by destroying and re-edifying the temple, First, Because he
was now to justify himself in purging the temple, which they had profaned; as if he had
said, “You that defile one temple will destroy another; and I will prove my authority to
purge what you have defiled by raising what you will destroy.” The profaning of the
temple is the destroying of it, and its reformation its resurrection. Secondly, Because the
death of Christ was indeed the destruction of the Jewish temple, the procuring cause of
it; and his resurrection was the raising up of another temple, the gospel church, Zec_
6:12. The ruins of their place and nation (Joh_11:48) were the riches of the world. See
Amo_9:11; Act_15:16.
JAMIESO , "Destroy this temple, etc. — (See on Mar_14:58, Mar_14:59).

COKE, "John 2:19. Destroy this temple,— The miracle which our Lord had already
performed, in driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple, was sufficient to convince
them of the authority by which he made this reformation, if they were to have been
convinced by any miracle at all. Therefore our Lord, instead of satisfying their
unreasonable demands, refers them to the great miracle of his resurrection; but refers
them to it in such obscure terms, as prejudiced minds could not understand, till the
prophesy itself was cleared and explained by the event; yet, if he either pointed to his
body, or alluded to their commonly received opinions, one would wonder that they
should have mistaken his meaning so far, as to suppose that he meant the temple in
which they were at that time assembled. The temple itself was supposed to be inhabited
by the Divinity, and to derive its holiness from that circumstance; but as the Divinity
dwelt in the body of Christ, that body deserved the name of temple more justly than the
building made with hands. One of the rabbies says expressly, that the Messiah, the holy
Son of David, is the Holy of Holies; and if that opinion existed in the time of Christ, as
probably it might, there could be no great obscurity in the application of this term then.
By a similar figure of speech, the apostle calls the bodies of believers—the temple of God,
on account of the inhabitation of the Holy Ghost. See Mark 14:58. Instead of destroy this
temple, Dr. Heylin reads, ye will destroy. In the prophetic stile, says he, the imperative is
often used for the future.
COFFMAN, "What Jesus meant by this is plainly given in John 2:21, "He spake of the
temple of his body"; but such a simple answer is rejected by some. This pointed
reference to his own death, burial and resurrection cannot be allowed by those who
would spiritualize every historical fact out of this Gospel. As one has declared:
"Destroy" is a prophetic command meaning, "Go on as you are doing and you will bring
this temple down in ruins (at the hands of Rome); but in a brief time (three days) I will
raise up another center of worship." Jesus is predicting that through his work there will
arise a new spiritual building in which the new Israel, the Church, will worship God![18]
Of course, such an interpretation is sheer nonsense. In Jesus' true words, the same
temple envisaged as destroyed is exactly the same one Jesus promised to raise up in
three days; and added to that obvious fact is the emphatic statement of the inspired
evangelist himself that Jesus "spake of the temple of his body"!
This verse shows that Jesus fully knew the consequences of casting out the money-
changers; and, by this prophecy, he clearly foretold that they would indeed put him to
death and that he would rise from the dead on the third day. This statement made in
response to the demand for a sign is similar in the Lord's answer to the demand of the
Pharisees recorded in Matthew 12:38ff. In both instances, the only sign the Pharisees
were promised was the Lord's own death, burial, and resurrection; but here he used the
analogy of the destroyed temple raised again in three days, while there the "sign of the
prophet Jonah" had exactly the same meaning!
ENDNOTE:
[18] A. M. Hunter, op. cit., p. 34.

SBC, "The Destroyers and the Restorer.
This is our Lord’s answer to the Jewish request for a sign which should warrant His
action in cleansing the Temple. "Destroy this temple," said our Lord, as His sufficient
and only answer to the demand for a sign; "and in three days I will raise it up." We see in
these words—
I. An enigmatical forecast of our Lord’s own history. Notice, (1) that marvellous and
unique consciousness of our Lord as to His own dignity and nature. "He spake of the
temple of His body." Think that here is a Man, apparently one of ourselves, walking
amongst us, living the common life of humanity, who declares that in Him, in an
altogether solitary and peculiar fashion, there abides the fulness of Deity. And not only
does the fulness abide, but in Him the awful remoteness of God becomes for us a
merciful presence; the infinite abyss and closed sea of the Divine Nature hath an outlet
and becomes a river of water of life. And as the ancient name of that Temple was the tent
of meeting, the place where Israel and God, in symbolical and ceremonial form, met
together, so in inmost reality in Christ’s nature, Manhood and Divinity cohere and unite;
and in Him all of us—the weak, the sinful, the alien, the rebellious—may meet our
Father. (2) Still further, notice how we have here, at the very beginning of our Lord’s
career, His distinct prevision of how it was all going to end. The Shadow of the Cross fell
upon His path from the beginning, because the Cross was the purpose for which He
came. He knows that He goes up to be the lamb of the offering, and knowing it, He goes.
(3) We have here our Lord’s claim to be Himself the Agent of His own Resurrection. "I
will raise it up at the last day." He is the Lord of the Temple as well as the Temple.
II. We see here, in the next place, a prophetic warning of the history of the men to whom
He was speaking. Christ’s death having realised all which Temple worship symbolised,
that which was the shadow was put away when the substance appeared. The destroyed
Temple disappears, and out of the dust and smoke of the vanishing ruins, there rises,
beautiful and serene, though incomplete and fragmentary and defaced with many a
stain, the fairer reality, the Church of the living Christ.
III. We have here a foreshadowing of our Lord’s world-wide work as the restorer of
man’s destructions. If you will put yourselves in His hands and trust yourselves to Him,
He will take away all your incompleteness, and will make you, body, soul, and spirit,
temples of the Lord God; as far above the loftiest beauty and whitest sanctity of any
Christian character here on earth as is the "building of God, the house not made with
hands, eternal in the heavens," above "the earthly house of this tabernacle."
A. Maclaren, Christian Commonwealth, April 20th, 1886.
CALVI , "19.Destroy this temple. This is an allegorical mode of expression; and
Christ intentionally spoke with that degree of obscurity, because he reckoned them
unworthy of a direct reply; as he elsewhere declares that he speaks to them in
parables, because they are unable to comprehend the mysteries of the heavenly
kingdom, (Matthew 13:13.) But first he refuses to them the sign which they
demanded, either because it would have been of no advantage, or because he knew
that it was not the proper time. Some compliances he occasionally made even with
their unreasonable requests, and there must have been a strong reason why he now
refused. Yet that they may not seize on this as a pretense for excusing themselves, he
declares that his power will be approved and confirmed by a sign of no ordinary
value; for no greater approbation of the divine power in Christ could be desired

than his resurrection from the dead. But he conveys this information figuratively,
because he does not reckon them worthy of an explicit promise. In short, he treats
unbelievers as they deserve, and at the same time protects himself against all
contempt. It was not yet made evident, indeed, that they were obstinate, but Christ
knew well what was the state of their feelings.
But it may be asked, since he performed so many miracles, and of various kinds,
why does he now mention but one? I answer, he said nothing about all the other
miracles, First, because his resurrection alone was sufficient to shut their mouth:
Secondly, he was unwilling to expose the power of God to their ridicule; for even
respecting the glory of his resurrection he spoke allegorically: Thirdly, I say that he
produced what was appropriate to the case in hand; for, by these words, he shows
that all authority over the Temple belongs to him, since his power is so great in
building the true Temple of God.
This temple. Though he uses the word temple in accommodation to the present
occurrence, yet the body of Christ is justly and appropriately called a temple. The
body of each of us is called a tabernacle, (2 Corinthians 5:4; 2 Peter 1:13,) because
the soul dwells in it; but the body of Christ was the abode of his Divinity. For we
know that the Son of God clothed himself with our nature in such a manner that the
eternal majesty of God dwelt in the flesh which he assumed, as in his sanctuary.
The argument of estorius, who abused this passage to prove that it is not one and
the same Christ who is God and man, may be easily refuted. He reasoned thus: the
Son of God dwelt in the flesh, as in a temple; therefore the natures are distinct, so
that the same person was not God and man. But this argument might be applied to
men; for it will follow that it is not one man whose soul dwells in the body as in a
tabernacle; and, therefore, it is folly to torture this form of expression for the
purpose of taking away the unity of Person in Christ. It ought to be observed, that
our bodies also are called temples of God, (1 Corinthians 3:16, and 1 Corinthians
6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16) but it is in a different sense, namely, because God dwells in
us by the power and grace of his Spirit; but in Christ the fullness of the Godhead
dwells bodily, so that he is truly God manifested in flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16.)
I will raise it up again. Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection,
though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the
Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to
give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the
Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner
asserts his own Divinity. And Paul reconciles both.
If the Spirit of Him, that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised
up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that
dwelleth in you,
(Romans 8:11.)
While he makes the Spirit the Author of the resurrection, he calls Him

indiscriminately sometimes the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes the Spirit of the
Father.
LIGHTFOOT, "19. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up.
[Destroy this Temple.] I. Christ showeth them no sign that was a mere sign,
Matthew 12:39. The turning of Moses' rod into a serpent, and returning the serpent
into a rod again; the hand becoming leprous, and restored to its proper
temperament again; these were mere signs; but those wonders which Moses
afterward wrought in Egypt were not mere signs, but beneficent miracles; and
whoever would not believe upon those infinite miracles which he wrought, would
much less have believed upon mere signs. And, indeed, it was unbecoming our
blessed Lord so far to indulge to their obstinate incredulity, to be showing new signs
still at every beck of theirs, who would not believe upon those infinite numbers he
put forth upon every proper occasion.
II. Matthew 12:39,40. When they had required a sign, Christ remits them to the sign
of the prophet Jonah; and he points at the very same sense in these words, Destroy
this Temple, &c.: that is, "My resurrection from the dead will be a sign beyond all
denial, proving and affirming, that what I do I act upon divine authority, and that I
am he who is to come (Rom 1:4). Further than this you must expect no other sign
from me. If you believe me not while I do such works, at least believe me when I
arise from the dead."
He acted here, while he is purging the Temple, under that notion as he was the
authorized Messiah, Malachi 3:1,3, and expressly calls it "his Father's house," verse
16. Show us therefore some sign, (say the Jews,) by which it may appear that thou
art the Messiah the Son of God; at least, that thou art a prophet. I will show you a
sufficient sign, saith Christ: destroy this temple, viz. of my body, and I will raise it
from the dead again; a thing which was never yet done, nor could be done by any of
the prophets.
MACLARE , "THE DESTROYERS AND THE RESTORER
This is our Lord’s answer to the Jewish request for a sign which should warrant His
action in cleansing the Temple. There are two such cleansings recorded in the Gospels;
this one His first public act, and another, omitted by John, but recorded in the other
Gospels, which was almost His last public act.
It has been suggested that these are but two versions of one incident; and although there
is no objection in principle to admitting the possibility of that explanation, yet in fact it
appears to me insufficient and unnecessary. For each event is appropriate in its own
place. In each there is a distinct difference in tone. The incident recorded in the present
chapter has our Lord’s commentary, ‘Make not My Father’s house a house of
merchandise’; in that recorded in the Synoptic Gospels the profanation is declared as
greater, and the rebuke is more severe. The ‘house of merchandise’ has become, by their

refusal to render to Him what was His, ‘a den of thieves.’ In the later incident there is a
reference in our Lord’s quotation from the Old Testament to the entrance of the Gentiles
into the Kingdom. There is no such reference here. In the other Gospels there is no
record of this question which the Jews asked, nor of our Lord’s significant answer, whilst
yet a caricatured and mistaken version of that answer was known to the other
Evangelists, and is put by them into the mouths of the false witnesses at our Lord’s trial.
They thus attest the accuracy of our narrative even while they seem not to have known of
the incident.
All these things being taken into account, I think that we have to do with a double, of
which there are several instances in the Gospels, the same event recurring under
somewhat varied circumstances, and reflecting varied aspects of truth. But it is to our
Lord’s words in vindication of His right to cleanse the Temple rather than to the incident
on which they are based that I wish to turn your attention now: ‘Destroy this Temple,’
said our Lord, as His sufficient and only answer to the demand for a sign, ‘and in three
days I will raise it up.’
Now these words, enigmatical as they are, seem to me to be very profound and
significant; and I wish, on this Easter Sunday, to look at them as throwing a light upon
the gladness of this day. They suggest to me three things: I find in them, first, an
enigmatical forecast of our Lord’s own history; second, a prophetic warning of Israel’s;
and last, a symbolical foreshadowing of His world-wide work as the Restorer of man’s
destructions. ‘Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’
I. First then, I think, we see here an enigmatical forecast of our Lord’s own
history.
Notice, first, that marvellous and unique consciousness of our Lord’s as to His own
dignity and nature. ‘He spake of the temple of His body.’ Think that here is a man,
apparently one of ourselves, walking amongst us, living the common life of humanity,
who declares that in Him, in an altogether solitary and peculiar fashion, there abides the
fulness of Deity. Think that there has been a Man who said, ‘In this place is One greater
than the Temple.’ And people have believed Him, and do believe Him, and have found
that the tremendous audacity of the words is simple verity, and that Christ is, in inmost
reality, all which the Temple was but in the poorest symbol. In it there had dwelt, though
there dwelt no longer at the time when He was speaking, a material and symbolical
brightness, the expression of something which, for want of a better name, we call the
‘presence of God.’ But what was that flashing fire between the cherubim that brooded
over the Mercy-seat, with a light that was lambent and lustrous as the light of love and of
life-what was that to the glory, moulded in meekness and garbed in gentleness, the glory
that shone, merciful and hospitable and inviting-a tempered flame on which the poorest,
diseased, blind eyes could look, and not wince-from the face and from the character of
Jesus Christ the Lord? He is greater than the Temple, for in Him, in no symbol but in
reality, abode and abides the fulness of that unnameable Being whom we name Father
and God. And not only does the fulness abide, but in Him that awful Remoteness
becomes for us a merciful Presence; the infinite abyss and closed sea of the divine nature
hath an outlet, and becomes a ‘river of water of life.’ And as the ancient name of that
Temple was the ‘Tent of Meeting,’ the place where Israel and God, in symbolical and
ceremonial form, met together, so, in inmost reality in Christ’s nature, Manhood and
Divinity cohere and unite, and in Him all of us, the weak, the sinful, the alien, the
rebellious, may meet our Father. ‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.’ ‘In this
place is One greater than the Temple.’
And so this Jewish Peasant, at the very beginning of His earthly career, stands up there,

in the presence of the ancestral sanctities and immemorial ceremonials which had been
consecrated by all these ages and commanded by God Himself, and with autocratic hand
sweeps them all on one side, as one that should draw a curtain that the statue might be
seen, and remains poised Himself in the vacant place, that all eyes may look upon Him,
and on Him alone. ‘Destroy this Temple . . . . He spake of the temple of His body.’
Still further, notice how here we have, at the very beginning of our Lord’s career, His
distinct prevision of how it was all going to end. People that are willing to honour Jesus
Christ, and are not willing to recognise His death as the great purpose for which He
came, tell us that, like as with other reformers and heroes and martyrs, His death was
the result of the failure of His purpose. And some of them talk to us very glibly, in their
so-called ‘Lives of Jesus Christ’ about the alteration in Christ’s plan which came when
He saw that His message was not going to be received. I do not enter upon all the
reasons why such a construction of Christ’s work cannot hold water, but here is one-for
any one who believes this story before us-that at the very beginning, before He had gone
half a dozen steps in His public career, when the issues of the experiment, if it was a man
that was making the experiment, were all untried; when, if it were merely a martyr-
enthusiast that was beginning his struggle, some flickering light of hope that He would
be received of His brethren must have shone, or He would never have ventured upon the
path-that then, with no mistake, with no illusion, with no expectation of a welcome and a
Hosanna, but with the clearest certitude of what lay before Him, our Lord beheld and
accepted His Cross. Its shadow fell upon His path from the beginning, because the Cross
was the purpose for which He came. ‘To this end was I born, and for this cause came I
into the world,’ said He-when the reality of it was almost within arm’s length of Him-’to
bear witness to the Truth,’ and His bearing witness to the truth was perfected and
accomplished on the Cross. Here, at the very commencement of His career, we have it
distinctly set forth, ‘the Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for many.’
And, brethren, that fact is important, not only because it helps us to understand that His
death is the centre of His work, but also because it helps us to a loving and tender
thought of Him, how all His life long, with that issue distinctly before Him, He
journeyed towards it of His own loving will; how every step that He took on earth’s flinty
roads, taken with bleeding and pure feet, He took knowing whither He was going. This
Isaac climbs the mountain to the place of sacrifice, with no illusions as to what He is
going up the mountain for. He knows that He goes up to be the lamb of the offering, and
knowing it, He goes. Therefore let us love Him with love as persistent as was His own,
who discerning the end from the beginning, willed to be born and to live because He had
resolved to die, for you and me and every man.
And then, further, we have here our Lord’s claim to be Himself the Agent of His own
resurrection. ‘I will raise it up in three days.’ Of course, in Scripture, we more frequently
find the Resurrection treated as being the result of the power of God the Father. We
more ordinarily read that Christ was raised; but sometimes we read, as here, that Christ
rises, and we have solemn words of His own, ‘I have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again.’ Think of a man saying, ‘I am going to bring My own body from
the dust of death,’ and think of the man who said that doing it. If that is true, if this
prediction was uttered, and being uttered was fulfilled-what then? I do not need to
answer the question. My brother, this day declares that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
‘Destroy this Temple’-there is a challenge-’and in three days I will raise it up’; and He did
it. And He is the Lord of the Temple as well as the Temple. Down on your knees before
Him, with all your hearts and with all your confidence, and worship, and trust, and love
for evermore ‘the Second Man,’ who ‘is the Lord from Heaven!’

II. Now let us turn to the other aspects of these words. I think we see here,
in the next place, a prophetic warning of the history of the men to whom He
was speaking.
There must be a connection between the interpretation of the words which our
Evangelist assures us is the correct one, and the interpretation which would naturally
have occurred to a listener, that by ‘this Temple’ our Lord really meant simply the literal
building in which He spoke. There is such a connection, and though our Lord did not
only mean the Temple, He did mean the Temple. To say so is not forcing double
meanings in any fast and loose fashion upon Scripture, nor playing with ambiguities, nor
indulging in any of the vices to which spiritualising interpretation of Scripture leads, but
it is simply grasping the central idea of the words of my text. Rightly understood they
lead us to this: ‘The death of Christ was the destruction of the Jewish Temple and polity,
and the raising again of Christ from the dead on the third day was the raising again of
that destroyed Theocracy and Temple in a new and nobler fashion.’ Let us then look for a
moment, and it shall only be for a moment, at these two thoughts.
If any one had said to any of that howling mob that stood round Christ at the judgment-
seat of the High Priest, and fancied themselves condemning Him to death, because He
had blasphemed the Temple: ‘You, at this moment, are pulling down the holy and
beautiful house in which your fathers praised; and what you are doing now is the
destruction of your national worship and of yourselves,’ the words would have been
received with incredulity; and yet they were simple truth. Christ’s death destroyed that
outward Temple. The veil was ‘rent in twain from the top to the bottom’ at the moment
He died; which was the declaration indeed that henceforward the Holiest of All was
patent to the foot of every man, but was also the declaration that there was no more
sanctity now within those courts, and that Temple, and priesthood, and sacrifice, and
altar, and ceremonial and all, were antiquated. That ‘which was perfect having come,’
Christ’s death having realised all which Temple-worship symbolised, that which was the
shadow was put away when the substance appeared.
And in another fashion, it is also true that the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, inflicted by
Jewish hands, was the destruction of the Jewish worship, in the way of natural sequence
and of divine chastisement. When the husbandmen rejected the Son who was sent ‘last
of all,’ there was nothing more for it but that they should be ‘cast out of the vineyard,’
and the firebrand which the Roman soldier, forty years afterwards, tossed into the
Holiest of All, and which burned the holy and beautiful house with fire, was lit on the
day when Israel cried ‘Crucify Him! Crucify Him!’
Oh, brethren! What a lesson it is to us all of how blind even so-called religious zeal may
be; how often it is true that men in their madness and their ignorance destroy the very
institutions which they are trying to conserve! How it warns us to beware lest we,
unknowing what we are about, and thinking that we are fighting for the honour of God,
may really all the while be but serving ourselves and rejecting His message and His
Messenger!
And then let me remind you that another thing is also true, that just as the Jewish
rejection of Christ was their own rejection as the people of God, and their attempted
destruction of Christ the destruction of the Jewish Temple, so the other side of the truth
is also here, viz. that His rising again is the restoration of the destroyed Temple in nobler
and fairer form. Of course the one real Temple is the body of Jesus Christ, as we have
said, where sacrifice is offered, where God dwells, where men meet with God. But in a
secondary and derivative sense, in the place of the Jewish Temple has come the
Christian Church, which is, in a far deeper and more inward fashion, what that ancient

system aspired to be.
Christ has builded up the Church on His Resurrection. On His Resurrection, I say, for
there is nothing else on which it could rest. If men ask me what is the great evidence of
Christ’s Resurrection, my answer is-the existence in the world of a Church. Where did it
come from? How is it possible to conceive that without the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
such a structure as the Christian society should have been built upon a dead man’s
grave? It would have gone to pieces, as all similar associations would have gone. What
had happened after that moment of depression which scattered them every man to his
own, and led some of them to say, with pathetic use of the past tense to describe their
vanished expectations, ‘We trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed
Israel’? What was the force that instead of driving them asunder drew them together?
What was the power that, instead of quenching their almost dead hopes, caused them to
flame up with renewed vigour heaven-high? How came it that that band of cowardly,
dispirited Jewish peasants, who scattered in selfish fear and heart-sick disappointment,
were in a few days found bearding all antagonism, and convinced that their hopes had
only erred by being too faint and dim? The only answer is in their own message, which
explained it all: ‘Him hath God raised from the dead, whereof we are all witnesses.’
The destroyed Temple disappears, and out of the dust and smoke of the vanishing ruins
there rises, beautiful and serene, though incomplete and fragmentary and defaced with
many a stain, the fairer reality, the Church of the living Christ. ‘Destroy this Temple, and
in three days I will raise it up.’
III. Lastly, we have here a foreshadowing of our Lord’s world-wide work as
the Restorer of man’s destructions.
Man’s folly, godlessness, worldliness, lust, sin, are ever working to the destruction of all
that is sacred in humanity and in life, and to the desecrating of every shrine. We
ourselves, in regard to our own hearts, which are made to be the temples of the ‘living
God,’ are ever, by our sins, shortcomings, and selfishness, bringing pollution into the
holiest of all; ‘breaking down the carved work thereof with axes and hammers,’ and
setting up the abomination of desolation in the holy places of our hearts. We pollute
them all-conscience, imagination, memory, will, intellect. How many a man listening to
me now has his nature like the facade of some of our cathedrals, with the empty niches
and broken statues proclaiming that wanton desecration and destruction have been busy
there?
My brother! what have you done with your heart? ‘Destroy this temple.’ Christ spoke to
men who did not know what they were doing; and He speaks to you. It is the inmost
meaning of the life of many of you. Hour by hour, day by day, action by action, you are
devastating and profaning the sanctities of your nature, and the sacred places there
where God ought to live.
Listen to His confident promise. He knows that in me He is able to restore to more than
pristine beauty all which I, by my sin, have destroyed; to reconsecrate all which I, by my
profanity, have polluted; to cast out the evil deities that desecrate and deform the shrine;
and to make my poor heart, if only I will let Him come in to the ruined chamber, a fairer
temple and dwelling-place of God.
‘In three days,’ does He do it? In one sense-Yes! Thank God! the power that hallows and
restores the desecrated and cast-down temple in a man’s heart, was lodged in the world
in those three days of death and resurrection. The fact that He ‘died for our sins,’ the fact
that He was ‘raised again for our justification,’ are the plastic and architectonic powers

which will build up any character into a temple of God.
And yet more than ‘forty and six years’ will that temple have to be ‘in building.’ It is a
lifelong task till the top-stone be brought forth. Only let us remember this: Christ, who is
Architect and Builder, Foundation and Top-stone; ay! and Deity indwelling in the
temple, and building it by His indwelling-this Christ is not one of those who ‘begin to
build and are not able to finish.’ He realises all His plans. There are no ruined edifices in
‘the City’; nor any half-finished fanes of worship within the walls of that great Jerusalem
whose builder and maker is Christ.
If you will put yourselves in His hands, and trust yourselves to Him, He will take away all
your incompleteness, and will make you body, soul, and spirit, temples of the Lord God;
as far above the loftiest beauty and whitest sanctity of any Christian character here on
earth as is the building of God, ‘the house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens,’
above ‘the earthly house of this tabernacle.’
He will perfect this restoring work at the last, when His Word to His servant Death, as
He points him to us, shall be ‘Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up.’
20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to
build this temple, and you are going to raise it in
three days?”
BAR ES, "Then said the Jews ... - The Jews, either from the ambiguity of his
language, or more probably from a design to cavil, understood him as speaking of the
temple at Jerusalem. What he said here is all the evidence that they could adduce on his
trial Mat_26:61; Mar_14:58, and they reproached him with it when on the cross, Mat_
27:40. The Jews frequently perverted our Saviour’s meaning. The language which he
used was often that of parables or metaphor; and as they Sought to misunderstand him
and pervert his language, so he often left them to their own delusions, as he himself says,
“that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand,” Mat_13:13.
This was a case which they “might,” if they had been disposed, have easily understood.
They were in the temple; the conversation was about the temple; and though he
probably pointed to his body, or designated it in some plain way, yet they chose to
understand him as referring to the temple itself; and as it appeared so improbable that
he could raise up that in three days, they sought to pervert his words and pour ridicule
on his pretensions.
Forty and six years ... - The temple in which they then were was that which was
commonly called “the second temple,” built after the return of the Jews from Babylon.
See the notes at Mat_21:12. This temple Herod the Great commenced repairing, or
began to rebuild, in the eighteenth year of his reign - that is, sixteen years before the

birth of Christ (Jos. ‘Ant.,’ b. xv. Section 1). The main body of the temple he completed in
“nine years and a half” (Jos. ‘Ant.,’ xv. 5, 6), yet the temple, with its outbuildings, was
not entirely complete in the time of our Saviour. Herod continued to ornament it and to
perfect it even until the time of Agrippa (Jos. ‘Ant.,’ b. xx. chapter viii. Section 11). As
Herod began to rebuild the temple sixteen years before the birth of Jesus, and as what is
here mentioned happened in the thirtieth year of the age of Jesus, so the time which had
been occupied in it was “forty-six years.” This circumstance is one of the many in the
New Testament which show the accuracy of the evangelists, and which prove that they
were well acquainted with what they recorded. It demonstrates that their narration is
true. Impostors do not trouble themselves to be very accurate about names and dates,
and there is nothing in which they are more liable to make mistakes.
Wilt thou ... - This is an expression of contempt. Herod, with all his wealth and
power, had been engaged in this work almost half a century. Can you, an obscure and
unknown Galilean, accomplish it in three days? The thing, in their judgment, was
ridiculous, and showed, as “they” supposed, that he had no authority to do what he had
done in the temple.
CLARKE, "Forty and six years was this temple in building - The temple of
which the Jews spake was begun to be rebuilt by Herod the Great, in the 18th year of his
reign: Josephus. Ant. b. xv. c. 11, s. 1; and xx. c. 9, s. 5, 7. But though he finished the
main work in nine years and a half, yet some additional buildings or repairs were
constantly carried on for many years afterwards. Herod began the work sixteen years
before the birth of our Lord: the transactions which are here related took place in the
thirtieth year of our Lord, which make the term exactly forty-six years. Rosenmuller.
Josephus, Ant. b. xx. c. 8, s. 5, 7, has told us that the whole of the buildings belonging to
the temple were not finished till Nero’s reign, when Albinus, the governor of Judea, was
succeeded by Gessius Florus, which was eighty years after the eighteenth year of Herod’s
reign. See Bp. Pearce.
GILL, "Then said the Jews,.... Unto him, as read the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and
Ethiopic versions:
forty and six years was this temple in building; which cannot be understood of
the temple as built by Solomon, for that was but seven years in building, 1Ki_6:37. But
rather of the temple, as built by Zorobabel, commonly called the second temple, and
might be more properly said to be "this temple"; the calculations of this made by learned
men, are various and endless to recite. Daniel's seven weeks, or forty nine days, which
are so many years, can have nothing to do with this account; since they regard not the
building of the temple, but the city of Jerusalem; though from the second year of Cyrus,
in which the temple began to be built, to the thirty second of Darius exclusive, were just
forty six years; Cyrus reigning three years, Artaxerxes Ahasuerus fourteen years, and
Artaxerxes Darius thirty two; but their account is more likely, which begins at the first of
Artaxerxes Longimanus, who reigned forty years, and ends in the sixth year of Darius,
his successor, in which year the temple was finished, Ezr_6:15. But to me it seems
rather, that Herod's temple, or the temple as rebuilt, or repaired by Herod, is here
meant; and which the Jews call, ‫הורודוס‬ ‫,בניין‬ "the building of Herod" (g); and say of it,
that

"he who has not seen Herod's building, never saw a beautiful building.''
And this, according to Josephus (h), was begun in the "eighteenth" year of his reign, in
the "thirty fifth" of which Christ was born, who was now "thirty" years of age: so that
reckoning either the eighteenth year of Herod, or the thirtieth of Christ, the present year
exclusively, just forty six years had run out, since the rebuilding or reparations were first
begun; and which were not yet finished; for some years after this, the above writer
observes (i), the temple was finished, even in the times of Nero and Agrippa: and
agreeably to this, the words may be rendered, "forty six years has this temple been
building"; and which still adds more force to the following reasoning of the Jews:
and wilt thou rear it up in three days? the thing is impossible and impracticable; it
is madness to the last degree, to talk at this rate: thus from the length of time which had
run out from Herod's first beginning to repair and beautify the temple, till now, and yet
not finished, they argue the absurdity of his pretending to raise up such a fabric, should
it be demolished, in three days time; they understanding him either ignorantly or
wilfully, to speak of the material temple, when his sense was otherwise, as appears from
the words of the evangelist, in the next verse. The Jew (k) objects to this account, of the
temple being forty six years in building; he observes, that
"according to the sense of the Nazarenes, this was the building of king Herod, that was in
the time of Jesus; and the whole time of his reign were but seven and thirty years, as is
manifest from the book of Joseph ben Gorion, c. 65. Besides, that which Herod built,
was built in eight years, as is evident from the same author, c. 55, wherefore the number
of forty six years, in the words of the writer, (the evangelist,) is, a palpable error.''
To which may be replied, that admitting there is an error in this number, it is not the
error of the evangelist, but of the Jews, whose words the evangelist relates; and
supposing this was a mistake of theirs, either ignorantly or wilfully made, to aggravate
the absurdity and impossibility of Christ's rebuilding the temple; and that even the
evangelist knew it to be a mistake; yet he acts the most faithful and upright part, in
repeating the words of the Jews, as they delivered them; and it lies upon the Jew to
prove, that these words were not said by them, or that it is not credible that they should:
that this was the building of Herod which is here referred to; and that he reigned but
thirty seven years, will be granted; but this is no objection to its being forty six years in
building, since in this account it is not said that it was forty six years in building by
Herod; the sense is only, that such a number of years had passed, since it first began to
be built by him: as for what Joseph ben Gorion says, of its being built by him in the
space of eight years, it is not to be depended upon, since he is not the true Josephus, that
wrote the history of the Jews, and is to be corrected by the genuine historian; and from
what has been before observed, from the time which, according to the true Josephus,
this building was begun, to this present year of Christ, when this discourse was had,
were just forty six years; and admitting, that the main of the building was finished in
eight years time, yet additions were continually made to it, so that it was not finished
entirely, until many years after.
HE RY, "(3.) Their cavil at this answer: “Forty and six years was this temple in
building, Joh_2:20. Temple work was always slow work, and canst thou make such
quick work of it?” Now here, [1.] They show some knowledge; they could tell how long
the temple was in building. Dr. Lightfoot computes that it was just forty-six years from

the founding of Zerubbabel's temple, in the second year of Cyrus, to the complete
settlement of the temple service, in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes; and the same from
Herod's beginning to build this temple, in the 18th year of his reign, to this very time,
when the Jews said that this as just forty-six years: ōkodomēthē - hath this temple been
built. [2.] They show more ignorance, First, Of the meaning of Christ's words. Note,
Men often run into gross mistakes by understanding that literally which the scripture
speaks figuratively. What abundance of mischief has been done by interpreting, This is
my body, after a corporal and carnal manner! Secondly, Of the almighty power of
Christ, as if he could do no more than another man. Had they known that this was he
who built all things in six days they would not have made it such an absurdity that he
should build a temple in three days.
JAMIESO , "Forty and six years — From the eighteenth year of Herod till then
was just forty-six years [Josephus, Antiquities, 15.11.1].
COFFMAN, "At this point, it is possible to check the historicity of John's Gospel; and it
is no surprise to find it exactly accurate. Herod the Great began building the temple in
20-19 B.C.[19] Adding 46 years to that date brings the time of this first cleansing to 27-
28 A.D. and adds strong evidence for the early date of this cleansing. Of course, the Jews
construed Jesus' words in the most literal fashion possible, and with such a lack of
perception that they naturally considered his claim ridiculous. At the time of the trials
before his crucifixion, Jesus' enemies presented a garbled version of his words here as
"evidence"! It is clear enough why those men could not understand Jesus, but it is
disconcerting that some Christians cannot seem to understand him.
ENDNOTE:
[19] Ibid.
CALVI , "20.Forty and six years. The computation of Daniel agrees with this
passage, (Daniel 9:25;) for he reckons seven weeks, which make Forty-nine years;
but, before the last of these weeks had ended, the temple was finished. The time
described in the history of Ezra is much shorter; but, though it has some
appearance of contradiction, it is not at all at variance with the words of the
Prophet. For, when the sanctuary had been reared, before the building of the temple
was completed, they began to offer sacrifices. The work was afterwards stopped for
a long time through the indolence of the people, as plainly appears from the
complaints of the Prophet Haggai 1:4; for he severely reproves the Jews for being
too earnestly engaged in building their private dwellings, while they left the Temple
of God in an unfinished state.
But why does he mention thattemple which had been destroyed by Herod about
forty years before that time? For thetemple which they had at that time, though it
had been built with great magnificence and at a vast expense, had been completed
by Herod, contrary to the expectation of men, as is related by Josephus, (Ant. Book
15. chapter 11.) I think it probable that this new building of the temple was
reckoned as if the ancient temple had always remained in its original condition, that

it might be regarded with greater veneration; and that they spoke in the usual and
ordinary manner, that their fathers, with the greatest difficulty, had scarcely built
the temple in Forty-six, years
This reply shows plainly enough what was their intention in asking a sign; for if
they had been ready to obey, with reverence, a Prophet sent by God, they would not
have so disdainfully rejected what he had said to them about the confirmation of his
office. They wish to have some testimony of divine power, and yet they receive
nothing which does not correspond to the feeble capacity of man. Thus the Papists
in the present day demand miracles, not that they would give way to the power of
God, (for it is a settled principle with them to prefer men to God, and not to move a
hair’s breadth from what they have received by custom and usage;) but that they
may not appear to have no reason for rebelling against God, they hold out this
excuse as a cloak for their obstinacy. In such a manner do the minds of unbelievers
storm in them with blind impetuosity, that they desire to have the hand of God
exhibited to them and yet do not wish that it should be divine.
When therefore he was risen from the dead. This recollection was similar to the
former, which the Evangelist lately mentioned, (verse 17.) The Evangelist did not
understand Christ when he said this; but the doctrine, which appeared to have been
useless, and to have vanished into air, afterwards produced fruit in its own time.
Although, therefore, many of the actions and sayings of our Lord are obscure for a
time, we must not give them up in despair, or despise that which we do not all at
once understand. (52) We ought to observe the connection of the words, thatthey
believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken; for the Evangelist
means that, by comparing the Scripture with the word of Christ, they were aided in
making progress in faith.
LIGHTFOOT, "20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in
building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
[Forty-and-six years.] I. That this was spoken of the Temple as beautified and
repaired by Herod, not as built by Zorobabel, these reasons seem to sway with me:
1. That these things were done and discoursed betwixt Christ and the Jews in
Herod's Temple.
2. That the account, if meant of the Temple of Zorobabel, will not fall in either with
the years of the kings of Persia; or those seven weeks mentioned Daniel 9:25, in
which Jerusalem was to be built, "even in troublous times." For whoever reckons by
the kings of Persia, he must necessarily attribute at least thirty years to Cyrus;
which they willingly do that are fond of this account: which thirty years too, if they
do not reckon to him after the time that he had taken Babylon, and subverted that
monarchy, they prove nothing as to this computation at all.
"Cyrus destroyed the empire of the Medes, and reigned over Persia, having

overthrown Astyages, the king of the Medes": and from thence Eusebius reckons to
Cyrus thirty years. But by what authority he ascribes the Jews' being set at liberty
from their captivity to that very same year, I cannot tell. For Cyrus could not release
the Jews from their captivity in Babylon before he had conquered Babylon for
himself; and this was a great while after he had subdued the Medes, as appears
from all that have treated upon the subversion of that empire: which how they agree
with Xenophon, I shall not inquire at this time: content at present with this, that it
doth not appear amongst any historians that have committed the acts of Cyrus to
memory, that they have given thirty or twenty, no, not ten years to him after he had
taken Babylon. Leunclavius gives him but eight years; and Xenophon himself seems
to have given him but seven. So that this account of forty-and-six years falls plainly
to the ground, as not being able to stand, but with the whole thirty years of Cyrus
included into the number.
Their opinion is more probable who make these forty-and-six years parallel with the
seven weeks in Daniel 9:25. But the building of the Temple ceased for more years
than wherein it was built; and, in truth, if we compute the times wherein any work
was done upon the Temple, it was really built within the space of ten years.
II. This number of forty-six years fits well enough with Herod's Temple; for
Josephus tells us, that Herod began the work in the eighteenth year of his reign; nor
does he contradict himself when he tells us, in the fifteenth year of his reign he
repaired the Temple; because the fifteenth year of his reign alone, after he had
conquered Antigonus, was the eighteenth year from the time wherein he had been
declared king by the Romans. ow Herod (as the same Josephus relates) lived
thirty-seven years from the time that the Romans had declared him king; and in his
thirty-fifth year Christ was born; and he was now thirty years old when he had this
discourse with the Jews. So that between the eighteenth of Herod and the thirtieth of
Christ exclusively there were just forty-six years complete.
III. The words of our evangelist therefore may be thus rendered in English: "Forty-
and-six years hath this Temple been in building": and this version seems warranted
by Josephus, who, beginning the history of G. Florus, the procurator of Judea,
about the 11th of ero, hath this passage; From that time particularly our city
began to languish, all things growing worse and worse. He tells us further, that
Albinus, when he went off from his government, set open all the gaols and dismissed
the prisoners, and so filled the whole province with thieves and robberies. He tells
withal, that king Agrippa permitted the Levite singing-men to go about as they
pleased in their linen garments: and at length concludes, "And now was the Temple
finished [note that]; wherefore the people, seeing the workmen, to the number of
eighteen thousand, were at a stand, having nothing to do...besought the king that he
would repair the porch upon the east," &c. If therefore the Temple was not finished
till that time, then much less was it so when Christ was in it. Whence we may
properly enough render those words of the Jews into such a kind of sense as this: "It
is forty-and-six years since the repairing of the Temple was first undertook, and
indeed to this day is not quite perfected; and wilt thou pretend to build a new one in
three days?"

21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
CLARKE, "Of the temple of his body - Rather, the temple, his body: his body had
no particular temple: but it was the temple of his Divinity - the place in which, as in the
ancient temple, his Godhead dwelt; See how the Jews perverted these words, Mat_26:60
(note), and the notes there.
GILL, "But he spoke of the temple of his body. Which was the antitype of the
material temple; and might well be called so, since the bodies of the saints are called
temples, 1Co_3:16 2Co_6:16; and the human nature of Christ is called a tabernacle,
Heb_8:2; and he himself, in prophecy, is said to be ‫,למקדש‬ "for a sanctuary", or temple,
Isa_8:14, and that because the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily, the train of
the divine perfections filled the temple of his human nature, Col_2:9. And because here,
as in the temple, God grants his presence, and communes with his saints, accepts of
their prayers and praises, and all their spiritual sacrifices through him; and who is the
oracle, the true "Urim" and "Thummim", by whom he delivers his whole mind and will
to his people.
HE RY, "(4.) A vindication of Christ's answer from their cavil. The difficulty is soon
solved by explaining the terms: He spoke of the temple of his body, Joh_2:21. Though
Christ had discovered a great respect for the temple, in purging it, yet he will have us
know that the holiness of it, which he was so jealous for, was but typical, and leads us to
the consideration of another temple of which that was but a shadow, the substance being
Christ, Heb_9:9; Col_2:17. Some think that when he said, Destroy this temple, he
pointed to his own body, or laid his hand upon it; however, it is certain that he spoke of
the temple of his body. Note, The body of Christ is the true temple, of which that at
Jerusalem was a type. [1.] Like the temple, it was built by immediate divine direction: “A
body hast thou prepared me,” 1Ch_28:19. [2.] Like the temple, it was a holy house; it is
called that holy thing. [3.] It was, like the temple, the habitation of God's glory; there the
eternal Word dwelt, the true shechinah. He is Emmanuel - God with us. [4.] The temple
was the place and medium of intercourse between God and Israel: there God revealed
himself to them; there they presented themselves and their services to him. Thus by
Christ God speaks to us, and we speak to him. Worshippers looked towards that house,
1Ki_8:30, 1Ki_8:35. So we must worship God with an eye to Christ.
JAMIESO , "temple of his body — in which was enshrined the glory of the
eternal Word. (See on Joh_1:14). By its resurrection the true Temple of God upon earth

was reared up, of which the stone one was but a shadow; so that the allusion is not quite
exclusively to Himself, but takes in that Temple of which He is the foundation, and all
believers are the “lively stones.” (1Pe_2:4, 1Pe_2:5).
LIGHTFOOT, "21. But he spake of the temple of his body.
[But he spake of the temple of his body.] If we consider how much the second
Temple came behind that of the first, it will the more easily appear why our blessed
Saviour should call his body the Temple.
"In the second Temple there wanted the Fire from heaven, the Ark with the
Propitiatory and Cherubims, Urim and Thummim, the Divine Glory, the Holy
Ghost, and the anointing Oil."
These things were all in Solomon's Temple, which therefore was accounted a full
and plenary type of the Messiah: but so long as the second Temple had them not, it
wanted what more particularly shadowed and represented him.
I. There was indeed in the second Temple a certain ark in the Holy of Holies; but
this was neither Moses' ark nor the ark of the covenant: which may not unfitly come
to mind when we read that passage, Revelation 11:19, "The Temple of God was
opened in heaven, and there was seen in his Temple the ark of his testament." It was
not seen, nor indeed was it at all in the second Temple.
The Jews have a tradition, that Josias hid the ark before the Babylonish captivity,
lest it should fall into the hands of the enemy, as once it did amongst the Philistines;
but there is no mention that it was ever found and restored again.
II. In Moses' Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple the divine presence sat visibly over
the Ark in the Propitiatory, in a cloud of glory: but when the destruction of that
Temple drew near, it went up from the Propitiatory, Ezekiel 10:4, and never
returned into the second Temple, where neither the Ark nor the Propitiatory was
ever restored.
III. The high priest, indeed, ministered in the second Temple as in the first, in eight
several garments. Amongst these was the pectoral, or breastplate, wherein the
precious stones were put (out of which the jasper chanced to fall and was lost): but
the oracle by Urim and Thummim was never restored: see Ezra 2:63; ehemiah
7:63. And if not restored in the days of Ezra or ehemiah, much less certainly in the
ages following, when the spirit of prophecy had forsaken and taken leave of that
people. For that is a great truth amongst the Talmudists; "Things are not asked or
inquired after now [by Urim and Thummim] by the high priest, because he doth not
speak by the Holy Ghost, nor does there any divine afflatus breathe on him."
This, to omit other things, was the state of Zorobabel's Temple with respect to those
things which were the peculiar glory of it. And these things being wanting, how
much inferior must this needs be to that of Solomon's!

But there was one thing that degraded Herod's Temple still lower; and that was the
person of Herod himself, to whom it is ascribed. It was not without scruple, even
amongst the Jews themselves, that it was built and repaired by such a one: (and who
knew not what Herod was?) and they dispute whether by right such a person ought
to have meddled with it; and invent arguments for their own satisfaction as to the
lawfulness of the thing.
They object first, It is not permitted to any one to demolish one synagogue till he
hath built another: much less to demolish the Temple. But Herod demolished the
Temple before he had built another. Ergo,
They answer, "Baba Ben Buta gave Herod that counsel, that he should pull it
down." ow this Baba was reckoned amongst the great wise men, and he did not
rashly move Herod to such a work; for he saw such clefts and breaches in the
Temple that threatened its ruin.
They object, secondly, concerning the person of Herod, that he was a servant to the
Asmonean family, that he rose up against his masters and killed them, and had
killed the Sanhedrim.
They answer, We were under his power, and could not resist it. And if those hands
stained with blood would be building, it was not in their power to hinder it.
These and other things they apologize for their Temple; adding this invention for
the greater honour of the thing--that all that space of time wherein it was a building,
it never once rained by day, that the work might not be interrupted.
The Rabbins take a great deal of pains, but to no purpose, upon those words,
Haggai 2:9, "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former." "R.
Jochanan and R. Eliezer say; one, that it was a greater for the fabric; the other, that
it was greater for the duration." As if the glory of the Temple consisted in any
mathematical reasons of space, dimension, or duration; as if it lay in walls, gilding,
or ornament. The glory of the first Temple was the Ark, the divine cloud over the
Ark, the Urim and the Thummim, &c. ow where or in what can consist the greater
glory of the second Temple when these are gone?
Herein it is indeed that the Lord of the Temple was himself present in his Temple:
he himself was present in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
Colossian 2:9; as the divine glory of old was over the ark typically, or by way of
shadow only.
This is the glory, when he himself is present who is the great High Priest and the
Prophet; who, answerably to the Urim and Thummim of old, reveals the counsels
and will of God; he who is the true and living Temple, whom that Temple shadowed
out. "This Temple of yours, O ye Jews, does not answer its first pattern and
exemplar: there are wanting in that, what were the chief glory of the former; which

very defect intimates that there is another Temple to be expected, that in all things
may fall in with its first type, as it is necessary the antitype should do. And this is the
Temple of my body." o further did he think fit to reply to them at that time.
22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples
recalled what he had said. Then they believed the
scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
BAR ES, "When he was risen from the dead ... - This saying of our Saviour at
that time seemed obscure and difficult. The disciples did not understand it, but they
treasured it up in their memory, and the event showed what was its true meaning. Many
prophecies are obscure when spoken which are perfectly plain when the event takes
place. We learn from this, also, the importance of treasuring up the truths of the Bible
now, though we may not perfectly understand them. Hereafter they may be plain to us.
It is therefore important that “children,” should learn the truths of the sacred Scriptures.
Treasured up in their memory, they may not be understood “now,” but hereafter they
may be clear to them. Every one engaged in teaching a Sunday school, therefore, may be
imparting instruction which may be understood, and may impart comfort, long after the
teacher has gone to eternity.
They believed - That is, “after” he rose from the dead.
The scripture - The Old Testament, which predicted his resurrection. Reference
here must be made to Psa_16:10; compare Act_2:27-32; Act_13:35-37; Psa_2:7;
compare Act_13:33. They understood those Scriptures in a sense different from what
they did before.
The word which Jesus had said - The prediction which he had made respecting
his resurrection in this place and on other occasions. See Mat_20:19; Luk_18:32-33.
CLARKE, "Remembered that he had said this unto them - Αυτοις, to them, is
wanting in AEHLMS, Matt. BV, upwards of one hundred others; both the Syriac; Persic,
Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavonic, Vulgate, and Itala. Griesbach has left it out
of the text.
They believed the scripture - The scripture which the evangelist immediately
refers to may have been Psa_16:10. Compare this with Act_2:31, Act_2:32, and with
Act_13:35-37. See also Psa_2:7, and compare it with Heb_1:5, and Heb_5:5, and with
Act_13:33. They understood these scriptures in a sense in which they never before

understood them.
It is the property of many prophecies never to be understood except by their
accomplishment; but these are so marked that, when their fulfillment takes place, they
cannot be misunderstood, or applied to any other event.
GILL, "When therefore he was risen from the dead,.... Which was three years
after this:
his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; either to the Jews,
or to them the disciples; though the phrase "to them", is not in the Vulgate Latin, nor in
any of the Oriental versions. The disciples themselves were very dull of understanding
the doctrine of Christ's resurrection; and so they continued, notwithstanding he gave
them afterwards very full hints of it, until that he was actually risen; and then they called
to mind these words of his, with others that dropped from him upon the same subject:
and they believed the Scripture; that spoke of his resurrection, Psa_16:10, and on
the third day, Hos_6:2.
And the word which Jesus had said; concerning his rising again the third day at
this time, and at others, as in Mat_16:21; and they believed his word equally with the
Scripture, it agreeing to it, and being founded on it.
HE RY, "(5.) A reflection which the disciples made upon this, long after, inserted
here, to illustrate the story (Joh_2:22): When he was risen from the dead, some years
after, his disciples remembered that he had said this. We found them, Joh_2:17,
remembering what had been written before of him, and here we find them remembering
what they had heard from him. Note, The memories of Christ's disciples should be like
the treasure of the good house-holder, furnished with things both new and old, Mat_
13:52. Now observe,
[1.] When they remembered that saying: When he was risen from the dead. It seems,
they did not at this time fully understand Christ's meaning, for they were as yet but
babes in knowledge; but they laid up the saying in their hearts, and afterwards it became
both intelligible and useful. Note, It is good to hear for the time to come, Isa_42:23. The
juniors in years and profession should treasure up those truths of which at present they
do not well understand either the meaning or the use, for they will be serviceable to
them hereafter, when they come to greater proficiency. It was said of the scholars of
Pythagoras that his precepts seemed to freeze in them till they were forty years old, and
then they began to thaw; so this saying of Christ revived in the memories of his disciples
when he was risen from the dead; and why the? First, Because then the Spirit was
poured out to bring things to their remembrance which Christ had said to them, and to
make them both easy and ready to them, Joh_14:26. That very day that Christ rose form
the dead he opened their understandings, Luk_24:45. Secondly, Because then this
saying of Christ was fulfilled. When the temple of his body had been destroyed and was
raised again, and that upon the third day, then they remembered this among other
words which Christ had said to this purport. Note, It contributes much to the
understanding of the scripture to observe the fulfilling of the scripture. The event will
expound the prophecy.
[2.] What use they made of it: They believed the scripture, and the word that Jesus

had said; their belief of these was confirmed and received fresh support and vigour.
They were slow of heart to believe (Luk_24:25), but they were sure. The scripture and
the word of Christ are here put together. not because they concur and exactly agree
together, but because they mutually illustrate and strengthen each other. When the
disciples saw both what they had read in the Old Testament, and what they had heard
from Christ's own mouth, fulfilled in his death and resurrection, they were the more
confirmed in their belief of both.
JAMIESO , "believed the scripture — on this subject; that is, what was meant,
which was hid from them till then. Mark (1) The act by which Christ signalized His first
public appearance in the Temple. Taking “His fan in His hand, He purges His floor,” not
thoroughly indeed, but enough to foreshadow His last act towards that faithless people -
to sweep them out of God’s house. (2) The sign of His authority to do this is the
announcement, at this first outset of His ministry, of that coming death by their hands,
and resurrection by His own, which were to pave the way for their judicial ejection.
23 ow while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover
Festival, many people saw the signs he was
performing and believed in his name.[d]
BAR ES, "Feast-day - Feast. During the celebration of the Passover, which
continued eight days.
Miracles which he did - These miracles are not particularly recorded. Jesus took
occasion to work miracles, and to preach at that time, for a great multitude were present
from all parts of Judea. It was a favorable opportunity for making known his doctrines
and showing the evidence that he was the Christ, and he embraced it. We should always
seek and embrace opportunities of doing good, and we should not be “deterred,” but
rather “excited,” by the multitude around us to make known our real sentiments on the
subject of religion.
CLARKE, "Many believed in his name - They believed him to be the promised
Messiah, but did not believe in him to the salvation of their souls: for we find, from the
following verse, that their hearts were not at all changed, because our blessed Lord could
not trust himself to them.

GILL, "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover,.... Whither he went, in
order to keep it, that being at hand, and now come; see Joh_2:13;
in the feast day; either on the day the Chagigah was eaten, which was sometimes
emphatically called "the feast", as in Num_28:16, "and in the fourteenth day of the first
month, is the passover of the Lord; and in the fifteenth day of this month, is the feast";
the passover lamb was eaten on the fourteenth day of the month "Nisan", and the
"Chagigah" was on the fifteenth; in the former only a lamb was eaten, in the other, cattle
out of the herds; hence mention is made, both of flocks and herds, for the keeping the
passover, Deu_16:2. Jarchi's note upon the place is, that the herds were for the
Chagigah, with which the Talmud (l) agrees; and Jonathan ben Uzziel paraphrases the
words thus,
"and ye shall slay the passover before the Lord your God, between the evenings, and the
sheep and oxen on the morrow, in that very day, for the joy of the feast;''
for it was observed with great joy and mirth: and the rather this is here meant, since the
"Chagigah" is not only called "the feast", but this here is distinguished from the
passover, as that is in the passage above cited, Num_28:16. For the passover here, seems
to be the general name for the whole seven days of the festival; and the feast to be the
particular feast of the first day of it, which was the fifteenth; to which may be added, that
on this day all the males made their appearance in court (m); and so was a very proper
time for Christ to work his miracles in, when there were so many spectators: though it
may design the whole time of the feast, all the seven days of unleavened bread; during
which time Christ was at Jerusalem, and wrought miracles, which had the following
effect:
many believed in his name; that he was some great prophet, or the prophet, or the
Messiah; they gave an historical assent unto him as such, at least for that time:
when they saw the miracles which he did; for as miracles, according to the
prophecies of the Old Testament, were to be performed by the Messiah, such as giving
sight to the blind, causing the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, and the lame to walk,
Isa_35:5; so they were expected by the ancient Jews, that they would be wrought by him,
when he came; wherefore these Jews, seeing such like wonderful things wrought by
Jesus, they concluded he must be the Messiah: though the modern ones, in order to shift
off the evidence of Jesus being the Messiah, from his miracles, deny that miracles are the
characteristic of the Messiah, or will be performed by him; at least, that there is no
necessity of them to prove him to be the person. What miracles these were, which were
now wrought by Christ, are not recorded by this, or any other evangelist; see Joh_20:30.
However, being surprised at the marvellous things he did, and upon the evidence of
these extraordinary works, there were many that concluded he must be come from God;
among these it seems as if Nicodemus was one; see Joh_3:2; great part of these, at least
some of them, were only nominal and temporary believers, who were not to be confided
in as true disciples, and hearty followers of Christ; and who continued not long in the
same mind and profession, as appears by what follows.
HE RY, "We have here an account of the success, the poor success, of Christ's

preaching and miracles at Jerusalem, while he kept the passover there. Observe,
I. That our Lord Jesus, when he was at Jerusalem at the passover, did preach and
work miracles. People's believing on him implied that he preached; and it is expressly
said, They saw the miracles he did. He was now in Jerusalem, the holy city, whence the
word of the Lord was to go froth. His residence was mostly in Galilee, and therefore
when he was in Jerusalem he was very busy. The time was holy time, the feast-day, time
appointed for the service of God; at the passover the Levites taught the good knowledge
of the Lord (2Ch_30:22), and Christ took that opportunity of preaching, when the
concourse of people was great, and thus he would own and honour the divine institution
of the passover.
II. That hereby many were brought to believe in his name, to acknowledge him a teacher
come from God, as Nicodemus did (Joh_3:2), a great prophet; and, probably, some of
those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem believed him to be the Messiah
promised, so ready were they to welcome the first appearance of that bright and
morning star.
JAMIESO , "in the feast day — the foregoing things occurring probably before
the feast began.
many believed — superficially, struck merely by “the miracles He did.” Of these we
have no record.
HAWKER, "Now when he was at Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many
believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (24) But Jesus did not
commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, (25) And needed not that any
should testify of man; for he knew what was in man.
Reader! I detain you no longer on those verses, than to ask you, what further proofs can
be needed to the Godhead of your Lord, than what is here said. Who less than He that
made man, can know the thoughts of man?
COFFMAN, "John means by this that a great many other signs had been wrought by
Jesus at this first passover, giving the key to the selectivity of his narrative. From the
vast number of Jesus' signs, only seven were selected for this Gospel by its inspired
author. There is a sense too in which the cleansing of the temple may be considered a
sign. Such a frontal assault upon the entrenched forces of exploitation would have
resulted in a sudden burst of popularity, the rabble always being capable of sudden, but
not sustained, clamor against authority, especially authority which is abused and
exploitive as was that of the temple. A multitude would have gathered quickly around
such a defender of righteousness as Jesus showed himself in that episode. However, the
view here is that the mention of signs (plural) has reference to many of Jesus' mighty
deeds that were omitted from this Gospel and all the Gospels. The cleansing of the
temple, though not miraculous, and thus not reckoned among John's seven signs,
nevertheless was a dramatic and startling announcement of Jesus as the Messiah who
had suddenly come to his temple.
CALVI , "23.Many believed. The Evangelist appropriately connects this narrative
with the former. Christ had not given such a sign as the Jews demanded; and now,

when he produced no good effect on them by many miracles — except that they
entertained a cold faith, which was only the shadow of faith — this event sufficiently
proves that they did not deserve that he should comply with their wishes. It was,
indeed, some fruit of the signs, that many believed in Christ, and in his name, so as
to profess that they wished to follow his doctrine; for name is here put for authority.
This appearance of faith, which hitherto was fruitless, might ultimately be changed
into true faith, and might be a useful preparation for celebrating the name of Christ
among others; and yet what we have said is true, that they were far from having
proper feelings, so as to profit by the works of God, as they ought to have done.
Yet this was not a pretended faith by which they wished to gain reputation among
men; for they were convinced that Christ was some great Prophet, and perhaps they
even ascribed to him the honor of being the Messiah, of whom there was at that time
a strong and general expectation. But as they did not understand the peculiar office
of the Messiah, their faith was absurd, because it was exclusively directed to the
world and earthly things. It was also a cold belief, and unaccompanied by the true
feelings of the heart. For hypocrites assent to the Gospel, not that they may devote
themselves in obedience to Christ, nor that with sincere piety they may follow Christ
when he calls them, but because they do not venture to reject entirely the truth
which they have known, and especially when they can find no reason for opposing
it. For as they do not voluntarily, or of their own accord, make war with God, so
when they perceive that his doctrine is opposed to their flesh and to their perverse
desires, they are immediately offended, or at least withdraw from the faith which
they had already embraced.
When the Evangelist says, therefore, that those men believed, I do not understand
that they counterfeited a faith which did not exist, but that they were in some way
constrained to enroll themselves as the followers of Christ; and yet it appears that
their faith was not true and genuine, because Christ excludes them from the number
of those on whose sentiments reliance might be placed. Besides, that faith depended
solely on miracles, and had no root in the Gospel, and therefore could not be steady
or permanent. Miracles do indeed assist the children of God in arriving at the truth;
but it does not amount to actual believing, when they admire the power of God so as
merely to believe that it is true, but not to subject themselves wholly to it. And,
therefore, when we speak generally about faith, let us know that there is a kind of
faith which is perceived by the understanding only, and afterwards quickly
disappears, because it is not fixed in the heart; and that is the faith which James
calls dead; but true faith always depends on the Spirit of regeneration, (James 2:17.)
Observe, that all do not derive equal profit from the works of God; for some are led
by them to God, and others are only driven by a blind impulse, so that, while they
perceive indeed the power of God, still they do not cease to wander in their own
imaginations.
BARCLAY, "THE SEARCHER OF THE HEARTS OF ME (John 2:23-25)
2:23-25 When he was in Jerusalem, at the Passover, at the Feast, many believed in
his name, as they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus himself would not entrust

himself to them, because he knew them all, and because he had no need that anyone
should testify to him what man is like, for he well knew what was in human nature.
John does not relate the story of any wonder that Jesus did in Jerusalem at the
Passover season; but Jesus did do wonders there; and there were many who, when
they saw his powers, believed in him. The question John is answering here is--if
there were many who believed in Jerusalem right at the beginning, why did Jesus
not there and then set up his standard and openly declare himself?
The answer is that Jesus knew human nature only too well. He knew that there were
many to whom he was only a nine-days' wonder. He knew that there were many
who were attracted only by the sensational things he did. He knew that there were
none who understood the way that he had chosen. He knew that there were many
who would have followed him while he continued to produce miracles and wonders
and signs, but who, if he had begun to talk to them about service and self-denial, if
he had begun to talk to them about self-surrender to the will of God, if he had begun
to talk to them about a cross and about carrying a cross, would have stared at him
with blank incomprehension and left him on the spot.
It is a great characteristic of Jesus that he did not want followers unless they clearly
knew and definitely accepted what was involved in following him. He refused--in the
modern phrase--to cash in on a moment's popularity. If he had entrusted himself to
the mob in Jerusalem, they would have declared him Messiah there and then and
would have waited for the kind of material action they expected the Messiah to take.
But Jesus was a leader who refused to ask men ever to accept him until they
understood what accepting meant. He insisted that a man should know what he was
doing.
Jesus knew human nature. He knew the fickleness and instability of the heart of
man. He knew that a man can be swept away in a moment of emotion, and then
back out when he discovers what decision really means. He knew how human
nature hungers for sensations. He wanted not a crowd of men cheering they knew
not what, but a small company who knew what they were doing and who were
prepared to follow to the end.
There is one thing we must note in this passage, for we shall have occasion to mark
it again and again. When John speaks of Jesus' miracles he calls them signs. The
ew Testament uses three different words for the wonderful works of God and of
Jesus, and each has something to tell us about what a miracle really is.
(i) It uses the word teras (Greek #5059). Teras (Greek #5059) simply means a
marvellous thing. It is a word with no moral significance at all. A conjuring trick
might be a teras (Greek #5059). A teras (Greek #5059) was simply an astonishing
happening which left a man gasping with surprise. The ew Testament never uses
this word alone of the works of God or of Jesus.
(ii) It uses the word dunamis (Greek #1411). Dunamis literally means power; it is the

word from which dynamite comes. It can be used of any kind of extraordinary
power. It can be used of the power of growth, of the powers of nature, of the power
of a drug, of the power of a man's genius. It always has the meaning of an effective
power which does things and which any man can recognize. (iii) It uses the word
semeion (Greek #4592). Semeion means a sign. This is John's favourite word. To
him a miracle was not simply an astonishing happening; it was not simply a deed of
power; it was a sign. That is to say, it told men something about the person who did
it; it revealed something of his character; it laid bare something of his nature; it was
an action through which it was possible to understand better and more fully the
character of the person who did it. To John the supreme thing about the miracles of
Jesus was that they told men something about the nature and the character of God.
The power of Jesus was used to heal the sick, to feed the hungry, to comfort the
sorrowing; and the fact that Jesus used his power in that way was proof that God
cared for the sorrows and the needs and the pains of men. To John the miracles
were signs of the love of God.
In any miracle, then, there are three things. There is the wonder which leaves men
dazzled, astonished, aghast. There is the power which is effective, which can deal
with and mend a broken body, an unhinged mind, a bruised heart, which can do
things. There is the sign which tells us of the love in the heart of the God who does
such things for men.
BURKITT, "Observe here, What influence the sight of our Saviour's miracles had
upon many of the common people, They believed in his name, when they saw the
miracles which he did; that is, they were convinced by the works which our Saviour
wrought that he came from God, and what he said and did was really true, and no
imposture. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men.
Our Saviour did not, and would not trust them who yet believed on his name.
Thence note, That a naked assent to the history of the gospel is not sufficient to
entitle us to saving faith. We may assent to the truth of all that we find there, and
yet be far from the kingdom of God.
Saving faith implies more than the assent of the understanding to the truths of the
gospel. We cannot believe or disbelieve what we please, but must needs assent to
what is evident to our understanding; so that it is possible for a man to assent to the
truth of Christianity and yet remain in a state of of damnation.
If he doth not embrace it as good, as well as assent to it as true; if our faith be not
the parent and principle of obedience; if our belief doth not influence our practice;
though we pass for believers amongst men, we are no better than unbelievers in the
account of Christ.
If we believe Jesus to be the true Messiah, and do not receive him in all his office; if
we commit ourselves to his saving mercy, but do not submit ourselves to his ruling
power; if we desire him for our Saviour, but disown him for our sovereign; if we

expect salvation by him, and do not yield subjection to him; we put a cheat upon
ourselves: for he only believes as he should, that lives as he does believe.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 23-25, "When He was in Jerusalem at the Passover
The first Jerusalem believers
I.
THE OBJECT OF THEIR FAITH: the name of Christ. The name of anything is that by
which it is known; so the name of Christ is that revelation of the Saviour proposed for
faith’s acceptance. So faith may vary in different ages, persons, and even in the same
person according as the object is fully or partially unveiled and apprehended. Faith can
never travel beyond the bounds of testimony. What was offered to Abraham was a
Saviour to come Joh_8:56); to his descendants, a Saviour come; to John’s disciples, the
Lamb of God; to Nathanael, the Son of God and the King of Israel; to the rulers and
people of Jerusalem, the Messiah. As such He had been rejected by the former and was
now accepted by the latter. The same name, now completely unveiled, is still faith’s
object (Act_3:16; Act 4:12).
II. THE GROUND OF THEIR FAITH—the miracles of Christ; signs, visible pictures of
Christ’s Messianic work as well as attestations of His Divine mission (Joh_3:2; Act_
10:38). In the same sense they are still helps to faith; they are obstacles only when
considered impossible. They are not continued because unnecessary, having been
superseded by a complete historical revelation and by a conscious indwelling of the
Spirit.
III. THE CHARACTER OF THEIR FAITH.
1. Sincere, as far as it went. If afterwards those who believed in Him took up stones
to kill Him (Joh_8:31; Joh 8:59) that constituted the damningcharacter of their
crime. But some who now believed afterwards became disciples (Joh_4:45).
2. Incomplete. It did not go far enough. Resting satisfied with intellectual
acknowledgment of Christ it did not pass on to spiritual surrender. It had taken the
preliminary step of believing in Christ’s name; it wanted that additional of trusting in
His person.
3. Superficial: occasioned by the impression produced by miracles and liable
consequently to disappear when that impression failed.
IV. THE TREATMENT OF THEIR FAITH.
1. The nature of it: Reserve. He did not trust Himself to them, enter into close
relations with them, unite them to Himself as disciples. When Christ puts Himself
into the hands of a believer, the result is salvation and eternal Joh_6:50-54).
2. The reason of it: Insight. He knew what was in them saw they had not fully
surrendered themselves. When a soul does so faith is complete. Christ’s knowledge
of the human heart was the deepest ground of the different treatment accorded to
the Baptist’s disciples; and that knowledge was
(1) instantaneous. He knew at a glance without investigation Joh_6:64; Joh 13:1;
Luk_6:8; Act_1:24; Heb_4:13).
(2) Original (Col_2:13; Rev_2:18).

(3) Universal (Joh_16:30; Joh 18:4; Joh 21:17).
(4) Particular (Joh_4:29; Joh 5:42; Joh 13:11; Joh 20:27).
(5) Complete (Joh_1:48; Joh 6:64; Luk_5:22; Rev_2:23).
Lessons:
1. Christ commonly obtains a readier welcome from the humble than from the great.
2. Faith may sometimes look to the right object and yet be exceedingly defective.
3. The soul that would fully enjoy Christ’s fellowship must have perfect faith.
4. Christ knows the quality and quantity of every man’s faith.
5. He who would have Christ trust Himself to him must first trust himself to Christ.
(T. Whitelaw, D. D.)
24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them,
for he knew all people.
BAR ES, "Did not commit himself - The word translated “commit” here is the
same which in Joh_2:23 is translated “believed.” It means to put “trust” or “confidence
in.” Jesus did not put “trust” or “reliance” in them. He did not leave himself in their
hands. He acted cautiously and prudently. The proper time for him to die had not come,
and he secured his own safety. The reason why he did not commit himself to them is
“that he knew all men.” He knew the “inconstancy” and “fickleness” of the multitude. He
knew how easily they might be turned against him by the Jewish leaders, and how
unsafe he would be if they should be moved to sedition and tumult.
CLARKE, "He knew all men - Instead of παντας all men, EGH, and about thirty
others, read παντα, every man, or all things; and this I am inclined to believe is the true
reading. Jesus knew all things; and why? Because he made all things, Joh_1:3, and
because he was the all-wise God, Joh_1:1; and he knew all men, because he alone
searches the heart, and tries the reins. He knows who are sincere, and who are
hypocritical: he knows those in whom he can confide, and those to whom he can neither
trust himself nor his gifts. Reader, he also knows thee: thy cares, fears, perplexities,
temptations, afflictions, desires, and hopes; thy helps and hinderances; the progress
thou hast made in the Divine life, or thy declension from it. If he know thee to be
hypocritical or iniquitous, he looks upon thee with abhorrence: if he know thee to be of a
meek and broken spirit, he looks on thee with pity, complacency, and delight. Take
courage - thou canst say, Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I do love thee,

and mourn because I love and serve thee so little: then expect him to come in unto thee,
and make his abode with thee: while thy eye and heart are simple, he will love thee, and
thy whole soul shall be full of light. To him be glory and dominion for ever!
GILL, "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them,.... The sense according to
some of the ancients is, that he did not commit the whole of the Gospel to them; he did
not make known to them all his mind and will; this he only did to the twelve apostles, his
special disciples and friends; nor was the time come, that he would make known, or have
made known, the things concerning his person, office, obedience, sufferings, death, and
resurrection from the dead: but rather the meaning is, that he did not trust himself with
these persons, who believed in him, on the basis of his miracles; he did not take them
into the number of his associates; he did not admit them to intimacy with him; nor did
he freely converse with them, or make any long stay among them; but soon withdrew
himself from hence, and went into other parts of Judea, and into Galilee:
because he knew all men: good and bad: all openly profane sinners, and all their
actions; not only their more public ones, but those that are done in the dark, and which
are the most secretly devised, and levelled against the saints; and he so knew them, as to
bring them into judgment: and all good men, true believers; he knows their persons, as
they are his Father's choice, his gift of them to him, his own purchase, and as called by
his grace; and so as to distinguish them at the last day, and give up the full account of
every one of them to his Father: he knows the worst of them, the sin that dwells in them,
their daily infirmities, their secret personal sins; their family sins, both of omission and
commission; and their church sins, or which are committed in the house of God; and
takes notice of them, so as to resent them, and chastise them for them; he knows the best
of them, their graces, their faith, hope, love, patience, humility, self-denial, &c; he knows
their good works, and all their weaknesses and their wants: and he knows all nominal
professors, on what basis they take up their profession, and what trust they place in it;
he can distinguish between grace and mere profession, and discern the secret lusts
which such indulge, and the springs and progress of their apostasy: he knew all these
men, that upon seeing his miracles, professed at this time to believe in him; he knew the
hypocrisy and dissimulation of some of them; and he knew the notions they had of a
temporal Messiah, and the temporal views they had in believing in him; and their design
to set him up as a temporal prince, as some afterwards would have done: knew the flashy
affections of others, who were like John's hearers, that were pleased for a while; he knew
what sort of faith it was they believed in him with, that it would not hold long, nor they
continue with him; for he knew not only all persons, but παντα, "all things", as some
copies read here; see Joh_21:17.
HE RY, "III. That yet Jesus did not commit himself unto them (Joh_2:24): ouk
episteuen heauton autois - He did not trust himself with them. It is the same word that is
used for believing in him. So that to believe in Christ is to commit ourselves to him and
to his guidance. Christ did not see cause to repose any confidence in these new converts
at Jerusalem, where he had many enemies that sought to destroy him, either, 1. Because
they were false, at least some of them, and would betray him if they had an opportunity,
or were strongly tempted to do so. He had more disciples that he could trust among the
Galileans than among the dwellers at Jerusalem. In dangerous times and places, it is

wisdom to take heed in whom you confide; memnēso apistein - learn to distrust. Or, 2.
Because they were weak, and I would hope that this was the worst of it; not that they
were treacherous and designed him a mischief, but, (1.) They were timorous, and
wanted zeal and courage, and might perhaps be frightened to do a wrong thing. In times
of difficulty and danger, cowards are not fit to be trusted. Or, (2.) They were tumultuous,
and wanted discretion and management. These in Jerusalem perhaps had their
expectations of the temporal reign of the Messiah more raised than others, and, in that
expectation, would be ready to give some bold strokes at the government if Christ would
have committed himself to them and put himself at the head of them; but he would not,
for his kingdom is not of this world. We should be shy of turbulent unquiet people, as
our Master here was, though they profess to believe in Christ, as these did.
JAMIESO , "did not commit — “entrust,” or let Himself down familiarly to them,
as to His genuine disciples.
CALVI , "24.But Christ did not rely on them. Those who explain the meaning to
be, that Christ was on his guard against them, because he knew that they were not
upright and faithful, do not appear to me to express sufficiently well the meaning of
the Evangelist. Still less do I agree with what Augustine says about recent converts.
The Evangelist rather means, in my opinion, that Christ did not reckon them to be
genuine disciples, but despised them as volatile and unsteady. It is a passage which
ought to be carefully observed, that not all who profess to be Christ’s followers are
such in his estimation. But we ought also to add the reason which immediately
follows:
Because he knew them all. othing is more dangerous than hypocrisy, for this
reason among others, that it is an exceedingly common fault. There is scarcely any
man who is not pleased with himself; and while we deceive ourselves by empty
flatteries, we imagine that God is blind like ourselves. But here we are reminded
how widely his judgment differs from ours; for he sees clearly those things which we
cannot perceive, because they are concealed by some disguise; and he estimates
according to their hidden source, that is, according to the most secret feeling of the
heart, those things which dazzle our eyes by false luster. This is what Solomon says,
that
God weighs in his balance the hearts of men, while they flatter themselves in their
ways, (Proverbs 21:2.)
Let us remember, therefore, that none are the true disciples of Christ but those
whom He approves, because in such a matter He alone is competent to decide and to
judge.
A question now arises: when the Evangelist says that Christ knew them all, does he
mean those only of whom he had lately spoken, or does the expression refer to the
whole human race? Some extend it to the universal nature of man, and think that
the whole world is here condemned for wicked and perfidious hypocrisy. And,

certainly, it is a true statement, that Christ can find in men no reason why he should
deign to place them in the number of his followers; but I do not see that this agrees
with the context, and therefore I limit it to those who had been formerly mentioned.
COKE, "John 2:24. Jesus did not commit himself unto them,— Did not discover
himself to be the Messiah. He did not trust to those who believed merely on account
of his miracles.—Because he knew all men. He had perfect knowledge of their
dispositions, and was assured, on the present occasion, that the belief of many was
not yet grown up to a full conviction; and foresaw that they would quickly fall off,
when they found that he was rejected by the great men, and did not erect a secular
empire. From the caution which Jesus used, we may learn, not rashly to put
ourselves and our usefulness into the power of others; but to study a wise and happy
medium between that universal prejudice and suspicion, which, while it wrongs the
best and most worthy characters, would deprive us of all the pleasures of an
intimate friendship; and an undistinguishing easiness and openness of temper,
which might make us the property of every hypocritical pretender to kindness and
respect.
Inferences drawn from the marriage in Cana, John 2:1-11. Was this then the first
public miracle, O Saviour, that thou wroughtest? And could there be a greater
miracle than this, that, having been thirty years upon earth, thou didst no miracle
till now? That thy Divinity did hide itself thus long in flesh? That so long thou
wouldst lie obscure in a corner of Galilee, unknown to that world which thou camest
to redeem? That so long thou wouldst strain the patient expectation of those, who
ever since the appearance of thy star waited for the revelation of a Messiah? We,
silly creatures, if we have but a grain of virtue, are ready to set it out to the best
appearance. Thou who receivedst not the Spirit by measure, wouldst content thyself
with a willing obscurity, and concealedst that power which made the world—under
the roof of a human breast, in a cottage of azareth! O Saviour, no one of thy
miracles is more worthy of astonishment than thy not doing of miracles!
Thy first public miracle graceth a marriage. It is an antient and laudable institution.
That the rites of matrimony should not want a solemn celebration, the Son of the
Virgin, and the mother of that Son are both at the wedding. He that made the first
marriage in Paradise, bestows his first miracle upon a Galilean marriage. He that
was the author of matrimony, and sanctifies it, doth, by his holy presence, honour
the resemblance of his eternal union with his church of the faithful. How boldly may
be contemned all the impure adversaries of wedlock, when the Son of God pleases
thus to honour it!
Happy is that wedding, where Christ is a guest! O Saviour, there is no holy
marriage whereat thou art not; however invisible, yet truly present by thy Spirit
and gracious benediction. Thou who hast betrothed thy believing people to thyself in
truth and righteousness, do thou consummate that happy marriage of ours in the
highest heavens.

It was no rich or sumptuous bridal to which Christ, and his mother, and his
disciples, vouchsafed to come. We find him not at the magnificent feasts or triumphs
of the great. The proud pomp of the world did not agree with the state of a servant:
this Galilean bridegroom, before the expiration of his festival, wants drink for the
accommodation of his guests.
The blessed Virgin feels a charitable compassion; and, from a friendly desire to
maintain the decency of a hospitable entertainment, inquires into the wants of her
host, pities them, and seeks anxiously to redress them. How well does it become the
eyes of piety and Christian love to look into the necessities of others!
To whom should we complain of any want, but to the Maker and Giver of all
things? When they wanted wine, The mother of Jesus said unto him, They have no
wine. The blessed Virgin certainly, in some degree, knew to whom she sued. It
would have been hard if some of the neighbour-guests, when duly solicited, had not
been able to furnish the bridegroom with so much wine as might suffice for the
remainder of the feast: but Mary evidently thought it best not to lade at the shallow
channel, but rather to go to the fountain-head, where she might dip and fill the
firkins at once with ease. It may be she saw that the train of Christ might help
forward that defect; and therefore she justly solicits Jesus for a supply. Whether we
want bread, or water, or wine, necessaries or comforts, whither should we run, O
Saviour, but to that infinite munificence of thine, which neither denieth nor
upbraideth? We cannot want if we cleave to thee: we cannot abound but from thee:
give us what thou wilt, so thou give us contentment with what thou givest.
But what is this we hear?—A sharp answer to the suit of a mother.—Woman, what
have I to do with thee? He, whose sweet mildness and mercy never sent away any
supplicant discontented,—doth he only frown upon her who bare him?—He that
commands us to honour father and mother, doth he disdain her, whose flesh he
assumed? God forbid! But love and duty do not exempt parents from due
admonition: she solicited Christ as a mother; he answers her as a woman: if she was
the mother of his flesh, his Deity was eternal. She might not so remember herself to
be a mother, that she should forget she was a woman; nor so look upon him as a son,
that she should not regard him as a God: he was so obedient to her as a mother, that
withal she might obey him as her God. either is it for us, in the holy affairs of God,
to know any faces; yea, if we have known Christ heretofore according to the flesh,
henceforth know we him so no more; much less do we substitute a woman as a
mediator between God and man.
Yet even in this rough answer, as it may seem, doth the blessed Virgin descry cause
of hope. If his hour was not yet come, it was therefore coming: when the expectation
of the guests and the necessity of the occasion have made fit room for the miracle, it
shall come forth and challenge their wonder. Faithfully therefore and observantly
does she turn her speech from Jesus to the attendants, Whatsoever he saith unto
you, do it.
However, she that had said of herself, Be it unto me according to thy word, now

humbly says to others, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. This is the way to have
miracles wrought for us, and in us,—obedience to his word. The power of Christ did
not depend on the officiousness of these servants: he could have wrought wonders
equally without their contribution; but their perverse refusal of his commands
might have rendered them incapable of the favour of a miraculous exertion.
This scanty house was yet furnished with many and large vessels for outward
purification, as if iniquity had dwelt upon the skin. Alas! it is the soul which needs
scouring; and nothing can wash that, but the Blood which they desperately wished
upon themselves and their children, for guilt, not for expiation. Purge thou us, O
Lord, with hyssop, and we shall be clean; wash us, and we shall be whiter than
snow.
The waiters could not but think so unseasonable a command, as we read in John
2:7.—Fill the water-pots with water, to be very strange. "It is wine that we want;
why do we go to fetch water? If there be no other remedy, we could have sought this
supply unbidden:" and yet so far has the command prevailed, that instead of talking
of carrying flaggons of wine to the table, they go to fetch water in their vessels from
their cisterns. There is no pleading of improbabilities against the command of an
Almighty power.
How liberal are the provisions of Christ! If he had but turned the water in one of
those vessels into wine, it had been a just proof of his power. But the abundance
magnifies at once both his power and mercy. The munificent hand of God regards
not our wants only, but our honest affluence; it is our sin and our shame if we turn
his favours into wantonness.
There must be first a filling, ere there can be a drawing out. Thus in our vessels, the
first care must be of our receipt, the next of our expence: God would have us to be
first cisterns, and then channels. Our Saviour would not be his own taster, but he
sends the first draught to the governor of the feast. He knew his own power, they
did not; neither would he bear witness of himself, but draw it out of the mouths of
others. They who knew not the original of that wine, yet praised the taste, John 2:10.
Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, &c. but thou hast kept the
good wine until now. The same bounty which expressed itself in the quantity of the
wine, shews itself no less in the excellence: nothing can fall from that Divine hand
which is not exquisite: that liberality would not provide mean accommodation for its
guests. It was fit that the miraculous effects of Christ, which came from his
immediate hand, should be more perfect than the natural. O blessed Saviour, how
delicate is that new wine which we shall one day drink with thee in thy Father's
kingdom! Yes, gracious Lord, thou shalt turn this water of our earthly afflictions
into that wine of gladness, wherewith our souls shall be richly replenished for ever
and ever! Make haste, my beloved; and be thou like to a roe, or to a young hart
upon the mountains of spices.
REFLECTIO S.—1st, The first miracle of Jesus was wrought at a marriage-feast
in Cana of Galilee. It was probably a marriage of some near relation of his mother

Mary's, who seemed not to be there merely as a guest, but as one of the family.
Christ was invited, and refused not the invitation given him on this occasion, but
went with his disciples to grace the bridal feast with his presence and company, and
put an honour upon the institution. ote; (1.) Our marriages can only then be
expected to issue happily, when Jesus with his benediction crowns the indissoluble
union. (2.) Religion teaches none to be unsocial or uncivil, but commands us to
rejoice with those that rejoice. We are told,
1. The concern expressed by the mother of Jesus to her Son on account of the
deficiency of the wine at this entertainment. The number of the guests, perhaps
more than were expected, consumed the small quantity which these persons, who
were probably in mean circumstances, had provided, and they might not be able to
afford more. It seems she expected that he would soon begin to display his glorious
power, and intimated that the present necessity afforded an opportunity for his
miraculous assistance. ote; A genuine Christian interests himself in the distresses
of his friends; and, when he can do no more to relieve them, fails not to commend
their case to the kind Saviour's notice.
2. Our Lord gives her a reprimand for interfering in matters which did not belong
to her. Though he was her son after the flesh, yet in the exercise of his miraculous
powers he acted as the Son of God, and owed her no obedience. What a direct
condemnation of the horrid idolatry of that church, which prays to the mother to
command her Son! Besides, he adds, My hour is not yet come: the time for the
public manifestation of his glory, by his openly performing miracles, was not yet
come.
3. Though his mother silently submitted to his pleasure, she entertained hopes that
he would grant her request, and take the matter into his consideration; and
therefore privately bade the servants obey whatever orders he should give them.
ote; (1.) We must not be discouraged in our faith, if our prayers are not
immediately answered. (2.) Christ's commands are implicitly to be obeyed, without
reasoning or hesitation.
4. Christ performs the miracle; and with circumstances which eminently displayed
his glory. Six water-pots of stone were placed there, containing about two or three
firkins each (see the annotations.). These water-pots Christ bids the servants fill
with water to the brim, that there might be no suspicion of fraud in the miracle.
They obeyed, and instantly the strange conversion was wrought. He orders them
hereupon to draw out and carry this liquor to the governor of the feast, the person
who was master of the ceremonies, or sat in the most honourable place on that
occasion. o sooner had he tasted the wine which had been water, than he was
struck with the delicious flavour, and, unacquainted whence it came, he observed to
the bridegroom with surprize his unusual method of procedure. Others usually
produced their best wine first, and afterwards, when men had well drank, that
which was worse; but he had kept the good wine to the last, as the grace-cup, to
conclude the entertainment. ote; (1.) God's creatures, and wine among the rest, are
given for the good of man, and may be used with moderation; only we must be very

careful that we do not, by intemperance, abuse our mercies and turn our blessings
into curses by excess. (2.) Feasts need a governor to restrain the irregularities of
those, who else perhaps, to their shame, would have no government over themselves.
(3.) Whatever consolations believers here enjoy, the greatest are reserved for them
at last, when, at the marriage-supper of the Lamb, they shall drink the new wine in
the kingdom of God.
5. At the conclusion of this miracle the evangelist observes, that this was the first
which Jesus performed after his entrance on his ministry; wherein he manifested
forth his glory in such displays of his power and grace, wrought by his authoritative
word, as exalted his own great name, and proved his own eternal Godhead and
glory; and his disciples believed on him, confirmed in their assurance of the truth of
that high character which he assumed. ote; The more we become acquainted with
Christ in his word, the more shall we be convinced that this is he who should come,
and shall be engaged to rest our souls on him for life and salvation.
2nd, Capernaum was the place where Christ usually resided, Matthew 4:13. Hither
he came with his mother, brethren, and disciples, who, struck with what they had
seen, attended him to observe the further manifestations of his divine power and
glory which he should make. His abode at this time at Capernaum was not many
days, the Passover being at hand, which called him up to Jerusalem. Where we find
him,
1. Purging the temple of those intruders who had defiled that holy place. Under
pretence of accommodating with sacrifices, and change of money, those who came
up to worship, a market was kept in the temple by the connivance of the priests,
who probably made some considerable advantage by permitting such a profanation.
But Christ, beholding with indignation such corruptions in the house of God,
immediately began to vindicate the honour of that sacred inclosure, and, having
made a scourge of cords, he drove out the traders with their beasts, overturned the
tables of the money-changers, and bade those who sold doves to take them away;
remonstrating with them on the wickedness of their conduct, Make not my Father's
house an house of merchandise. ote; (1.) The love of filthy lucre is generally at the
root of the corruptions which creep into the church of God. (2.) If God is our
Father, we cannot but be grieved to see him dishonoured, and should zealously
appear in his cause. (3.) They who are bold and faithful for God, will often see that
one can chase a thousand; and that, if we dare stand up in his name, the consciences
of sinners will cover them with confusion.
2. The disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten
me up. And this still more confirmed their faith, as they observed the scripture
prophesies accomplished in him.
3. Being questioned by the Jews concerning the authority on which he acted, and
required to give a sign in proof of the mission to which he pretended, He answered
and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Since
they refused to be convinced by other miracles, he refers them to the last sign which

should be wrought, even his resurrection from the dead by his own divine power,
after they had destroyed the temple of his body. As he had now cleansed his house
from their profanations, so would he raise his own body which they should slay, and
not suffer it to see corruption. They understood him as if he meant the material
temple where he then was, which had now been forty-fix years building and
beautifying (see the annotations): and they looked upon it as the most absurd of
pretensions, for a mere man, as they presumed him to be, to assert that he could do
that in three days, which had employed thousands of workmen so many years. Thus
they ridiculed his assertion, though it appears they understood not his meaning.
ote; (1.) It is just with God to give those up to their vain imaginations, who have no
love of the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness. (2.) The grossest mistakes
have been entertained by understanding literally what the scriptures have spoken
figuratively, as in the doctrine of transubstantiation, drawn from the words of
Christ, This is my body. (3.) The body of Jesus was the true temple, in which the
fulness of the Godhead dwelt; and of him the temple at Jerusalem was but the type
and figure. (4.) As the temple was the medium of worship, and they who prayed
turned their faces thitherward, so is it through Christ Jesus alone that we can have
access to and acceptance with God.
4. His disciples, though they, no more than the Jews, understood his meaning at that
time, yet afterwards, when the events verified the prediction, and the Spirit poured
out from on high opened their minds to understand the scriptures, reflected on this
prophesy, and seeing the accomplishment of it in his resurrection, were the more
deeply confirmed in their faith of the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
ote; The truths of scripture which we learn in younger years, though not
understood at that time, yet are frequently of singular use when, at any future
period, our souls are converted, and the eyes of our minds are opened, through the
grace of God.
3rdly, During the seven days of the feast Christ preached openly the doctrines of his
kingdom, and wrought mighty miracles in confirmation of the truths that he taught.
In consequence of which,
1. Many believed in his name; at least, for the time, they were so struck with his
miracles as to give their assent to his doctrine, and own him as the Messiah. But,
2. Jesus did not commit himself unto them, did not trust himself with them, or
repose any confidence upon them; because he knew all men; the wickedness of some
who would play the hypocrite in order to betray him; and the weakness of others,
who in a time of danger might, through timidity, be tempted to desert him, or,
through mistake and indiscretion, raise some disturbance through their vain
imaginations that his kingdom was temporal, and his throne to be established by
arms. And, being thus all-wise, he needed not that any should testify of man: for he
knew what was in man, was acquainted with his inmost thoughts, yea, knew them
before they were formed. ote; (1.) We should be cautious in whom we confide, and
try before we trust. (2.) Christ knows the secrets of all hearts; he sees the devices of
his subtle enemies, and the faults of his pretended friends; and he will bring every

sinner to judgment, and every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.
25 He did not need any testimony about mankind,
for he knew what was in each person.
BAR ES, "Should testify of man - Should give him the character of any man.
He knew what was in man - This he did because he had made all Joh_1:3, and
because he was God, Joh_1:1. There can be no higher evidence than this that he was
omniscient, and was therefore divine. To search the heart is the prerogative of God alone
Jer_17:10; and as Jesus knew what was in “these disciples,” and as it is expressly said
that he knew what was in man - that is, in “all people” - so it follows that he must be
equal with God. As he knows “all,” he is acquainted with the false pretentions and
professions of hypocrites. None can deceive him. He also knows the wants and desires of
all his real friends. He hears their groans, he sees their sighs, he counts their tears, and
in the day of need will come to their relief.
GILL, "And needed not that any should testify of man,.... Of this or the other
man, that he was a good or a bad man; he needed no proofs to be made, or testimonies
bore, or evidence given of men's characters and actions; he was of quick understanding,
and could distinguish at once between a wicked man and a good man; and so had the
characteristic which the Jews require of the Messiah; for they rejected Bar Cozba from
being the Messiah, and slew him, because he could not smell, referring to Isa_11:3, or
discern a bad man from a good man (n); but this Jesus could do, without any external
evidence:
for he knew what was in man; which none but the spirit of a man can know; his
inward thoughts, the secrets of the heart; thus Christ knew the thoughts of the Scribes
and Pharisees, Mat_9:4, being a discerner of the thoughts, and intents of the heart,
Heb_4:12. This Apollonius Tyaneus, the ape of Christ, ascribed to himself (o); but is
what is peculiar to God; and Christ being God, knows all that is in man; that there is no
good in him naturally, nothing but what comes from his Father, is imparted by himself,
or implanted by his Spirit; he knows the wickedness there is in man, that his heart is
deceitful and desperately wicked, and full of all manner of iniquities; he knows in what
condition all the and faculties of the souls of men are; what their affections are set upon,
on earthly or heavenly things; whether there is any light in their understandings, or not;
whether their wills are subdued and resigned to the will of God, or not; whether their
minds and consciences are defiled, or their hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience;
in short, whether the internal good work of grace is begun upon their souls, or not; and
he knows the secret springs of all actions, good and bad; all which prove his true and

proper deity, and show him to be a suitable Saviour of sinners, and qualify him to be the
Judge of the whole earth.
HE RY, "IV. That the reason why he did not commit himself to them was because he
knew them (Joh_2:25), knew the wickedness of some and the weakness of others. The
evangelist takes this occasion to assert Christ's omniscience. 1. He knew all men, not
only their names and faces, as it is possible for us to know many, but their nature,
dispositions, affections, designs, as we do not know any man, scarcely ourselves. He
knows all men, for his powerful hand made them all, his piercing eye sees them all, sees
into them. He knows his subtle enemies, and all their secret projects; his false friends,
and their true characters; what they really are, whatever they pretend to be. He knows
them that are truly his, knows their integrity, and knows their infirmity too. He knows
their frame. 2. He needed not that any should testify of man. His knowledge was not by
information from others, but by his own infallible intuition. It is the infelicity of earthly
princes that they must see with other men's eyes, and hear with other men's ears, and
take things as they are represented to them; but Christ goes purely upon his own
knowledge. Angels are his messengers, but not his spies, for his own eyes run to and fro
through the earth, 2Ch_16:9. This may comfort us in reference to Satan's accusations,
that Christ will not take men's characters from him. 3. He knew what was in man; in
particular persons, in the nature and race of man. We know what is done by men; Christ
knows what is in them, tries the heart and the reins. This is the prerogative of that
essential eternal Word, Heb_4:12, Heb_4:13. We invade his prerogative if we presume
to judge men's hearts. How fit is Christ to be the Saviour of men, very fit to be the
physician, who has such a perfect knowledge of the patient's state and case, temper and
distemper; knows what is in him! How fit also to be the Judge of all! For the judgment of
him who knows all men, all in men, must needs be according to truth.
Now this is all the success of Christ's preaching and miracles at Jerusalem, in this
journey. The Lord comes to his temple, and none come to him but a parcel of weak
simple people, that he can neither have credit from nor put confidence in; yet he shall at
length see of the travail of his soul.
JAMIESO , "knew what was in man — It is impossible for language more clearly
to assert of Christ what in Jer_17:9, Jer_17:10, and elsewhere, is denied of all mere
creatures.
HAWKER, "REFLECTIONS
How is it possible to behold my Lord, honoring the bridal feast with his presence and
miracles without having the mind led to the consideration of that yet more astonishing
miracle, when the Son of God first betrothed his Church to himself, in righteousness, in
judgment, in loving kindness, and in mercies; and in faithfulness forever! Here I would
say, as often as my soul reviews the vast mercy, here my Lord, my Ishi, my Husband, is
indeed everlastingly blessing his Church with his presence; supplying every want, and
turning all my water into wine. Lord! do thou daily manifest forth thy glory; and cause
me by thy sweet influences, unceasingly to believe in thee.
Blessed Lord the Spirit! praised be thy name for this precious record of my Lord’s zeal in
purging his Temple. Do thou, Lord, so cleanse my heart; for thou hast said, the bodies of
thy people are the temple of the Holy Ghost, which dwelleth in them. And if my God will

drive out all the vain thoughts which lodge there, which like the buyers and sellers in the
Temple, so defile my poor heart; then, by my Lord’s indwelling presence, shall I be
enabled to glorify God, in my body and in my spirit, which are his.
And praised be my Lord for the very precious sign he gave the Jews; and for the very
precious confirmation of it which followed. Yes! thou glorious Lord; while both the
power of God the Father, and God the Holy Ghost, were manifested in thy triumphs over
death and the grave; thou wast most fully declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the Spirit o f holiness, by thy resurrection from the dead! And is it not by
this same blessed testimony, the whole Church rests in hope for the sure
accomplishment of the same in all thy mystical members! Hail! thou that art the
resurrection and the life! Sure I am, that because thou livest, thy redeemed shall live
also!
SBC, "The idea of a physician, when complete and considered apart from human
imperfections, contains these three things: He must know the patient’s constitution, his
disease, and his cure. He must understand, (i.) what was the nature and capacity of the
subject originally and before he was afflicted with disease; (ii.), the ailment under which
he labours; and, (iii.) what will restore the diseased to health again. Jesus Christ
knows—
I. What was in man as he came at first from his Creator’s hand. God made man upright,
and that uprightness is known to Him on whom our help has been laid. The Son of God
knew that the constitution of humanity admitted of complete communion with God, as a
child in a father’s bosom, and yet complete submission to God’s will, as the creature of
His hand.
II. What was in man when he had fallen. Knowing the character of the perfect work, the
Saviour knows also the amount of damage that it has sustained. He knows, also, the
gravity of man’s sin, as an event affecting all the plans of God, and the government of all
intelligent beings. As the defection of a chief carries away all that owned his sway, the fall
of man affected the condition and prospects of the universal kingdom.
III. Knowing the original constitution and the subsequent disease of the patient, the
Physician knew also what would restore him, and was able to apply the cure. Knowing
the worth of man as God had made him, our Physician would not abandon the wreck;
but knowing how complete the wreck was, He bowed His heavens and came down to
save. He united Himself to us, became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, that He
might raise us up. He so knit Himself to His own on earth that if He should rise, so must
they. Some lessons:—(1) Speaking of the individual and of the unconverted, He knows
what is in man, and yet He does not cast out the unclean. Lepers were not allowed to
dwell among the people, but He who is holy, harmless, and undefiled, welcomes the
leprous to His bosom. (2) Speaking now of His own disciples, He knows what is in them,
and with that knowledge, it is because He is God and not man, that He does not shake
them off. (3) He knows what is in man, and therefore can make His Word and
providence suitable. His providences, although for the time they may seem mysterious,
all work together for our good. (4) He knows what is in man—in the secret chambers of
each heart.
W. Arnot, The Anchor of the Soul, p. 125.
COFFMAN, "It will be recalled that Jesus instantly read the character of both Peter and

Nathaniel. Our Lord looked right through those people in Jerusalem who, in the
presence of his astounding miracles, readily conceded that he was the Messiah, but who
discerned none of the moral implications of such a fact. Their first thought was: "Well,
good! Let us see if he can throw the Romans out!"
The omniscience of the Lord is stated by the apostle in this verse; and, from the fact of
John's bringing that attribute into the foreground at this particular juncture, it may be
inferred that some of Jesus' disciples were a little disappointed that Jesus did not at once
place himself at the head of that great throng of "believers" who had been so easily
convinced by his miracles. Only in the true retrospective reflection of the apostle so long
afterward would the true reason for the Lord's refusal become clear. Something more
than belief has always been a prerequisite for becoming a true follower of the Lord; and
that throng of "believers only" had nothing of that "something more" always required.
That fatal lack was the thing Jesus discerned. These were doubtless some of the same
people who shouted, "Crucify him!" when the Lord stood before Pilate. One additional
thing, over and beyond faith only, required of all who would enter the kingdom of God is
the new birth; and, appropriately, John next recorded Jesus' conversation with
Nicodemus.
BURKITT, "St. John's design in writing of this gospel being to assert the divinity of
Christ, he scatters evidences of it in almost every chapter. Here he declares his
omniscience, He knew what was in man; that is, being God blessed for ever, he had an
exact knowledge of the hearts of men, not by any revelation of men's hearts from God,
but by immediate intuition from himself. He knows all men, and all that is in men. See
here an ample testimony of the divinity of Christ, his knowledge of the secrets of the
hearts of all men, which is declared to be the undoubted property of God alone, Thou
only knowest the hearts of all the children of men. 1 Kings 8:39
CALVI , "25.For he knew what was in man. As it might be doubted whence Christ
obtained this knowledge, the Evangelist anticipates this question, and replies that
Christ perceived every thing in men that is concealed from our view, so that he
could on his own authority make a distinction among men. Christ, therefore, who
knows the hearts, had no need of any one to inform him what sort of men they were.
He knew them to have such a disposition and such feelings, that he justly regarded
them as persons who did not belong to him.
The question put by some — whether we too are authorized by the example of
Christ to hold those persons as suspected who have not given us proof of their
sincerity — has nothing to do with the present passage. There is a wide difference
between him and us; for Christ knew the very roots of the trees, but, except from
the fruits which appear outwardly, we cannot discover what is the nature of any one
tree. Besides, as Paul tells us, that charity is not suspicious, (1 Corinthians 13:5,) we
have no right to entertain unfavorable suspicions about men who are unknown to
us. But, that we may not always be deceived by hypocrites, and that the Church may
not be too much exposed to their wicked impostures, it belongs to Christ to impart
to us the Spirit of discretion.

John 2 commentary

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to John 2 commentary

More from GLENN PEASE

Recently uploaded

John 2 commentary