John · Chapter 2

V. 1. And the third day-After he had said this. In Cana of Galilee-There were two other towns of the same name, one in the tribe of Ephraim, the other in Caelosyria.

Verse 1. Cana of Galilee] This was a small city in the tribe of Asher, Joshua 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 Joshua 16:8; 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 Judges 14:12, 17, 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.

Verses 1, 2. And the third day — Namely, after Christ’s coming into Galilee, and discoursing there with Nathanael, as related above; there was a marriage in Cana — A town which originally belonged to the tribe of Asher, Joshua 19:28. There were two other towns of the same name, one in the tribe of Ephraim, the other in Cœlo-Syria; and the mother of Jesus was there — It being probably a marriage of a near relation, or an intimate friend of hers. This may be inferred from Mary’s being not only present at the feast, but concerned about supplying the company with wine. As Mary here is spoken of alone, it may be reasonable to conclude that Joseph was now dead, and that he did not live to the time when Jesus entered on his public ministry, especially as he is nowhere mentioned in the gospel history afterward. And both Jesus was called — That is, was invited to the marriage; and his disciples — Namely, the two that had followed him from the banks of Jordan, with Peter, Philip, and Nathanael. And Jesus, not affecting the austerities which became the character and ministry of John the Baptist, freely accepted of the invitation. For he did not come to take away human society, but to sanctify it.

Verse 1. The third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, when the sun of righteousness shone out with divine glory. — Cana of Galilee is here mentioned to distinguish it from Cana near Sidonia, and from Canah in the tribe of Asher. From Ezra’s time it was enjoined that virgins should marry on the fourth day of the week, and widows on the fifth. The jews were married earlier in the week, lest the sabbath should be defiled with the preparations for the marriage. So Lightfoot. This seems to convey considerable reproach on christians, who make no scruple to marry on the sabbath-day. The omission of worship, and the feasting on that day are pollutions of its sanctity.

§ 19. MARRIAGE FEAST AT CANA OF GALILEE, 1-12.

1. The third day—The third day from the last day mentioned, to wit in John 1:43. For this is the mode of John’s reckoning, John 1:29, 35,

43. But in all those cases he specifies the morrow; whereas he specifies here the next day after the morrow. That is, there was one day intervening, in which he was on his way from the Jordan to Galilee. Jesus, on his arrival at Nazareth with his five disciples, (John 1:40-51,) probably finds his mother to be absent at a wedding in Cana, and soon after receives for himself and his disciples an invitation to attend. There were two Canas in Galilee, not far distant from each other. The one, called at the present day Kefr Kenna, is about four miles northeast of Nazareth, on the road to Tiberias. It is a neat village, pleasantly situated on the descent of a hill, and surrounded with a plenty of olive, pomegranate, and fig trees. There is a large spring in the neighbourhood, whose waters are brought to the village through a subterranean passage, and which, if this be the Cana here mentioned by John, is doubtless that from which the water of this miracle was drawn. Waterpots of compact limestone are still used; and some old ones are exhibited by the lying monks as the waterpots of this miracle. Some biblical geographers of the present day incline to the belief, that the village lying farther to the north of Nazareth, about four hours’ ride, called Cana el Jelil, (which is the Arabic for Cana of Galilee,) is the scene of the present miracle. This spot is now described as completely depopulated. Mother of Jesus was there—She appears from verse 5 to have had some charge over matters at the wedding. Some say that it was the wedding of John himself; but John was one of the disciples invited as guests. Conjectures on this point are useless.

V. 2. Jesus and his disciples were invited to the marriage-Christ does not take away human society, but sanctifies it. Water might have quenched thirst; yet our Lord allows wine; especially at a festival solemnity. Such was his facility in drawing his disciples at first, who were afterward to go through rougher ways.

Verse 2. 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 John 1:37, &c.,) were invited to it.

3. The first miracle Jesus Christ wrought was at it, and in honour 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 honourable 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.

Verses 1, 2. And the third day — Namely, after Christ’s coming into Galilee, and discoursing there with Nathanael, as related above; there was a marriage in Cana — A town which originally belonged to the tribe of Asher, Joshua 19:28. There were two other towns of the same name, one in the tribe of Ephraim, the other in Cœlo-Syria; and the mother of Jesus was there — It being probably a marriage of a near relation, or an intimate friend of hers. This may be inferred from Mary’s being not only present at the feast, but concerned about supplying the company with wine. As Mary here is spoken of alone, it may be reasonable to conclude that Joseph was now dead, and that he did not live to the time when Jesus entered on his public ministry, especially as he is nowhere mentioned in the gospel history afterward. And both Jesus was called — That is, was invited to the marriage; and his disciples — Namely, the two that had followed him from the banks of Jordan, with Peter, Philip, and Nathanael. And Jesus, not affecting the austerities which became the character and ministry of John the Baptist, freely accepted of the invitation. For he did not come to take away human society, but to sanctify it.

Ver. 2. Jesus was called and his disciples. But the family seemed not to be aware how much the number of his disciples had increased after the testimony of John, and the voice from heaven.

§ 19. MARRIAGE FEAST AT CANA OF GALILEE, 1-12.

1. The third day—The third day from the last day mentioned, to wit in John 1:43. For this is the mode of John’s reckoning, John 1:29, 35,

43. But in all those cases he specifies the morrow; whereas he specifies here the next day after the morrow. That is, there was one day intervening, in which he was on his way from the Jordan to Galilee. Jesus, on his arrival at Nazareth with his five disciples, (John 1:40-51,) probably finds his mother to be absent at a wedding in Cana, and soon after receives for himself and his disciples an invitation to attend. There were two Canas in Galilee, not far distant from each other. The one, called at the present day Kefr Kenna, is about four miles northeast of Nazareth, on the road to Tiberias. It is a neat village, pleasantly situated on the descent of a hill, and surrounded with a plenty of olive, pomegranate, and fig trees. There is a large spring in the neighbourhood, whose waters are brought to the village through a subterranean passage, and which, if this be the Cana here mentioned by John, is doubtless that from which the water of this miracle was drawn. Waterpots of compact limestone are still used; and some old ones are exhibited by the lying monks as the waterpots of this miracle. Some biblical geographers of the present day incline to the belief, that the village lying farther to the north of Nazareth, about four hours’ ride, called Cana el Jelil, (which is the Arabic for Cana of Galilee,) is the scene of the present miracle. This spot is now described as completely depopulated. Mother of Jesus was there—She appears from verse 5 to have had some charge over matters at the wedding. Some say that it was the wedding of John himself; but John was one of the disciples invited as guests. Conjectures on this point are useless.

V. 3. And wine falling short-How many days the solemnity had lasted, and on which day our Lord came, or how many disciples might follow him, does not appear.

His mother saith to him, They have not wine-Either she might mean, supply them by miracle; or, Go away, that others may go also, before the want appears.

Verse 3. 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.

Verses 3, 4. And when they wanted wine — It is probable that, in consequence of its being known that Jesus would be present at this feast, a greater resort of company came than was expected, and that this occasioned a failure of the wine. The mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine — Some infer from this application which she made to Jesus, that she had either seen some of his miracles in private, or had received from him some hint of his intentions of working one now. For, without supposing the one or the other of these, one can hardly imagine why she should thus apply to him on this occasion: for, doubtless, she knew, both that he had not money to buy a quantity of wine, and that if he had, it would not have been proper for him to have done it, as it must have been interpreted as an affront to the bridegroom. But the supply that she expected from him was undoubtedly by his working of a miracle; and it is plain, from her direction to the servants afterward, that, notwithstanding the rebuke she justly met with, yet she had still a view to this. Jesus saith unto her, Woman — Using a plainness of language, suited to the simplicity of those ages and countries. For that this compellation was not in those days accounted disrespectful, has been fully evinced by critics from the best authorities. We find in this gospel, (John 19:26,) our Lord addressing his mother by this title, on a very moving occasion, on which he showed her the most tender affection and regard. What have I to do with thee? — Or rather, What hast thou to do with me? namely, to direct me when and how my miracles are to be wrought. The original expression, ti emoi kai soi, is rendered by some, What is this to me and thee? namely, that they want wine: What concern is it of ours? it does not belong to us to provide necessaries for this feast. But Jesus, says Dr. Doddridge: “was of so benevolent a temper, and Mary seems to have been so far concerned as a relation, that it does not appear this would have been a proper reply. The words seem rather to be intended as a rebuke to Mary, and it was surely expedient she should know that Jesus was not, upon such occasions, to be directed by her. And nothing is more evident than that the phrase, in other places, has the meaning that our version gives it.” Thus also Dr. Campbell: “It was, no doubt, our Lord’s intention in these words gently to suggest, that in what concerned his office, earthly parents had no authority over him. In other things he had been subject to them.” To translate the clause, What is it to me and thee? “at first sight appears preferable to other versions, because the most literal. But, as Bishop Pearce well observes, had that been the evangelist’s meaning, he would have written, ti prov eme kai se; as in John 21:23, ti prov se, what is that to thee? and Matthew 27:4, ti prov hmav, what is that to us?” He observes, further, that the common version suits the phrase in every place where it occurs; and that the other conveys a worse sense, a sense not suitable to the spirit of our Lord’s instructions, as “not favouring that tender sympathy, which his religion so warmly recommends, whereby the interests and the concerns of others, their joys and their sorrows, are made our own.” 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.” So Macknight. Or, he may speak of the time when he intended to perform the miracle desired by his mother; for which the proper moment, though very near, was not yet quite come. Some translate the clause interrogatively, Is not mine hour come? the season of my public ministry, at which period thy authority over me ends? Upon the whole, our Lord’s answer to his mother was not in the least disrespectful, nor did she consider it as implying a denial of her request, as is evident from the temper with which she received it, and from her desiring the servants (verse 5) to wait on him, and to execute his orders punctually. Many writers have interpreted this rebuke of our Lord as being given 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.

3. When… wine—There are two sorts, or rather states, of wine; the one, the unfermented grape juice, which is simply exhilarating; the other, the fermented, which is intoxicating. Fermentation is a phenomenon of decomposition, analagous to putrefaction in a dead animal. The grape juice is alive in the grape; consisting of sugar and albumen, held into juice form by the life power. When pressed out of the grape, the dying juice decomposes; the albumen uniting with the oxygen of the air becomes yeast, and the sugar becomes alcohol, which is the intoxicating substance. The grape juice, must, or new wine, in its live, natural, undecomposed state, is a cheering and nutricious food. By boiling it is cooked, and so protected from decomposition, and retained in its condition as a food. The Revelation Dr. Duff, the celebrated Scotch missionary, speaking of the vine regions of Southern France, says: “Look at the peasant at his meals in vine-bearing districts! Instead of milk he has a basin of pure unadulterated ‘blood of the grape.’ In this its native original state it is a plain, simple, and wholesome liquid; which, at every repast, becomes to the husbandman what milk is to the shepherd, not a luxury, but a necessary; not an intoxicating, but a nutritive beverage. Hence to the vine-dressing peasant of Auxerre, for example, an abundant vintage, as connected with his own sustenance, is as important as an overflowing dairy to the pastoral peasant of Ayrshire, and hence, by such a view of the subject, are the language and sense of Scripture vindicated.”

Captain Treatt, as quoted by Dr. Lees, says:

“When on the south coast of Italy, last Christmas, (1845,) I inquired particularly about the wines in common use, and found that those esteemed the best were sweet and unintoxicating. The boiled juice of the grape is in common use in Sicily. About three gallons of the juice is boiled until reduced to two—it is then poured into plates to cool. The poor people mix flour into theirs while boiling, to make it go further. It is eaten at their meals with bread, and very nice it is. The Calabrians keep their intoxicating and unintoxicating wines in separate apartments. The bottles were generally marked. From inquiries, I found that the unfermented wine was esteemed the most. It was drunk mixed with water. Great pains were taken in the vintage season to have a good stock of it laid by.”

We see no reason for supposing that the wine of the present occasion was of that kind upon which Scripture places its strongest interdict, (Proverbs 20:1; 23:31; Isaiah 22:13,) rather than of that which is eulogized as a blessing. (Psalm 104:15; Isaiah 55:1.) The priests were interdicted the use of wine during the period of their ministration in the Holy Place. (Leviticus 10:9; Ezekiel 44:21.) And as leaven is, like wine fermentation, a corruption, death, or decomposition, so it was prohibited at the Passover. It were absurd then to suppose that Jesus administered fermented wine at the Supper, which is his substitute for the Passover; or that he ever used it at all.

When they wanted wine—Rather, when their wine had failed. It is very probable that upon the unexpected arrival of our Lord and his five disciples there was (as Bishop Hall expresses it) “more company than wine.” As marriage feasts sometimes lasted seven days, (Judges 12:15; Tobit 11:19,) the stock of a family might very easily be exhausted. Mother… saith… no wine—It seems that it was not unusual for the guests to supply a part of the entertainment. And as our Lord appears to have brought the surplus of company, his mother may have thought that he should supply the deficit of wine.

But it is plain that she expected from him an exhibition of miraculous power. Whoever doubted about the miraculous birth of Jesus, his mother certainly could not. No eye like hers would, in his growth, have understood his miraculous development. Nor is it natural to suppose, that at this moment she did not understand that he had left home to pass through the preparation for his full Messianic office. She must therefore have known that the time for his divine manifestation had arrived. In the perplexity of the present moment she turns to him, as to a divine aid, hopeful that he could afford relief, even if it required a supernatural power.

V. 4. Jesus saith to her, Woman-So our Lord speaks also, John 19:26. It is probable this was the constant appellation which he used to her. He regarded his Father above all, not knowing even his mother after the flesh.

What is it to me and thee? A mild reproof of her inordinate concern and untimely interposal.

Mine hour is not yet come-The time of my working this miracle, or of my going away.

May we not learn hence, if his mother was rebuked for attempting to direct him in the days of his flesh, how absurd it is to address her as if she had a right to command him, on the throne of his glory? Likewise how indecent it is for us to direct his supreme wisdom, as to the time or manner in which he shall appear for us in any of the exigencies of life!

Verse 4. Woman, what have I to do with thee?] ti emoi kai soi, gunai: 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 honour 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 Syrophœnician woman, Matthew 15:28; as he did the Samaritan woman, John 4:21, as he addressed his disconsolate mother when he hung upon the cross, John 19:26; as he did his most affectionate friend Mary Magdalene, John 20:15, and as the angels had addressed her before, John 20:13; and as St. Paul does the believing Christian woman, 1 Corinthians 7:16; in all which places the same term, gunai 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 wra 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.

Verses 3, 4. And when they wanted wine — It is probable that, in consequence of its being known that Jesus would be present at this feast, a greater resort of company came than was expected, and that this occasioned a failure of the wine. The mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine — Some infer from this application which she made to Jesus, that she had either seen some of his miracles in private, or had received from him some hint of his intentions of working one now. For, without supposing the one or the other of these, one can hardly imagine why she should thus apply to him on this occasion: for, doubtless, she knew, both that he had not money to buy a quantity of wine, and that if he had, it would not have been proper for him to have done it, as it must have been interpreted as an affront to the bridegroom. But the supply that she expected from him was undoubtedly by his working of a miracle; and it is plain, from her direction to the servants afterward, that, notwithstanding the rebuke she justly met with, yet she had still a view to this. Jesus saith unto her, Woman — Using a plainness of language, suited to the simplicity of those ages and countries. For that this compellation was not in those days accounted disrespectful, has been fully evinced by critics from the best authorities. We find in this gospel, (John 19:26,) our Lord addressing his mother by this title, on a very moving occasion, on which he showed her the most tender affection and regard. What have I to do with thee? — Or rather, What hast thou to do with me? namely, to direct me when and how my miracles are to be wrought. The original expression, ti emoi kai soi, is rendered by some, What is this to me and thee? namely, that they want wine: What concern is it of ours? it does not belong to us to provide necessaries for this feast. But Jesus, says Dr. Doddridge: “was of so benevolent a temper, and Mary seems to have been so far concerned as a relation, that it does not appear this would have been a proper reply. The words seem rather to be intended as a rebuke to Mary, and it was surely expedient she should know that Jesus was not, upon such occasions, to be directed by her. And nothing is more evident than that the phrase, in other places, has the meaning that our version gives it.” Thus also Dr. Campbell: “It was, no doubt, our Lord’s intention in these words gently to suggest, that in what concerned his office, earthly parents had no authority over him. In other things he had been subject to them.” To translate the clause, What is it to me and thee? “at first sight appears preferable to other versions, because the most literal. But, as Bishop Pearce well observes, had that been the evangelist’s meaning, he would have written, ti prov eme kai se; as in John 21:23, ti prov se, what is that to thee? and Matthew 27:4, ti prov hmav, what is that to us?” He observes, further, that the common version suits the phrase in every place where it occurs; and that the other conveys a worse sense, a sense not suitable to the spirit of our Lord’s instructions, as “not favouring that tender sympathy, which his religion so warmly recommends, whereby the interests and the concerns of others, their joys and their sorrows, are made our own.” 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.” So Macknight. Or, he may speak of the time when he intended to perform the miracle desired by his mother; for which the proper moment, though very near, was not yet quite come. Some translate the clause interrogatively, Is not mine hour come? the season of my public ministry, at which period thy authority over me ends? Upon the whole, our Lord’s answer to his mother was not in the least disrespectful, nor did she consider it as implying a denial of her request, as is evident from the temper with which she received it, and from her desiring the servants (verse 5) to wait on him, and to execute his orders punctually. Many writers have interpreted this rebuke of our Lord as being given 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.

Ver. 4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? The Greek reads, what is that to me and thee: my hour is not yet come. Great emphasis is laid on the hour of his passion; but here the word regards the hour of his miracles. From the words of Mary to the servants, it is plain she expected some manifestation of his glory; and she had reasons which justified her hope.

4. Woman—The fact that our Lord on the cross (John 19:26) addressed his mother by the same term woman, at the most tender moment of his earthly life, shows that the word is as respectful as the term lady, and scarcely less affectionate than the term mother. See Matthew 15:28; Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 20:13. The question, What have I to do with thee? reads literally, What to me and to thee? The phrase occurs repeatedly in Scripture. Joshua 22:24; Judges 11:12; Mark 1:24. It clearly intimates that a matter is started upon which there could be no argument or discussion. The Protestant Church rightly interprets the language as informing the mother, that over the exercise of his official functions neither the authority of his human parent, nor the influence of his blood relations or private friends, have any right of control or interference. As in the temptation Jesus had established the principle that miracles must not be performed (for his own low self-interest, so, now, he declares that no fleshly relationship must expect to derive profit of a worldly nature from its connection with him. Mine hour is not yet come—By his hour or time, we understand some divinely-appointed crisis, or some transition-point in his history, opening some new stage, or initiating some new event. He did not go to be baptized by John until his hour arrived. He was led of the Spirit, (Matthew 4:1,) at the proper point or hour, to his temptation. He uttered no self-testimony until the Baptist had attested him. Thus his every instant was obediently regulated by the Divine order. His every movement, being connected with the clock-work of God’s oversight, was timed by the pointing of the minute or second hand to its dot. The witness of the Father’s spirit with his own spirit announces to him the instant when his hour is come. In the present case his hour is the point of time when his era of miracles should commence. Jesus had now a request for miracle from his human mother; but no signal from his divine Father. So (John 7:30) his hour was not yet come to surrender to his murderers; until (John 17:1) he ejaculates, Father, the hour IS come! namely, of his glorification through death. Also (John 7:8) my time is not yet fully come; namely, of going up to the Feast of Tabernacles. Compare John 7:30; 8:30; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:21.

But how happens it that his hour did come so soon? For, probably, upon the same day it was that the miracle was performed. We reply that his hour probably came immediately upon uttering this last sentence. As soon as all fleshly claim to hold control over, or gain emolument by, his Messianic power was rejected—as soon as his mother retired to her proper position—then was the last obstacle removed; his area of action immediately opened, and the hour to manifest forth by miracle his glory had arrived.

V. 5. His mother saith to the servants-Gathering from his answer he was about to do something extraordinary.

Verse 5. His mother saith, &c.] 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.

Verse 5. His mother — Either gathering from his answer, or from something he said to her which the evangelists have not recorded, that he would perform something extraordinary; saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it — Obey his orders immediately and exactly, for he may have reasons for them beyond what you imagine. Hereby she declares her expectation of his performing some mighty work, in answer to what she had suggested to him; and prescribes a rule, which it would be well if every servant of Christ would invariably observe, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it, not questioning the reasonableness of the command, or its fitness to accomplish the end proposed, but implicitly obeying whatever is manifestly a precept of Christ.

5. Mother saith unto the servants—However obscure to commentators, the words of Jesus were clear to Mary. She understands, first, that she is properly excluded from all control over her son’s miraculous functions; second, that it is by miracle that he assumes that he is requested by her to supply the deficit of wine; and, third, (probably from his significant word yet,) that the miracle may still be performed. That rests supremely with her son and Lord. Whatsoever he saith—These words perfectly surrender the matter to him, with blended submission and faith; which probably hastened the arrival, or at least fulness of the HOUR, and completed the possibility of the miracle. Do it—She speaks as having authority here; and she speaks to subordinate that authority to him.

V. 6. The purifying of the Jews-Who purified themselves by frequent washings particularly before eating.

Verse 6. After the manner of the purifying of the Jews] Or, for the purpose of the purifying of the Jews. The preposition kata, 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 Matthew 15:2. 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, metrhtav. 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.

Verse 6. There were six water-pots of stone — Which were placed there, some of them for the cleansing of cups and tables, &c., and others for such purifications as required the immersion of the whole body; after the manner of the purifying of the Jews — Who were accustomed to purify themselves by frequent washings, particularly before eating; containing two or three firkins apiece — A large quantity, but exactly how much, is not now easy to be ascertained. The original word, metrhtav, here used, is translated by Dr. Campbell baths, because the Hebrew measure, bath, is thus rendered in the Septuagint, 2 Chronicles 4:5. He acknowledges, however, that this is not a decisive proof that it ought to be so rendered: but says, “I have not found any thing better in support of a different opinion. Some think, that as metrhthv was also the name of an Attic measure, the evangelist (most of whose readers were probably Greeks) must have referred to it, as best known in that country. There are other suppositions made, but hardly any thing more than conjecture has been advanced in favour of any of them. It ought not to be dissembled, that in most of the explanations which have been given of the passage, the quantity of liquor appears so great as to reflect an improbability on the interpretation.” The doctor observes, however, that the English translation is more liable to this objection than his version, the firkin containing nine gallons, whereas the bath is commonly rated at seven and a half, and, according to some, but four and a half; in which case the amount of the whole is but half of what the English translation makes it. The quantity thus reduced, he thinks, will not be thought so enormous, considering 1st, The length of time, commonly a week, spent in feasting on such occasions, and the great concourse of people which they were wont to assemble. To this may be added, that whatever the quantity of water contained in these water-pots might be, there is no proof that our Lord turned the whole of it into wine, or that he turned into wine any of it, any otherwise than as it was drawn out.

6. Six waterpots of stone—Used for the washings and purifications described in Mark 7:3, etc. The firkin is equal probably to the Jewish bath, which contained 8 gallons, 7.4 pints. According to this, the quantity of wine thus created would be two or three times 8 gallons 7.4 pints, multiplied by 6. This would be between 17 and 25 gallons, multiplied by 6. Taking the medium between 17 and 25, say 21 gallons, multiply by 6, and we have 126 gallons. So great, similarly, was the miraculous draught of fishes as almost to submerge two fishermen’s boats. Twelve baskets full remain at the end of the meal, where there were but seven loaves at the beginning. The wine, the very fresh blood, shed through the vine, from the rich heart of nature—the ruddy image of the saving blood of nature’s Lord—is here poured forth with a profusion that richly symbolizes the freeness and intrinsic boundlessness of his salvation. And no doubt Jesus, like the God of nature, created not the alcohol, which is the poison produced by the putrefying corpse of the dead grape, but the fresh, living, innocent fluid. The fact of their being waterpots was proof against any charge of fraud.

Verses 7-10. Jesus saith unto them — After some convenient pause, that the failing of the wine might be the more observed; Fill the water-pots with water — Choosing, for wise reasons, to make use of these rather than the vessels in which the wine had before been contained: one of which reasons might be to prevent any suspicion that the tincture or taste of the water was in any degree derived from any remainder of wine in the vessels. Draw out now, and bear unto the governor — “Among the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, it was usual, at great entertainments, especially marriage-feasts, to appoint a master of ceremonies, who not only gave directions concerning the form and method of the entertainment, but likewise prescribed the laws of 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.” When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, &c. — The governor of the feast, on tasting the wine, being highly pleased with its flavour and richness, but not knowing how it had been procured, addressed himself to the bridegroom, in the hearing of all the guests, and, commending the wine, as far preferable to what they had been drinking, praised him for the elegance of his taste, and for his civility, in giving the company better wine during the progress of the entertainment than at the beginning of it, which showed that he did not grudge the quantity they might use. This declaration of the governor, no doubt, surprised the bridegroom, who knew nothing of the matter, and occasioned an inquiry to be made about it. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose, that the servants were publicly examined, and the company received an account of the miracle from them. For it is expressly said, that by it Jesus manifested his glory, that is, demonstrated his power and character, to the conviction of the disciples, and of all the guests. The expression in the tenth verse, otan mequsqwsi, here rendered, when men have well drunk, though it may sometimes signify to drink to excess, yet frequently in Scripture, and sometimes in other writings, denotes no more than to drink sufficiently, or to satisfaction: and “it would be very unjust and absurd to suppose it implies here, that these guests had already transgressed the rules of temperance. None can seriously imagine the evangelist to be so destitute of common sense as to represent Christ as displaying his glory by miraculously furnishing the company with wine to prolong a drunken revel. It is much more reasonable to conclude, that it signifies here, (as it does Genesis 43:34; Song of Solomon 5:1; Haggai 1:6, in the Septuagint,) only to drink so freely as innocently to exhilarate the spirit. And even this, perhaps, might only be the case with some of them, and particularly not of those who, drawn by a desire to converse with Jesus, might be but lately come in.” — Doddridge.

7. Up to the brim—That the surface of the liquid might be seen to be water.

Verse 8. Governor of the feast.] The original word, arcitriklinov, 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, otan mequsqwsi, 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 mequskw and mequw, from mequ, wine, which, from meta quein, 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, Genesis 43:34; Song of Solomon 5:1; 1 Macc. 16:16; Haggai 1:6; Ecclus. 1:16. And the Prophet Isaiah, Isaiah 58:11, speaking of the abundant blessings of the godly, compares them to a watered garden, which the Septuagint translate, wv khpov mequwn, 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.

Verses 7-10. Jesus saith unto them — After some convenient pause, that the failing of the wine might be the more observed; Fill the water-pots with water — Choosing, for wise reasons, to make use of these rather than the vessels in which the wine had before been contained: one of which reasons might be to prevent any suspicion that the tincture or taste of the water was in any degree derived from any remainder of wine in the vessels. Draw out now, and bear unto the governor — “Among the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, it was usual, at great entertainments, especially marriage-feasts, to appoint a master of ceremonies, who not only gave directions concerning the form and method of the entertainment, but likewise prescribed the laws of 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.” When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, &c. — The governor of the feast, on tasting the wine, being highly pleased with its flavour and richness, but not knowing how it had been procured, addressed himself to the bridegroom, in the hearing of all the guests, and, commending the wine, as far preferable to what they had been drinking, praised him for the elegance of his taste, and for his civility, in giving the company better wine during the progress of the entertainment than at the beginning of it, which showed that he did not grudge the quantity they might use. This declaration of the governor, no doubt, surprised the bridegroom, who knew nothing of the matter, and occasioned an inquiry to be made about it. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose, that the servants were publicly examined, and the company received an account of the miracle from them. For it is expressly said, that by it Jesus manifested his glory, that is, demonstrated his power and character, to the conviction of the disciples, and of all the guests. The expression in the tenth verse, otan mequsqwsi, here rendered, when men have well drunk, though it may sometimes signify to drink to excess, yet frequently in Scripture, and sometimes in other writings, denotes no more than to drink sufficiently, or to satisfaction: and “it would be very unjust and absurd to suppose it implies here, that these guests had already transgressed the rules of temperance. None can seriously imagine the evangelist to be so destitute of common sense as to represent Christ as displaying his glory by miraculously furnishing the company with wine to prolong a drunken revel. It is much more reasonable to conclude, that it signifies here, (as it does Genesis 43:34; Song of Solomon 5:1; Haggai 1:6, in the Septuagint,) only to drink so freely as innocently to exhilarate the spirit. And even this, perhaps, might only be the case with some of them, and particularly not of those who, drawn by a desire to converse with Jesus, might be but lately come in.” — Doddridge.

8. Governor of the feast—This was either one of the guests elected to the office of presiding over the occasion, or it was a professional functionary skilled in the business. He presided both over the sacred ceremonies of pronouncing the blessings, and the progress of the festivities.

V. 9. The governor of the feast-The bridegroom generally procured some friend to order all things at the entertainment.

Verses 7-10. Jesus saith unto them — After some convenient pause, that the failing of the wine might be the more observed; Fill the water-pots with water — Choosing, for wise reasons, to make use of these rather than the vessels in which the wine had before been contained: one of which reasons might be to prevent any suspicion that the tincture or taste of the water was in any degree derived from any remainder of wine in the vessels. Draw out now, and bear unto the governor — “Among the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, it was usual, at great entertainments, especially marriage-feasts, to appoint a master of ceremonies, who not only gave directions concerning the form and method of the entertainment, but likewise prescribed the laws of 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.” When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, &c. — The governor of the feast, on tasting the wine, being highly pleased with its flavour and richness, but not knowing how it had been procured, addressed himself to the bridegroom, in the hearing of all the guests, and, commending the wine, as far preferable to what they had been drinking, praised him for the elegance of his taste, and for his civility, in giving the company better wine during the progress of the entertainment than at the beginning of it, which showed that he did not grudge the quantity they might use. This declaration of the governor, no doubt, surprised the bridegroom, who knew nothing of the matter, and occasioned an inquiry to be made about it. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose, that the servants were publicly examined, and the company received an account of the miracle from them. For it is expressly said, that by it Jesus manifested his glory, that is, demonstrated his power and character, to the conviction of the disciples, and of all the guests. The expression in the tenth verse, otan mequsqwsi, here rendered, when men have well drunk, though it may sometimes signify to drink to excess, yet frequently in Scripture, and sometimes in other writings, denotes no more than to drink sufficiently, or to satisfaction: and “it would be very unjust and absurd to suppose it implies here, that these guests had already transgressed the rules of temperance. None can seriously imagine the evangelist to be so destitute of common sense as to represent Christ as displaying his glory by miraculously furnishing the company with wine to prolong a drunken revel. It is much more reasonable to conclude, that it signifies here, (as it does Genesis 43:34; Song of Solomon 5:1; Haggai 1:6, in the Septuagint,) only to drink so freely as innocently to exhilarate the spirit. And even this, perhaps, might only be the case with some of them, and particularly not of those who, drawn by a desire to converse with Jesus, might be but lately come in.” — Doddridge.

Ver. 9. When the ruler — tasted the water that was made wine. The ruler presided at the table among the men; for the women had separate rooms.

§ 19. MARRIAGE FEAST AT CANA OF GALILEE, 1-12.

1. The third day—The third day from the last day mentioned, to wit in John 1:43. For this is the mode of John’s reckoning, John 1:29, 35,

43. But in all those cases he specifies the morrow; whereas he specifies here the next day after the morrow. That is, there was one day intervening, in which he was on his way from the Jordan to Galilee. Jesus, on his arrival at Nazareth with his five disciples, (John 1:40-51,) probably finds his mother to be absent at a wedding in Cana, and soon after receives for himself and his disciples an invitation to attend. There were two Canas in Galilee, not far distant from each other. The one, called at the present day Kefr Kenna, is about four miles northeast of Nazareth, on the road to Tiberias. It is a neat village, pleasantly situated on the descent of a hill, and surrounded with a plenty of olive, pomegranate, and fig trees. There is a large spring in the neighbourhood, whose waters are brought to the village through a subterranean passage, and which, if this be the Cana here mentioned by John, is doubtless that from which the water of this miracle was drawn. Waterpots of compact limestone are still used; and some old ones are exhibited by the lying monks as the waterpots of this miracle. Some biblical geographers of the present day incline to the belief, that the village lying farther to the north of Nazareth, about four hours’ ride, called Cana el Jelil, (which is the Arabic for Cana of Galilee,) is the scene of the present miracle. This spot is now described as completely depopulated. Mother of Jesus was there—She appears from verse 5 to have had some charge over matters at the wedding. Some say that it was the wedding of John himself; but John was one of the disciples invited as guests. Conjectures on this point are useless.

V. 10. And saith-St. John barely relates the words he spoke, which does not imply his approving them.

When they have well drunk-does not mean any more than toward the close of the entertainment.

Verse 10. The good wine until now.] That which our Lord now made being perfectly pure, and highly nutritive!

Verses 7-10. Jesus saith unto them — After some convenient pause, that the failing of the wine might be the more observed; Fill the water-pots with water — Choosing, for wise reasons, to make use of these rather than the vessels in which the wine had before been contained: one of which reasons might be to prevent any suspicion that the tincture or taste of the water was in any degree derived from any remainder of wine in the vessels. Draw out now, and bear unto the governor — “Among the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, it was usual, at great entertainments, especially marriage-feasts, to appoint a master of ceremonies, who not only gave directions concerning the form and method of the entertainment, but likewise prescribed the laws of 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.” When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, &c. — The governor of the feast, on tasting the wine, being highly pleased with its flavour and richness, but not knowing how it had been procured, addressed himself to the bridegroom, in the hearing of all the guests, and, commending the wine, as far preferable to what they had been drinking, praised him for the elegance of his taste, and for his civility, in giving the company better wine during the progress of the entertainment than at the beginning of it, which showed that he did not grudge the quantity they might use. This declaration of the governor, no doubt, surprised the bridegroom, who knew nothing of the matter, and occasioned an inquiry to be made about it. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose, that the servants were publicly examined, and the company received an account of the miracle from them. For it is expressly said, that by it Jesus manifested his glory, that is, demonstrated his power and character, to the conviction of the disciples, and of all the guests. The expression in the tenth verse, otan mequsqwsi, here rendered, when men have well drunk, though it may sometimes signify to drink to excess, yet frequently in Scripture, and sometimes in other writings, denotes no more than to drink sufficiently, or to satisfaction: and “it would be very unjust and absurd to suppose it implies here, that these guests had already transgressed the rules of temperance. None can seriously imagine the evangelist to be so destitute of common sense as to represent Christ as displaying his glory by miraculously furnishing the company with wine to prolong a drunken revel. It is much more reasonable to conclude, that it signifies here, (as it does Genesis 43:34; Song of Solomon 5:1; Haggai 1:6, in the Septuagint,) only to drink so freely as innocently to exhilarate the spirit. And even this, perhaps, might only be the case with some of them, and particularly not of those who, drawn by a desire to converse with Jesus, might be but lately come in.” — Doddridge.

Ver. 10. When men have well drunk. The Greek word designates no more than drinking freely till they are pleasant and cheerful; by no means till they are intoxicated. The reading of the Vulgate is rather too strong: cum inebriated fuerint.

10. Men have well drunk—After their tastes have become somewhat obtuse; but perhaps in order that the appetite may not be further tempted. There are two methods of exculpating the present company from all imputation of intemperance derived from the ruler’s words. One is to show that the Greek word mequskw, rendered “well drunk,” does not imply drunkenness; the other is to say that the ruler describes the customs of others, not the conduct of the present assembly. Professor Stuart, adopting the former method, argues that the word is derived from mequ, methu, sweet wine, or must, and hence signifies satiation and not intoxication. Kuinoel, adopting the same method, quotes the use of the word in the Greek Septuagint in Psalm 33:5; 65:11. He quotes two passages from the Greek of Philo the Jew, as follows: “It is a noble thing to take care of our fences, collect our revenues, be hospitable, and mequein to drink to satiety.” But a very fitting passage is the next: “There is a twofold mequein; one is to use wine, and the other is to be a fool with wine.” It must be admitted, however, that all its uses in the New Testament, besides the present, imply drunkenness. Matthew 24:49; Acts 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:21; 1 Thessalonians 5:7; Revelation 17:2, 6. Bengel takes the word in the severer sense, but, adopting the second method, argues that nothing is said about the present company, but only about the general custom. Kuinoel, however, replies that his following words, thou hast kept the good wine until now, implies that the present company was following the usual fashion. Yet, we reply, the custom might be the same whichever wine was used. People using fermented wines might use the best first to inebriation; people using the must might drink the best first to satiety; both for the same reason. The good wine—A full testimony that the miracle was not spurious.

V. 11. And his disciples believed-More steadfastly.

Verse 11. 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: John 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.

Verse 11. This beginning of miracles did Jesus, &c. — Grotius supposes the meaning to be, that this was the first miracle wrought at Cana, another being afterward mentioned, John 4:46. But it is plain there must have been a long series of miracles wrought here to justify such a manner of speaking, which doth not at all appear to have been the case. The sense of the expression seems much rather to be, that this was the first of Christ’s public miracles; for probably the necessities of the family might sometimes have engaged him to have done something miraculous in private for its relief. And manifested forth his glory — And that in such an illustrious manner, that his fame was spread over all the neighbouring country; and his disciples believed on him — Namely, more steadfastly than before. Being the first miracle they had ever seen Jesus perform, it tended not a little to the confirmation of their faith.

11. Beginning of miracles—”The Infancy of Jesus,” a book so called, written very anciently, but later than the Apostolic age, relates previous actions or miracles said to have been performed by Jesus in his childhood. They are of the most fantastic character. These compositions show, by their very nature, their vast inferiority, and the true divinity of the Gospels. Manifested forth his glory—Glory is God’s own attribute; and Jesus, in putting forth the divine power resident in him, manifested forth his true, indwelling, divine glory. His disciples believed on him—Believed on him, as he now manifested himself, as possessed of creative power. See note on verse 22.

On this miracle we may remark:

(1.) It confers a divine honour on the institution of marriage. Dr. Clarke says that “it was the first Christian marriage that ever took place; that Christ, his apostles, his mother, the purest of virgins and most holy of witnesses, were all present.” Every wedding should be such as such company might attend. Ministers should be careful that the wedding ceremony be not hastily or irreverently performed, but with a solemn impressiveness. Nor is any place so suitable for such a ceremony as the sanctuary of God.

(2.) Our Lord’s attendance and miracle at this wedding, with its festivity of wine, were public proof that he had not, as some sceptics have maintained, any origin from, or connection with, the sect of Essenes. See note on Matthew 3:7. Jesus was no model for anchorites, shakers, or dervizes; but a perfect example of serene, social, every-day piety.

(3.) As long ago as Augustine, it was said that Jesus in this miracle did rapidly what the God of nature does slowly every autumn. Christ only accelerated the process of nature in making water into wine. Olshausen adopts the idea; but Strauss replies that Jesus professedly did more than accelerate nature. He put to the water something besides the water. True. Still the vine does slowly what Jesus here does rapidly; namely, blends with the water those ingredients, collected from the surrounding elements, which constitute the wine. There is, therefore, evidently nothing impossible to divine power in selecting and putting together these elements, which amount to the desired vinous compound.

Verses 12, 13. After this he went down to Capernaum — A city that lay near the north part of the sea of Galilee, and on the south border of the land of Naphthali. See note on Matthew 4:13. Here Christ and his disciples continued but a short time, the passover of the Jews being at hand, which Jesus, who was made under the law, and maintained a religious regard to its ceremonial, as well as its moral precepts, would not neglect attending: thus teaching us by his example a strict observance of all divine institutions, and a diligent attendance on religious assemblies. As the evangelists have not informed us how many passovers happened between the baptism and death of Christ, or during the course of his public ministry, learned men have been much divided in their opinions on the subject. But by far the greater part have supposed there were four, reckoning this the first; the feast mentioned John 5:1, the second; the passover spoken of John 6:4, as the third; and that at which Christ suffered, the fourth. But there are others of a different opinion. The celebrated Sir Isaac Newton reckons five; the first, this which is now before us; the second, according to him, happened four months after Christ’s discourse with the woman of Samaria, John 4:35; the third, a few days before the story of the disciples rubbing the ears of corn, Luke 6:1; the fourth, a little after the feeding of the five thousand; and the last, at the time of our Lord’s crucifixion.

12. Down to Capernaum—Down, because Cana was on the high table land and Capernaum on the low sea coast. For a full account of Capernaum see note on Matthew 4:13, and map. Brethren—See note on John 13:55. It seems a truly family party; Jesus’s natural relatives and his spiritual. The natural family may have accompanied him to Capernaum with the desire to be with him until his departure to his public life at the approaching Passover. The Passover caravans passed through that then most populous maritime town.

There were three well known routes by which the caravans could go from Lake Gennesaret to Jerusalem. The FIRST was the great thoroughfare from Damascus to Egypt, which, passing near the lake, and leaving it two or three miles W.S.W. of Nain, proceeded south through Samaria by the Shechem valley. See note on John 4:2. The SECOND proceeded along the lake and the river Jordan, southwardly, to Scythopolis, or Beisan, and thence, by the ancient Egypt route, to Ginea; and so onward by the Jerusalem and Galilee road, through to Shechem. THIRD, the most usual route, though now but little explored, from the south end of the lake, on the east side of Jordan, to avoid Samaria, through Peraea, and across the Jordan at Bethabara, through Jericho to Jerusalem. Leaving his relatives, and taking his disciples, (see verse 17,) we may suppose our Lord to have taken this last route.

Verse 13. And the Jews’ passover was at hand] This was the reason why he stayed but a few days at Capernaum, John 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, Luke 6:1. The third, John 6:4. And the fourth, which was that at which he was crucified, John 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, Daniel 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.

Verses 12, 13. After this he went down to Capernaum — A city that lay near the north part of the sea of Galilee, and on the south border of the land of Naphthali. See note on Matthew 4:13. Here Christ and his disciples continued but a short time, the passover of the Jews being at hand, which Jesus, who was made under the law, and maintained a religious regard to its ceremonial, as well as its moral precepts, would not neglect attending: thus teaching us by his example a strict observance of all divine institutions, and a diligent attendance on religious assemblies. As the evangelists have not informed us how many passovers happened between the baptism and death of Christ, or during the course of his public ministry, learned men have been much divided in their opinions on the subject. But by far the greater part have supposed there were four, reckoning this the first; the feast mentioned John 5:1, the second; the passover spoken of John 6:4, as the third; and that at which Christ suffered, the fourth. But there are others of a different opinion. The celebrated Sir Isaac Newton reckons five; the first, this which is now before us; the second, according to him, happened four months after Christ’s discourse with the woman of Samaria, John 4:35; the third, a few days before the story of the disciples rubbing the ears of corn, Luke 6:1; the fourth, a little after the feeding of the five thousand; and the last, at the time of our Lord’s crucifixion.

§ 20.—JESUS GOES TO JERUSALEM, AT PASSOVER, AND PURIFIES THE TEMPLE, 13-25. By his baptism Jesus was externally inaugurated in his office; by his temptation he proved his internal fitness; by his miracle at Cana he showed forth his glory to his own circle of disciples; and now he proceeds to make his announcement to the nation at the FIRST PASSOVER of his ministry. His method is to claim a Lordship over the temple of God, sustained by miracles, reserving his profounder teachings for the earnest inquirer awakened by his miracles. John 2:13-3:21.

13. Jews—See note on John 1:19. It is universally agreed among evangelical commentators that there were two cleansings of the temple; one at the beginning, the other at the close of Christ’s ministry. In this first, given by John alone, (see note on Matthew 21:11, 12, 13,) Jesus uses language less severe than in the second, but performs the act with an evident exertion of supernatural power, by a positive and overruling miracle. The reasons for supposing two cleansings are: First, The propriety of both opening and closing his ministry by such a symbolic act. Second, The clearness with which the first is related by John and the second by Mark. Third, The distinct and rational connections which each has with its own immediate surrounding circumstances. Went up—Up to Jerusalem as down to Capernaum. (Verse 12.) The natural language of one familiar with the country. For the Passover see our notes on Matthew 26:2, 17-20.

V. 14. Oxen, and sheep, and doves-Used for sacrifice: And the changers of money-Those who changed foreign money for that which was current at Jerusalem, for the convenience of them that came from distant countries.

Verse 14. Found in the temple those that sold oxen, &c.] This is a similar fact to that mentioned Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45. See it explained on Matthew 21:12. 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, John 2:11; then he passes a few days at Capernaum, which bring him on his way to Jerusalem, John 2:12. The passover being near, he goes up to Jerusalem, John 2:13, and casts the traders out of the temple, John 2:15, 16, At the passover he works many miracles, John 2:23. While he is in Jerusalem, which city he does not leave till, John 3:22, Nicodemus comes to him by night, John 3:1, 2. John 3:2 contains a reference to John 2:23. After these things, Jesus departs from Jerusalem, and dwells and baptizes in Judea, John 3:22. And all these incidents take place before John was cast into prison, John 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 offence 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.

Verse 14. And found in the temple those that sold oxen, &c. — Used for sacrifice. It seems the officers, whose province it was to take care of the temple, permitted a market of these animals, and other things necessary for sacrifice, to be kept in the court of the Gentiles, in order that the worshippers might be supplied with victims requisite for the altar. The consequence of which was, that there was often such a bustle and confusion there, that the proselytes who came to worship could not but be much disturbed in their devotions; as the reader will easily believe, when he is informed that, according to Josephus, “no fewer than two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred victims were sometimes offered at one passover. 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 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 sacrifices were often sold to different persons, and the spoils, or gain of them, were divided between the priests and the salesmen. In order to expedite this traffic, there were money-changers at hand, who gave the Jews who came from foreign countries the current money of Judea, in lieu of the money of the countries from 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 an honest zeal, which showed his high regard to religion, and his implacable enmity to vice; while, at the same time, it illustrated the character given of him by Malachi, (Malachi 3:1,) and established the pretensions he made of being the messenger mentioned by that prophet.” See Josephus, Bell., 6:9, and note on Matthew 21:12, 13.

Ver. 14. Sold oxen, sheep, and doves. This trade was in the courts of the temple, under a cover of assisting the worshippers; but the traders were thieves in demanding exorbitant profits; and practised imposition in changing the coins of strangers. See Matthew 21:12. Jeremiah 7:11. Jesus, the first and last time he was in the temple, purged it of nefarious traffickers. Let us imitate the Lord in preserving purity of doctrine and worship, and be zealous that decorum may reign in his house.

14. Found in the temple—Doubtless it was after the solemn performance of the Passover sacrifice (which was on the first day) that Jesus, as Lord of the temple, proceeded to this stern act. He enters the temple as a visitation of God. He finds abominations there which he must chastise with a terrible significance. In the temple—Not in the Holy Place, (see temple plan;) neither in the courts either of the priests, the Israelites, or the women. But in the court of the Gentiles, which was at most separated from the outer world by a single wall. This court was divided by lattice-work from the inner courts. Over the entrance through the lattice, which was reached by a flight of three or four steps, was the inscription, “Let no foreign-born enter.”

V. 15. Having made a scourge of rushes-(Which were strewed on the ground,) he drove all out of the temple, (that is, the court of it,) both the sheep and the oxen-Though it does not appear that he struck even them; and much less, any of the men. But a terror from God, it is evident, fell upon them.

Verses 15-17. And when he had made a scourge of small cords — Ekscoiniwn, of rushes, rather, which he found strewed on the ground. This circumstance, seemingly slight, was inserted to show that the instrument could not be the cause of so wonderful an effect as is here mentioned. He drove them all out — Namely, out of the court of the temple; both the sheep and the oxen — Though it does not appear that he struck even them, much less any of the men. But a terror from God, it is evident, fell upon them. And poured out the changers’ money — Upon the ground; and overthrew the tables — At which they were sitting. And said to them that sold doves, Take these things hence — Greek, tauta, the cages wherein the pigeons were exposed to sale, pointing to them. Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise — Make not the temple, which is dedicated to the worship of God, a place for carrying on low traffic. It is remarkable, that the guilty persons did not offer to make the least resistance; probably, a consciousness of guilt restrained them, or the wonderful things which Jesus had performed at this festival, though not recorded, with the influence of Christ’s miraculous power on their minds, made them afraid to resist him. Nevertheless, in the apprehension of the disciples, he exposed him self to great danger, by turning out a body of factious men, whom the priests and rulers supported. On this occasion, therefore, they called to mind, Psalm 69:10, The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up — Imputing their Master’s action to such a concern for the purity of God’s worship, as the psalmist of old was animated by. The truth is, it certainly was an evidence of a very extraordinary zeal indeed; a zeal nothing inferior to that for which the prophets were famed.

15. Scourge—Not mentioned in the second cleansing. Drove them— Striking the cattle with the scourge; giving the doves to their owners; and terrifying and driving the men from the court; dealing with each class according to its nature. Meantime the rulers of the nation and the keepers of the temple, as if spell-bound and dumb-struck, retreat in confusion, or look on with a strange and tame submission.

Verses 15-17. And when he had made a scourge of small cords — Ekscoiniwn, of rushes, rather, which he found strewed on the ground. This circumstance, seemingly slight, was inserted to show that the instrument could not be the cause of so wonderful an effect as is here mentioned. He drove them all out — Namely, out of the court of the temple; both the sheep and the oxen — Though it does not appear that he struck even them, much less any of the men. But a terror from God, it is evident, fell upon them. And poured out the changers’ money — Upon the ground; and overthrew the tables — At which they were sitting. And said to them that sold doves, Take these things hence — Greek, tauta, the cages wherein the pigeons were exposed to sale, pointing to them. Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise — Make not the temple, which is dedicated to the worship of God, a place for carrying on low traffic. It is remarkable, that the guilty persons did not offer to make the least resistance; probably, a consciousness of guilt restrained them, or the wonderful things which Jesus had performed at this festival, though not recorded, with the influence of Christ’s miraculous power on their minds, made them afraid to resist him. Nevertheless, in the apprehension of the disciples, he exposed him self to great danger, by turning out a body of factious men, whom the priests and rulers supported. On this occasion, therefore, they called to mind, Psalm 69:10, The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up — Imputing their Master’s action to such a concern for the purity of God’s worship, as the psalmist of old was animated by. The truth is, it certainly was an evidence of a very extraordinary zeal indeed; a zeal nothing inferior to that for which the prophets were famed.

Ver. 16. Take these things hence. In this most brilliant action was fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi: The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, and with unexpected majesty, as the messenger of the covenant, shall purge it of corruption, and amidst myriads of spectators shall shame the rulers who for lucre connived at the sin and pollution.

16. My Father’s house—As in his childhood, (see note on Luke 2:49,) so now, Jesus claims the temple as his Father’s; and as his own, therefore, by heirship. In the most natural and spontaneous manner, yet with a profound significance, he claims to be God’s son.

V. 17. Psalm 69:9.

Verse 17. The zeal of thine house] See Psalm 59:10. Zeal to promote thy glory, and to keep thy worship pure.

Verses 15-17. And when he had made a scourge of small cords — Ekscoiniwn, of rushes, rather, which he found strewed on the ground. This circumstance, seemingly slight, was inserted to show that the instrument could not be the cause of so wonderful an effect as is here mentioned. He drove them all out — Namely, out of the court of the temple; both the sheep and the oxen — Though it does not appear that he struck even them, much less any of the men. But a terror from God, it is evident, fell upon them. And poured out the changers’ money — Upon the ground; and overthrew the tables — At which they were sitting. And said to them that sold doves, Take these things hence — Greek, tauta, the cages wherein the pigeons were exposed to sale, pointing to them. Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise — Make not the temple, which is dedicated to the worship of God, a place for carrying on low traffic. It is remarkable, that the guilty persons did not offer to make the least resistance; probably, a consciousness of guilt restrained them, or the wonderful things which Jesus had performed at this festival, though not recorded, with the influence of Christ’s miraculous power on their minds, made them afraid to resist him. Nevertheless, in the apprehension of the disciples, he exposed him self to great danger, by turning out a body of factious men, whom the priests and rulers supported. On this occasion, therefore, they called to mind, Psalm 69:10, The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up — Imputing their Master’s action to such a concern for the purity of God’s worship, as the psalmist of old was animated by. The truth is, it certainly was an evidence of a very extraordinary zeal indeed; a zeal nothing inferior to that for which the prophets were famed.

17. His disciples—Only, as yet, the five from Bethsaida. See notes on John 2:2, and John 1:40-51. Among these was John himself, and therefore a witness of this cleansing. Remembered—As at verse 22, afterward. But it called to mind the psalm at the time. Written—In Psalm 69:9. This Psalm, though written in the person of David, was applied even by the ancient Jews to the Messiah. Aben Ezra has on the last verse of that psalm this note: “The sense is, they and their children shall inherit, not in the days of David, but in the days of the Messiah.” Zeal of thine house—Rather, zeal for thy house. Eaten me up—A figure in all ages to express the consuming, emaciating effects of care and passion.

V. 18. Then answered the Jews-Either some of those whom he had just driven out, or their friends:

What sign showest thou?-So they require a miracle, to confirm a miracle!

Verse 18. What sign showest thou] See on Matthew 12:38; 16:1. 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?

Verses 18-22. Then answered the Jews — “A fact so public and remarkable as that just mentioned, 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;” some of them, therefore, said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things — That is, to prove thyself authorized and commissioned to do them? This they ask because it belonged only to the magistrate, as being God’s minister and vicegerent, or to a prophet, to reform abuses in God’s worship. The authority of the magistrate they knew Christ had not, for acting as he had done; and if he alleged that he acted as a prophet, they require him to give them proof of his being such, by some miracle or prediction, to be accomplished before their eyes. But was not the thing itself a sufficient sign? His ability to drive so many from their posts, without opposition, was surely a proof of his authority to do it: he that was armed by such a divine power, must have been armed with a divine commission. The truth is, they required a miracle to confirm a miracle! This unreasonable demand Jesus did not think proper to grant them; but refers them to the miracle of his resurrection: which, however, he does in such obscure terms, as prejudiced minds could not understand, till the prediction was cleared and explained by the event. Jesus answered, Destroy this temple — Pointing probably to his body, which, with the greatest propriety, he called a temple, on account of the divinity residing in it. By a like figure of speech, the apostle calls the bodies of believers the temples of God. When Christ said, Destroy this temple, he meant, You will be permitted to destroy it, and you will destroy it: for at the very beginning of his ministry he had a clear foresight of all his sufferings, and of his death at the end of it; and yet he went on cheerfully in his work. Observe, reader, our Lord spake thus to them in parables because they were willingly ignorant, and shut their eyes against the clear light issuing from his life, his doctrine, and his miracles. For they that will not see shall not see; but shall stumble and fall, and be broken, and snared, and taken, Isaiah 8:14, 15. Accordingly, the figurative speech here used by our Lord, proved such a stumbling-block to them, that it was produced in evidence against him at his trial, to prove him a blasphemer, Matthew 26:60, 61. Had they, in humility, asked him the meaning of what he said, he would have informed them, and it would have been a savour of life unto life to them; but they resolved to cavil, and it proved a savour of death unto death. They that would not be convinced were hardened, and the manner of the expression of this prediction occasioned the accomplishment of the prediction itself. In his saying, In three days I will raise it up — Our Lord not only foretold his resurrection, but that it should he effected by his own power. There were others that were raised at different times from the dead, but Christ was the only person that ever raised himself! They, supposing that he spake of the temple in which they were standing, replied, Forty and six years was this temple 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 thirty-second year of Artaxerxes. The original expression, however, wkodomhqh o naov outov, instead of, was this temple in building, is translated by Doddridge, Heylin, and Worsley, hath been building, “proceeding on the supposition, that those who made this reply alluded to the additional buildings which the temple had received, and which had been begun by Herod, and continued by those who succeeded him in the government of Judea, to the time then present. But let it be observed, that the Jews never did, nor do to this day, speak of more than two temples possessed by their fathers; the first built by Solomon, the second by Zerubbabel. The great additions made by Herod, were considered as intended only for decorating and repairing the edifice, not for rebuilding it; for, in fact, Zerubbabel’s temple had not then been destroyed. Nor need we, I think, puzzle ourselves to make out exactly the forty-six years spoken of. Those men were evidently in the humour of exaggerating, in order to represent to the people as absurd what they had immediately heard advanced by our Lord. In this disposition, we may believe, they would not hesitate to include the years in which the work was interrupted, among the years employed in building.” — Campbell. But he spake of the temple of his body — And therefore they were entirely mistaken as to the sense of what he said; When, therefore, he was risen from the dead — Just on the third day after his crucifixion; his disciples remembered that he had said this — Which, when they heard him utter it, they did not at all understand; and they believed the Scripture, &c. — As they believed the Scriptures, which predicted the Messiah’s death, so they believed the more firmly in their Master on account of this prophecy, which, by foretelling his resurrection so long beforehand, rendered that event, when it happened, a most illustrious proof of his mission from God. Dr. Campbell translates the clause, They understood the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken; observing, that the word pisteuein, in the sacred writers, sometimes signifies, not so much to believe, as to apprehend aright. “In this sense, it is once and again employed by this writer in particular. It is not intimated here, that the disciples did not, before this time, believe the Scriptures, or their Master’s word: but that they did not, till now, rightly apprehend the meaning of either, in relation to this subject. Another instance of this application of the verb pisteuw, we have John 3:12.”

18. Answered the Jews—Said in response to what he had done. For though he, an unarmed man, did all this, they did not, like the Nazarenes, rush upon him to cast him out; nor take up stones, as subsequently, to cast at him; nor send their officers to apprehend him, as at his last Passover They only came to ask for a sign (as Moses gave) attesting his authority to do these things. Plainly his display of might, and their paralysis, were of themselves a sign, had they not been too blind of heart to see it.

V. 19. This temple-Doubtless pointing, while he spoke, to his body, the temple and habitation of the Godhead.

Verse 19. Destroy this temple] ton naon touton, This very temple; perhaps pointing to his body at the same time.

Verses 18-22. Then answered the Jews — “A fact so public and remarkable as that just mentioned, 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;” some of them, therefore, said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things — That is, to prove thyself authorized and commissioned to do them? This they ask because it belonged only to the magistrate, as being God’s minister and vicegerent, or to a prophet, to reform abuses in God’s worship. The authority of the magistrate they knew Christ had not, for acting as he had done; and if he alleged that he acted as a prophet, they require him to give them proof of his being such, by some miracle or prediction, to be accomplished before their eyes. But was not the thing itself a sufficient sign? His ability to drive so many from their posts, without opposition, was surely a proof of his authority to do it: he that was armed by such a divine power, must have been armed with a divine commission. The truth is, they required a miracle to confirm a miracle! This unreasonable demand Jesus did not think proper to grant them; but refers them to the miracle of his resurrection: which, however, he does in such obscure terms, as prejudiced minds could not understand, till the prediction was cleared and explained by the event. Jesus answered, Destroy this temple — Pointing probably to his body, which, with the greatest propriety, he called a temple, on account of the divinity residing in it. By a like figure of speech, the apostle calls the bodies of believers the temples of God. When Christ said, Destroy this temple, he meant, You will be permitted to destroy it, and you will destroy it: for at the very beginning of his ministry he had a clear foresight of all his sufferings, and of his death at the end of it; and yet he went on cheerfully in his work. Observe, reader, our Lord spake thus to them in parables because they were willingly ignorant, and shut their eyes against the clear light issuing from his life, his doctrine, and his miracles. For they that will not see shall not see; but shall stumble and fall, and be broken, and snared, and taken, Isaiah 8:14, 15. Accordingly, the figurative speech here used by our Lord, proved such a stumbling-block to them, that it was produced in evidence against him at his trial, to prove him a blasphemer, Matthew 26:60, 61. Had they, in humility, asked him the meaning of what he said, he would have informed them, and it would have been a savour of life unto life to them; but they resolved to cavil, and it proved a savour of death unto death. They that would not be convinced were hardened, and the manner of the expression of this prediction occasioned the accomplishment of the prediction itself. In his saying, In three days I will raise it up — Our Lord not only foretold his resurrection, but that it should he effected by his own power. There were others that were raised at different times from the dead, but Christ was the only person that ever raised himself! They, supposing that he spake of the temple in which they were standing, replied, Forty and six years was this temple 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 thirty-second year of Artaxerxes. The original expression, however, wkodomhqh o naov outov, instead of, was this temple in building, is translated by Doddridge, Heylin, and Worsley, hath been building, “proceeding on the supposition, that those who made this reply alluded to the additional buildings which the temple had received, and which had been begun by Herod, and continued by those who succeeded him in the government of Judea, to the time then present. But let it be observed, that the Jews never did, nor do to this day, speak of more than two temples possessed by their fathers; the first built by Solomon, the second by Zerubbabel. The great additions made by Herod, were considered as intended only for decorating and repairing the edifice, not for rebuilding it; for, in fact, Zerubbabel’s temple had not then been destroyed. Nor need we, I think, puzzle ourselves to make out exactly the forty-six years spoken of. Those men were evidently in the humour of exaggerating, in order to represent to the people as absurd what they had immediately heard advanced by our Lord. In this disposition, we may believe, they would not hesitate to include the years in which the work was interrupted, among the years employed in building.” — Campbell. But he spake of the temple of his body — And therefore they were entirely mistaken as to the sense of what he said; When, therefore, he was risen from the dead — Just on the third day after his crucifixion; his disciples remembered that he had said this — Which, when they heard him utter it, they did not at all understand; and they believed the Scripture, &c. — As they believed the Scriptures, which predicted the Messiah’s death, so they believed the more firmly in their Master on account of this prophecy, which, by foretelling his resurrection so long beforehand, rendered that event, when it happened, a most illustrious proof of his mission from God. Dr. Campbell translates the clause, They understood the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken; observing, that the word pisteuein, in the sacred writers, sometimes signifies, not so much to believe, as to apprehend aright. “In this sense, it is once and again employed by this writer in particular. It is not intimated here, that the disciples did not, before this time, believe the Scriptures, or their Master’s word: but that they did not, till now, rightly apprehend the meaning of either, in relation to this subject. Another instance of this application of the verb pisteuw, we have John 3:12.”

Ver. 19. Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. But he spake of the temple of his body, for God had said, I will dwell in you, and walk in you. He did many miracles on the feast day, as in ver. 23, yet the jews asked a sign. He treated their enmity and unbelief with dignity, and would give them no other sign, except that of his resurrection; the rejected stone which should grind them to powder.

19. Destroy this temple—Our Lord gives them a sign, and at the same time a test. They are welcome to try the experiment. It was a suitable sign too; for as his mastery over the temple was the very point in question, he tells them he can rebuild the temple in a much shorter time than they can destroy it. Herein he asserts, as the eternal Son of God, his absolute omnipotence. It is this they understand; and they are so deeply impressed with the utterance that it meets him afterwards as a charge, namely, at his trial before their tribunal! That this was a true but not the only meaning will soon appear.

V. 20. Forty and six years-Just so many years before the time of this conversation, Herod the Great had begun his most magnificent reparation of the temple, (one part after another,) which he continued all his life, and which was now going on, and was continued thirty-six years longer, till within six or seven years of the destruction of the state, city, and temple by the Romans.

Verse 20. 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: Jos. 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.

Verses 18-22. Then answered the Jews — “A fact so public and remarkable as that just mentioned, 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;” some of them, therefore, said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things — That is, to prove thyself authorized and commissioned to do them? This they ask because it belonged only to the magistrate, as being God’s minister and vicegerent, or to a prophet, to reform abuses in God’s worship. The authority of the magistrate they knew Christ had not, for acting as he had done; and if he alleged that he acted as a prophet, they require him to give them proof of his being such, by some miracle or prediction, to be accomplished before their eyes. But was not the thing itself a sufficient sign? His ability to drive so many from their posts, without opposition, was surely a proof of his authority to do it: he that was armed by such a divine power, must have been armed with a divine commission. The truth is, they required a miracle to confirm a miracle! This unreasonable demand Jesus did not think proper to grant them; but refers them to the miracle of his resurrection: which, however, he does in such obscure terms, as prejudiced minds could not understand, till the prediction was cleared and explained by the event. Jesus answered, Destroy this temple — Pointing probably to his body, which, with the greatest propriety, he called a temple, on account of the divinity residing in it. By a like figure of speech, the apostle calls the bodies of believers the temples of God. When Christ said, Destroy this temple, he meant, You will be permitted to destroy it, and you will destroy it: for at the very beginning of his ministry he had a clear foresight of all his sufferings, and of his death at the end of it; and yet he went on cheerfully in his work. Observe, reader, our Lord spake thus to them in parables because they were willingly ignorant, and shut their eyes against the clear light issuing from his life, his doctrine, and his miracles. For they that will not see shall not see; but shall stumble and fall, and be broken, and snared, and taken, Isaiah 8:14, 15. Accordingly, the figurative speech here used by our Lord, proved such a stumbling-block to them, that it was produced in evidence against him at his trial, to prove him a blasphemer, Matthew 26:60, 61. Had they, in humility, asked him the meaning of what he said, he would have informed them, and it would have been a savour of life unto life to them; but they resolved to cavil, and it proved a savour of death unto death. They that would not be convinced were hardened, and the manner of the expression of this prediction occasioned the accomplishment of the prediction itself. In his saying, In three days I will raise it up — Our Lord not only foretold his resurrection, but that it should he effected by his own power. There were others that were raised at different times from the dead, but Christ was the only person that ever raised himself! They, supposing that he spake of the temple in which they were standing, replied, Forty and six years was this temple 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 thirty-second year of Artaxerxes. The original expression, however, wkodomhqh o naov outov, instead of, was this temple in building, is translated by Doddridge, Heylin, and Worsley, hath been building, “proceeding on the supposition, that those who made this reply alluded to the additional buildings which the temple had received, and which had been begun by Herod, and continued by those who succeeded him in the government of Judea, to the time then present. But let it be observed, that the Jews never did, nor do to this day, speak of more than two temples possessed by their fathers; the first built by Solomon, the second by Zerubbabel. The great additions made by Herod, were considered as intended only for decorating and repairing the edifice, not for rebuilding it; for, in fact, Zerubbabel’s temple had not then been destroyed. Nor need we, I think, puzzle ourselves to make out exactly the forty-six years spoken of. Those men were evidently in the humour of exaggerating, in order to represent to the people as absurd what they had immediately heard advanced by our Lord. In this disposition, we may believe, they would not hesitate to include the years in which the work was interrupted, among the years employed in building.” — Campbell. But he spake of the temple of his body — And therefore they were entirely mistaken as to the sense of what he said; When, therefore, he was risen from the dead — Just on the third day after his crucifixion; his disciples remembered that he had said this — Which, when they heard him utter it, they did not at all understand; and they believed the Scripture, &c. — As they believed the Scriptures, which predicted the Messiah’s death, so they believed the more firmly in their Master on account of this prophecy, which, by foretelling his resurrection so long beforehand, rendered that event, when it happened, a most illustrious proof of his mission from God. Dr. Campbell translates the clause, They understood the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken; observing, that the word pisteuein, in the sacred writers, sometimes signifies, not so much to believe, as to apprehend aright. “In this sense, it is once and again employed by this writer in particular. It is not intimated here, that the disciples did not, before this time, believe the Scriptures, or their Master’s word: but that they did not, till now, rightly apprehend the meaning of either, in relation to this subject. Another instance of this application of the verb pisteuw, we have John 3:12.”

Ver. 20. Then said the jews, forty and six years was this temple in building. Herod had begun to replace the stones in the eighteenth year of his reign; and our Saviour was born in the thirty fifth year, so that up to the time of this conversation was exactly forty six years. — Josephus.

20. Forty and six years—The first temple was built by Solomon in seven years. The second temple was originally built by Zerubbabel; but when Herod assumed the government he proposed to build it anew. Such, however, was the jealousy of the Jews that Herod dare only repair and replace parts at a time, so that the rebuilding was a much longer work than the building, and Herod had a harder task than Solomon. Herod began his repairs about sixteen years before Christ; and as Jesus was now about thirty years of age, the reckoning seems to be exact. The work was not finished until the time of Nero. Nor was it, nevertheless, considered a third temple. Josephus, for instance, says the temple was destroyed twice; once by the Chaldeans, and once by Titus. Wilt thou rear it up in three days?— Accepting the outermost meaning of his words, (which was the true one for them,) the Jews rightly understood our Lord’s announcement. His I will proclaimed him infinitely higher than Herod, than Zerubbabel, than Solomon. For surely the power that could rebuild the temple in three days, could rebuild it in three seconds of time.

Verse 21. 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, Matthew 26:60, and the notes there.

Verses 18-22. Then answered the Jews — “A fact so public and remarkable as that just mentioned, 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;” some of them, therefore, said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things — That is, to prove thyself authorized and commissioned to do them? This they ask because it belonged only to the magistrate, as being God’s minister and vicegerent, or to a prophet, to reform abuses in God’s worship. The authority of the magistrate they knew Christ had not, for acting as he had done; and if he alleged that he acted as a prophet, they require him to give them proof of his being such, by some miracle or prediction, to be accomplished before their eyes. But was not the thing itself a sufficient sign? His ability to drive so many from their posts, without opposition, was surely a proof of his authority to do it: he that was armed by such a divine power, must have been armed with a divine commission. The truth is, they required a miracle to confirm a miracle! This unreasonable demand Jesus did not think proper to grant them; but refers them to the miracle of his resurrection: which, however, he does in such obscure terms, as prejudiced minds could not understand, till the prediction was cleared and explained by the event. Jesus answered, Destroy this temple — Pointing probably to his body, which, with the greatest propriety, he called a temple, on account of the divinity residing in it. By a like figure of speech, the apostle calls the bodies of believers the temples of God. When Christ said, Destroy this temple, he meant, You will be permitted to destroy it, and you will destroy it: for at the very beginning of his ministry he had a clear foresight of all his sufferings, and of his death at the end of it; and yet he went on cheerfully in his work. Observe, reader, our Lord spake thus to them in parables because they were willingly ignorant, and shut their eyes against the clear light issuing from his life, his doctrine, and his miracles. For they that will not see shall not see; but shall stumble and fall, and be broken, and snared, and taken, Isaiah 8:14, 15. Accordingly, the figurative speech here used by our Lord, proved such a stumbling-block to them, that it was produced in evidence against him at his trial, to prove him a blasphemer, Matthew 26:60, 61. Had they, in humility, asked him the meaning of what he said, he would have informed them, and it would have been a savour of life unto life to them; but they resolved to cavil, and it proved a savour of death unto death. They that would not be convinced were hardened, and the manner of the expression of this prediction occasioned the accomplishment of the prediction itself. In his saying, In three days I will raise it up — Our Lord not only foretold his resurrection, but that it should he effected by his own power. There were others that were raised at different times from the dead, but Christ was the only person that ever raised himself! They, supposing that he spake of the temple in which they were standing, replied, Forty and six years was this temple 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 thirty-second year of Artaxerxes. The original expression, however, wkodomhqh o naov outov, instead of, was this temple in building, is translated by Doddridge, Heylin, and Worsley, hath been building, “proceeding on the supposition, that those who made this reply alluded to the additional buildings which the temple had received, and which had been begun by Herod, and continued by those who succeeded him in the government of Judea, to the time then present. But let it be observed, that the Jews never did, nor do to this day, speak of more than two temples possessed by their fathers; the first built by Solomon, the second by Zerubbabel. The great additions made by Herod, were considered as intended only for decorating and repairing the edifice, not for rebuilding it; for, in fact, Zerubbabel’s temple had not then been destroyed. Nor need we, I think, puzzle ourselves to make out exactly the forty-six years spoken of. Those men were evidently in the humour of exaggerating, in order to represent to the people as absurd what they had immediately heard advanced by our Lord. In this disposition, we may believe, they would not hesitate to include the years in which the work was interrupted, among the years employed in building.” — Campbell. But he spake of the temple of his body — And therefore they were entirely mistaken as to the sense of what he said; When, therefore, he was risen from the dead — Just on the third day after his crucifixion; his disciples remembered that he had said this — Which, when they heard him utter it, they did not at all understand; and they believed the Scripture, &c. — As they believed the Scriptures, which predicted the Messiah’s death, so they believed the more firmly in their Master on account of this prophecy, which, by foretelling his resurrection so long beforehand, rendered that event, when it happened, a most illustrious proof of his mission from God. Dr. Campbell translates the clause, They understood the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken; observing, that the word pisteuein, in the sacred writers, sometimes signifies, not so much to believe, as to apprehend aright. “In this sense, it is once and again employed by this writer in particular. It is not intimated here, that the disciples did not, before this time, believe the Scriptures, or their Master’s word: but that they did not, till now, rightly apprehend the meaning of either, in relation to this subject. Another instance of this application of the verb pisteuw, we have John 3:12.”

21. Temple of his body—That the body is a building has been recognized by both the science and the literature of all the world. And religious thought specially recognizes that it should be a temple; the temple of the Holy Spirit. And Christ’s body was the temple; of which the Jewish material temple was the type. When, therefore, the disciples subsequently found that after three days of destruction Christ revived his bodily temple, a new inner meaning flashed upon their minds. The meaning now is, Destroy, ye Jews, this sacred frame, (as you surely will,) and in three days it shall by my divine power rise again. Before fulfilment it would indeed have taken a prophet to extract this inner meaning; yet, none the less we see, after the fulfilment, that none but a prophet could have uttered the prediction. And to us may they not bear a third still deeper meaning? Destroy this old dispensation of which this temple is the symbol, and my three days of death will build it anew. Abolish old Judaism, and in brief time I will rear young Christianity. So that there are in these words three strata of meaning: an outside, an inner, and an inmost sense; each true for its own class of searchers.

V. 22. They believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said-Concerning his resurrection.

Verse 22. Remembered that he had said this unto them] autoiv, to them, is wanting in AEHLMS, Matt. BV, upwards of one hundred others; both the Syriac; Persic, Arabic, Coptic, Æthiopic, 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 Psalm 16:10. Compare this with Acts 2:31, 32, and with Acts 13:35-37. See also Psalm 2:7, and compare it with Hebrews 1:5, and Hebrews 5:5, and with Acts 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 fulfilment takes place, they cannot be misunderstood, or applied to any other event.

Verses 18-22. Then answered the Jews — “A fact so public and remarkable as that just mentioned, 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;” some of them, therefore, said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing thou doest these things — That is, to prove thyself authorized and commissioned to do them? This they ask because it belonged only to the magistrate, as being God’s minister and vicegerent, or to a prophet, to reform abuses in God’s worship. The authority of the magistrate they knew Christ had not, for acting as he had done; and if he alleged that he acted as a prophet, they require him to give them proof of his being such, by some miracle or prediction, to be accomplished before their eyes. But was not the thing itself a sufficient sign? His ability to drive so many from their posts, without opposition, was surely a proof of his authority to do it: he that was armed by such a divine power, must have been armed with a divine commission. The truth is, they required a miracle to confirm a miracle! This unreasonable demand Jesus did not think proper to grant them; but refers them to the miracle of his resurrection: which, however, he does in such obscure terms, as prejudiced minds could not understand, till the prediction was cleared and explained by the event. Jesus answered, Destroy this temple — Pointing probably to his body, which, with the greatest propriety, he called a temple, on account of the divinity residing in it. By a like figure of speech, the apostle calls the bodies of believers the temples of God. When Christ said, Destroy this temple, he meant, You will be permitted to destroy it, and you will destroy it: for at the very beginning of his ministry he had a clear foresight of all his sufferings, and of his death at the end of it; and yet he went on cheerfully in his work. Observe, reader, our Lord spake thus to them in parables because they were willingly ignorant, and shut their eyes against the clear light issuing from his life, his doctrine, and his miracles. For they that will not see shall not see; but shall stumble and fall, and be broken, and snared, and taken, Isaiah 8:14, 15. Accordingly, the figurative speech here used by our Lord, proved such a stumbling-block to them, that it was produced in evidence against him at his trial, to prove him a blasphemer, Matthew 26:60, 61. Had they, in humility, asked him the meaning of what he said, he would have informed them, and it would have been a savour of life unto life to them; but they resolved to cavil, and it proved a savour of death unto death. They that would not be convinced were hardened, and the manner of the expression of this prediction occasioned the accomplishment of the prediction itself. In his saying, In three days I will raise it up — Our Lord not only foretold his resurrection, but that it should he effected by his own power. There were others that were raised at different times from the dead, but Christ was the only person that ever raised himself! They, supposing that he spake of the temple in which they were standing, replied, Forty and six years was this temple 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 thirty-second year of Artaxerxes. The original expression, however, wkodomhqh o naov outov, instead of, was this temple in building, is translated by Doddridge, Heylin, and Worsley, hath been building, “proceeding on the supposition, that those who made this reply alluded to the additional buildings which the temple had received, and which had been begun by Herod, and continued by those who succeeded him in the government of Judea, to the time then present. But let it be observed, that the Jews never did, nor do to this day, speak of more than two temples possessed by their fathers; the first built by Solomon, the second by Zerubbabel. The great additions made by Herod, were considered as intended only for decorating and repairing the edifice, not for rebuilding it; for, in fact, Zerubbabel’s temple had not then been destroyed. Nor need we, I think, puzzle ourselves to make out exactly the forty-six years spoken of. Those men were evidently in the humour of exaggerating, in order to represent to the people as absurd what they had immediately heard advanced by our Lord. In this disposition, we may believe, they would not hesitate to include the years in which the work was interrupted, among the years employed in building.” — Campbell. But he spake of the temple of his body — And therefore they were entirely mistaken as to the sense of what he said; When, therefore, he was risen from the dead — Just on the third day after his crucifixion; his disciples remembered that he had said this — Which, when they heard him utter it, they did not at all understand; and they believed the Scripture, &c. — As they believed the Scriptures, which predicted the Messiah’s death, so they believed the more firmly in their Master on account of this prophecy, which, by foretelling his resurrection so long beforehand, rendered that event, when it happened, a most illustrious proof of his mission from God. Dr. Campbell translates the clause, They understood the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken; observing, that the word pisteuein, in the sacred writers, sometimes signifies, not so much to believe, as to apprehend aright. “In this sense, it is once and again employed by this writer in particular. It is not intimated here, that the disciples did not, before this time, believe the Scriptures, or their Master’s word: but that they did not, till now, rightly apprehend the meaning of either, in relation to this subject. Another instance of this application of the verb pisteuw, we have John 3:12.”

22. Said this unto them—The them of this clause must refer to the Jews. They believed the Scripture—That is, they believed this new matter and meaning now first discovered as concealed in the Scriptures. See note on verse 11. The word which Jesus had said—That word unfolded its new force and true divinity to their belief. And that new force gave a conclusive corroboration to the whole body of Messianic Scripture. They had in a true sense never before believed the Scripture; for they did not know herein what Scripture contained.

V. 23. Many believed-That he was a teacher sent from God.

Verse 23. 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.

Verses 23-25. When he was in Jerusalem, in the feast-day — Or rather, during the feast, as en th eorth, should undoubtedly be translated: that is, during all the days of the solemnity; many believed in his name — Were inwardly persuaded that he was the Messiah, or, at least, that he was a teacher sent from God; when they saw the miracles which he did — This, as well as John 3:2, and 4:45, plainly refers to some miracles wrought by Christ, the particulars of which are not transmitted to us. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them — Did not repose such confidence in the sincerity of their profession of faith in him, or in their fidelity, courage, or wisdom, as to discover himself to be the Messiah. Because he knew all men — Had perfect knowledge of their dispositions; and needed not that any should testify of man — To give him any information concerning the character of any man, though ever so much a stranger to him; for he knew what was in man — By an immediate and unerring penetration, he knew what was in the heart of every man; and consequently knew, that those people had such gross notions of the Messiah’s kingdom, that there was no room for him to confide in them: or, he knew that the faith of many of them had not yet advanced to a full conviction; and foresaw that they would quickly fall off, when they found he was rejected by the great men, and did not erect a secular empire. Let us learn hence, not rashly to put ourselves into the power of others. Let us study a wise and happy medium, between universal suspiciousness, and that easiness and openness of temper which would make us the property of every pretender to kindness and respect.

23. Many believed—We have here the net result of our Saviour’s announcement at this first Passover. A party of external, historical believers arose; convinced of his miracles in the head, untouched by his gospel in the heart. They believed that he was a supernatural being, just as they believed that Tiberius was emperor; without any feelings of sin to be by him forgiven, or any love for his holy teaching or character. Saw the miracles— They recognized the majesty with which he awed his opponents when he cleansed the temple. What other miracles he performed is not said. Miracles are important as the bases of historical belief. At commencement they prove, and so produce a logical faith. So the reasoning of Nicodemus, who was clearly one of this many, “No man can do these things which thou doest, except God be with him,” was conclusive. But this logical faith alone does not regenerate or save the soul; and Jesus proceeded, therefore, to lead Nicodemus to deeper truths. The hearts of these many believed not on Jesus. They gave themselves not to him; he did not therefore trust himself to them as adherents.

V. 24. He did not trust himself to them-Let us learn hence not rashly to put ourselves into the power of others. Let us study a wise and happy medium between universal suspiciousness and that easiness which would make us the property of every pretender to kindness and respect.

Verse 24. He knew all men] Instead of pantav all men, EGH, and about thirty others, read panta, 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, John 1:3, and because he was the all-wise God, John 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!

ST. JOHN

Verses 23-25. When he was in Jerusalem, in the feast-day — Or rather, during the feast, as en th eorth, should undoubtedly be translated: that is, during all the days of the solemnity; many believed in his name — Were inwardly persuaded that he was the Messiah, or, at least, that he was a teacher sent from God; when they saw the miracles which he did — This, as well as John 3:2, and 4:45, plainly refers to some miracles wrought by Christ, the particulars of which are not transmitted to us. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them — Did not repose such confidence in the sincerity of their profession of faith in him, or in their fidelity, courage, or wisdom, as to discover himself to be the Messiah. Because he knew all men — Had perfect knowledge of their dispositions; and needed not that any should testify of man — To give him any information concerning the character of any man, though ever so much a stranger to him; for he knew what was in man — By an immediate and unerring penetration, he knew what was in the heart of every man; and consequently knew, that those people had such gross notions of the Messiah’s kingdom, that there was no room for him to confide in them: or, he knew that the faith of many of them had not yet advanced to a full conviction; and foresaw that they would quickly fall off, when they found he was rejected by the great men, and did not erect a secular empire. Let us learn hence, not rashly to put ourselves into the power of others. Let us study a wise and happy medium, between universal suspiciousness, and that easiness and openness of temper which would make us the property of every pretender to kindness and respect.

§ 20.—JESUS GOES TO JERUSALEM, AT PASSOVER, AND PURIFIES THE TEMPLE, 13-25. By his baptism Jesus was externally inaugurated in his office; by his temptation he proved his internal fitness; by his miracle at Cana he showed forth his glory to his own circle of disciples; and now he proceeds to make his announcement to the nation at the FIRST PASSOVER of his ministry. His method is to claim a Lordship over the temple of God, sustained by miracles, reserving his profounder teachings for the earnest inquirer awakened by his miracles. John 2:13-3:21.

13. Jews—See note on John 1:19. It is universally agreed among evangelical commentators that there were two cleansings of the temple; one at the beginning, the other at the close of Christ’s ministry. In this first, given by John alone, (see note on Matthew 21:11, 12, 13,) Jesus uses language less severe than in the second, but performs the act with an evident exertion of supernatural power, by a positive and overruling miracle. The reasons for supposing two cleansings are: First, The propriety of both opening and closing his ministry by such a symbolic act. Second, The clearness with which the first is related by John and the second by Mark. Third, The distinct and rational connections which each has with its own immediate surrounding circumstances. Went up—Up to Jerusalem as down to Capernaum. (Verse 12.) The natural language of one familiar with the country. For the Passover see our notes on Matthew 26:2, 17-20.

V. 25. He-To whom all things are naked,

knew what was in man-Namely, a desperately deceitful heart.

Verses 23-25. When he was in Jerusalem, in the feast-day — Or rather, during the feast, as en th eorth, should undoubtedly be translated: that is, during all the days of the solemnity; many believed in his name — Were inwardly persuaded that he was the Messiah, or, at least, that he was a teacher sent from God; when they saw the miracles which he did — This, as well as John 3:2, and 4:45, plainly refers to some miracles wrought by Christ, the particulars of which are not transmitted to us. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them — Did not repose such confidence in the sincerity of their profession of faith in him, or in their fidelity, courage, or wisdom, as to discover himself to be the Messiah. Because he knew all men — Had perfect knowledge of their dispositions; and needed not that any should testify of man — To give him any information concerning the character of any man, though ever so much a stranger to him; for he knew what was in man — By an immediate and unerring penetration, he knew what was in the heart of every man; and consequently knew, that those people had such gross notions of the Messiah’s kingdom, that there was no room for him to confide in them: or, he knew that the faith of many of them had not yet advanced to a full conviction; and foresaw that they would quickly fall off, when they found he was rejected by the great men, and did not erect a secular empire. Let us learn hence, not rashly to put ourselves into the power of others. Let us study a wise and happy medium, between universal suspiciousness, and that easiness and openness of temper which would make us the property of every pretender to kindness and respect.

25. Knew what was in man—Some men are penetrating judges of human character. But this is not what John means of this the Word made flesh. In this chapter, indeed, we have repeated instances of John’s view, that the glory of the Divine nature was continually shedding its rays through the tenement of flesh. The first miracle (verse 11) manifested forth his glory; he claims all power to rebuild the demolished temple; and now he is described as knowing the secrets of our nature.