2:1-2 Third day is probably counted from Jesus’s encounter with Nathanael. Cana of Galilee was later the site of Jesus’s third sign (“the second sign” performed in Cana, 4:54). Jewish weddings were community events, a time of special focus not just on bride and groom but also on their extended families. Jesus’s mother may have been a friend of the family, helping behind the scenes. Jesus’s disciples probably included the five mentioned in 1:35-51.
2:3 The wedding party’s running out of wine ironically calls to mind the spiritual barrenness of first-century Judaism.
2:4 Jesus’s use of woman to address his mother established a polite but firm distance between them, as did his question: What does that have to do with you and me? On Jesus’s hour has not yet come, cp. 7:6,8,30; 8:20. Because of misconceptions about the coming Messiah, Jesus chose not to reveal himself openly to Israel (though he did perform numerous messianic “signs”; see note at 2:11). John portrays Jesus as the “elusive Christ” via Jesus’s pattern of occasional withdrawal (7:6-9; 10:40-41; 11:56-57), his realism about people’s true motives (2:23-25), and his ability to elude his opponents when charged with blasphemy (7:44; 8:59; 10:39). Jesus remained elusive until his time finally arrived (12:23,27; 13:1; 16:32; 17:1).
2:5 Mary’s instruction, Do whatever he tells you, recalls Pharaoh’s instructions in Gn 41:55.
2:6 The number of jars (six) may indicate incompleteness since seven represented fullness. Since each contained twenty or thirty gallons, this added up to as much as one hundred eighty gallons. The Jewish purification ritual may have involved the washing of the guests’ hands and certain utensils used at the wedding.
2:7 Filled them to the brim points to the abundance of Jesus’s messianic provision (3:34).
2:8-9 The headwaiter was in charge of catering. He supervised the serving of food and drink, and employed several servants.
2:10 John shows Jesus not only miraculously making wine, but making high-quality wine.
2:11 The fact that Jesus’s turning of water into wine at the wedding is called the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, leads the reader to expect more signs to follow. The corresponding reference in 4:54 is to Jesus’s healing of the royal official’s son again while at Cana, “the second sign Jesus performed after he came from Judea to Galilee.” Beyond this, Jesus’s signs include the nonmiraculous but prophetic temple clearing (2:13-22, one of Jesus’s Judean signs; cp. v. 23; 3:2); his healing of a lame man (5:1-15); the feeding of the crowds (6:1-15); the healing of the man born blind (chap. 9); and the raising of Lazarus (chap. 11).
In each case, the emphasis is on the way the “sign” revealed Jesus’s messianic nature (12:37-40; 20:30-31) and on the striking nature of the feat. These signs pointed unmistakably to Jesus as Messiah—whether it be the large quantity and high quality of wine (2:6,10); the short span required by Jesus to “rebuild” the temple (vv. 19-20); the long-distance healing of the royal official’s son (4:47,49-50); the lame man’s thirty-eight years as an invalid (5:5); the abundance of food Jesus produced (6:13); the man’s congenital blindness (9:1-2); or Lazarus’s four days in the tomb (11:17,39). The phrases he revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him hark back to 1:14.
2:12 Jesus went down from Cana (in the hill country) to Capernaum (situated by the Sea of Galilee). Capernaum was about fifteen miles northeast of Cana and could be reached in a day’s journey. Capernaum served as Jesus’s headquarters after John the Baptist’s imprisonment (Mt 4:12-13; Lk 4:28-31; cp. Mt 9:1).
2:13-22 Jesus’s first major confrontation with Jewish leaders in John’s Gospel took place when he cleared the Jerusalem temple at Passover. The Synoptic Gospels record a later clearing, just before the crucifixion (Mk 11:15-19). By clearing the temple, Jesus displayed zeal for God’s house (Jn 2:17; cp. Ps 69:9) and performed a sign of judgment on the Jewish leaders who had allowed worship to deteriorate into commerce. His action also prophetically foreshadowed his crucifixion and resurrection, which would establish him as the new center of worship, replacing the old temple.
2:13 This is the first reference to a Jewish festival in John’s Gospel and the first reference to Passover. Later, John referred to two more Passovers at 6:4 (Jesus in Galilee) and 11:55; 12:1 (Jesus’s final Passover in Jerusalem). Beyond this, Mt 12:1 may refer to another Passover not recorded in John. If so, Jesus’s ministry included four Passovers and extended over about three and one-half years, spanning from AD 29 to 33 (see note at Jn 1:28). Apart from these Passover references, John also mentioned Jesus’s activities at an unnamed Jewish festival in 5:1 (possibly Shelters); at the Festival of Tabernacles (or Shelters in 7:2); and at the Festival of Dedication (or Hanukkah) in 10:22. People are described as traveling up to Jerusalem because it was located at a higher elevation than Galilee.
2:14 Merchants (selling oxen, sheep, and doves) and money changers (exchanging idol-free coins for those tainted with pagan engravings) eased the logistical burden on pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem from afar by providing them with appropriate animals and coins for sacrifices and offerings. By conducting their business within the temple, however, they disrupted worship (esp. for Gentiles) and obstructed the temple’s purpose.
2:17 Jesus’s clearing of the temple reminded his disciples of the righteous sufferer in Ps 69:9. First-century Jews expected Messiah to purge and reconstitute the temple. Jesus was passionately concerned for the holiness and purity of God’s house.
2:20 This temple took forty-six years to build seems to indicate that the reconstruction of the second temple had taken forty-six years. Alternatively, it can be read: “This sanctuary was completed forty-six years ago [and has stood since that time].” The Jews were amazed that Jesus claimed he could raise it up in three days, an impossibly short time. The misunderstanding is cleared up in v. 21.
2:22 The Scripture may be Ps 69:9 (cited in Jn 2:17). The statement Jesus had made refers to v. 19.
2:23-25 Believed . . . would not entrust himself is a wordplay in the original Greek. Jesus’s knowledge of people’s hearts was displayed in his encounters with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman; see note at v. 4.
1. There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee. As this narrative contains the first miracle which Christ performed, it would be proper for us, were it on this ground alone, to consider the narrative attentively; though — as we shall afterwards see — there are other reasons which recommend it to our notice. But while we proceed, the various advantages arising from it will be more clearly seen. The Evangelist first mentions Cana of Galilee, not that which was situated towards Zare-phath (1. g 17:9; Oba 1:20; Luk 4:26) or Sarepta, between Tyre and Sidon, and was called the greater in comparison of this latter Cana, which is placed by some in the tribe of Zebulun, and by others in the tribe of Asher. For Jerome too assures us that, even in his time, there existed a small town which bore that name. There is reason to believe that it was near the city of Nazareth, since the mother of Christ came there to attend the marriage. From the fourth chapter of this book it will be seen that it was not more than one day’s journey distant from Capernaum. That it lay not far from the city of Bethsaida may also be inferred from the circumstance, that three days after Christ had been in those territories, the marriage was celebrated — the Evangelist tells us — in Cana of Galilee. There may have been also a third Cana, not far from Jerusalem, and yet out of Galilee; but I leave this undetermined, because I am unacquainted with it.
And the mother of Jesus was there. It was probably one of Christ’s near relations who married a wife; for Jesus is mentioned as having accompanied his mother. From the fact that the disciples also are invited, we may infer how plain and frugal was his way of living; for he lived in common with them. It may be thought strange, however, that a man who has no great wealth or abundance (as will be made evident from the scarcity of the wine) invites four or five other persons, on Christ’s account. But the poor are readier and more frank in their invitations; because they are not, like the rich, afraid of being disgraced, if they do not treat their guests with great costliness and splendor; for the poor adhere more zealously to the ancient custom of having an extended acquaintance.
Again, it may be supposed to show a want of courtesy, that the bridegroom allows his guests, in the middle of the entertainment, to be in want of wine; for it looks like a man of little thoughtfulness not to have a sufficiency of wine for his guests. I reply, nothing is here related which does not frequently happen, especially when people are not accustomed to the daily use of wine. Besides, the context shows, that it was towards the conclusion of the banquet thatthe wine fell short, when, according to custom, it might be supposed that they had already drunk enough; for the master of the feast thus speaks, Other men place worse wine before those who have drunk enough, but thou hast kept the best till now. Besides, I have no doubt that all this was regulated by the Providence of God, that there might be room for the miracle.
3. The mother of Jesus saith to him. It may be doubted if she expected or asked any thing from her Son, since he had not yet performed any miracle; and it is possible that, without expecting any remedy of this sort, she advised him to give some pious exhortations which would have the effect of preventing the guests from feeling uneasiness, and at the same time of relieving the shame of the bridegroom. I consider her words to be expressive of (συμπαθεία) earnest compassion; for the holy woman, perceiving that those who had been invited were likely to consider themselves as having been treated with disrespect, and to murmur against the bridegroom, and that the entertainment might in that way be disturbed, wished that some means of soothing them could be adopted. Chrysostom throws out a suspicion that she was moved by the feelings of a woman to seek I know not what favor for herself and her Son; but this conjecture is not supported by any argument.
4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Why does Christ repel her so rashly? I reply, though she was not moved by ambition, nor by any carnal affection, still she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ. Though it ought also to be observed, that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of others. Her modesty and piety were too great, to need so severe a chastisement. Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the danger, that no improper use may be made of what his mother had said, as if it were in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle.
The Greek words (Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ) literally mean, What to me and to thee ? But the Greek phraseology is of the same import with the Latin — Quid tibi mecum ? (what hast thou to do with me ?) The old translator led many people into a mistake, by supposing Christ to have asserted, that it was no concern of his, or of his mother’s, if the wine fell short. But from the second clause we may easily conclude how far removed this is from Christ’s meaning; for he takes upon himself this concern, and declares that it belongs to him to do so, when he adds, my hour is not yet come. Both ought to be joined together — that Christ understands what it is necessary for him to do, and yet that he will not act in this matter at his mother’s suggestion.
It is a remarkable passage certainly; for why does he absolutely refuse to his mother what he freely granted afterwards, on so many occasions, to all sorts of persons? Again, why is he not satisfied with a bare refusal? and why does he reduce her to the ordinary rank of women, and not even deign to call her mother ? This saying of Christ openly and manifestly warns men to beware lest, by too superstitiously elevating the honor of the name of mother in the Virgin Mary, (45) they transfer to her what belongs exclusively to God. Christ, therefore, addresses his mother in this manner, in order to lay down a perpetual and general instruction to all ages, that his divine glory must not be obscured by excessive honor paid to his mother.
How necessary this warning became, in consequence of the gross and disgraceful superstitions which followed afterwards, is too well known. For Mary has been constituted the Queen of Heaven, the Hope, the Life, and the Salvation of the world; and, in short, their fury and madness proceeded so far that they stripped Christ of his spoils, and left him almost naked. And when we condemn those horrid blasphemies against the Son of God, the Papists call us malignant and envious; and — what is worse — they maliciously slander us as deadly foes to the honor of the holy Virgin. As if she had not all the honor that is due to her, unless she were made a Goddess; or as if it were treating her with respect, to adorn her with blasphemous titles, and to substitute her in the room of Christ. The Papists, therefore, offer a grievous insult to Mary when, in order to disfigure her by false praises, they take from God what belongs to Him.
My hour is not yet come. He means that he has not hitherto delayed through carelessness or indolence, but at the same time he states indirectly that he will attend to the matter, when the proper time for it shall arrive. As he reproves his mother for unseasonable haste, so, on the other hand, he gives reason to expect a miracle. The holy Virgin acknowledges both, for she abstains from addressing him any farther; and when she advises the servants to do whatever he commands, she shows that she expects something now. But the instruction conveyed here is still more extensive that whenever the Lord holds us in suspense, and delays his aid, he is not therefore asleep, but, on the contrary, regulates all His works in such a manner that he does nothing but at the proper time. Those who have applied this passage to prove that the time of events is appointed by Fate, are too ridiculous to require a single word to be said for refuting them. The hour of Christ sometimes denotes the hour which had been appointed to him by the Father; and by his time he will afterwards designate what he found to be convenient and suitable for executing the commands of his Father; but in this place he claims the right to take and choose the time for working and for displaying his Divine power. (46)
(45) “En la vierge Marie.”
(46) “De bosongner et desployer sa virtue Divine.”
5. His mother saith to the servants. Here the holy Virgin gives an instance of true obedience which she owed to her Son, (47) when the question related, not to the relative duties of mankind, but to his divine power. She modestly acquiesces, therefore, in Christ’s reply; and in like manner exhorts others to comply with his injunctions. I acknowledge, indeed, that what the Virgin now said related to the present occurrence, and amounted to a declaration that, in this instance, she had no authority, and that Christ would do, according to his own pleasure, whatever he thought right. But if you attend closely to her design, the statement which she made is still more extensive; for she first disclaims and lays aside the power which she might seem to have improperly usurped; and next, she ascribes the whole authority to Christ, when she bids themdo whatever he shall command. We are taught generally by these words, that if we desire any thing from Christ, we will not obtain our wishes, unless we depend on him alone, look to him, and, in short, do whatever he commands On the other hand, he does not send us to his mother, but rather invites us to himself.
(47) “a son Fils.”
6. And there were there six water-pots of stone. According to the computation of Budaeus, we infer that these water-pots were very large; for as the metreta (48) (μετρητὴς) contains twenty congii, each contained, at least, a Sextier of this country. (49) Christ supplied them, therefore, with a great abundance of wine, as much as would be sufficient for a banquet to a hundred and fifty men. Besides, both the number and the size of the water-pots serve to prove the truth of the miracle. If there had been only two or three jars, many might have suspected that they had been brought from some other place. If in one vessel only the water had been changed into wine, the certainty of the miracle would not have been so obvious, or so well ascertained. It is not, therefore, without a good reason that the Evangelist mentions the number of the water-pots, and states how much they contained.
It arose from superstition that vessels so numerous and so large were placed there. They had the ceremony of washing, indeed, prescribed to them by the Law of God; but as the world is prone to excess in outward matters, the Jews, not satisfied with the simplicity which God had enjoined, amused themselves with continual washings; and as superstition is ambitious, they undoubtedly served the purpose of display, as we see at the present day in Popery, that every thing which is said to belong to the worship of God is arranged for pure display. There was, then, a twofold error: that without the command of God, they engaged in a superfluous ceremony of their own invention; and next, that, under the pretense of religion, ambition reigned amidst that display. Some Popish scoundrels have manifested an amazing degree of wickedness, when they had the effrontery to say that they had among their relics those water-pots with which Christ performed this miracle in Cana, and exhibited some of them, (50) which, first, are of small size, and, next, are unequal in size. And in the present day, when the light of the Gospel shines so clearly around us, they are not ashamed to practice those tricks, which certainly is not to deceive by enchantments, but daringly to mock men as if they were blind; and the world, which does not perceive such gross mockery, is evidently bewitched by Satan.
(48) The exact size of the firkin cannot be easily ascertained. If μετρητὴς be here used by the Evangelist as a purely Greek word, we must conclude it to be an Attic measure, which was nearly equal to nine English gallons. If, again, it be placed here as a substitute for the Hebrew word בת, (Bath,) as the Septuagint has done in 2. h 4:5, it will probably be rated at seven gallons and a half. — Ed
(49) “De ce pays de Savoye;” — “of this country, Savoy.”
(50) “Qu’ils avoyent entre leurs reliques de ces cruches, esquelles Christ avoit fait ce miracle en Cana, et en monstroyent.”
7. Fill the water-pots with water. The servants might be apt to look upon this injunction as absurd; for they had already more than enough of water. But in this way the Lord often acts towards us, that his power may be more illustriously displayed by an unexpected result; though this circumstance is added to magnify the miracle; for when the servants drew wine out of vessels which had been filled with water, no suspicion can remain.
8. And carry to the master of the feast. For the same reason as before, Christ wished that the flavor of the wine should be tried by the master of the feast, before it had been tasted by himself, or by any other of the guests; and the readiness with which the servants obey him in all things shows us the great reverence and respect in which he was held by them. The Evangelist gives the name of the master of the feast to him who had the charge of preparing the banquet and arranging the tables; not that the banquet was costly and magnificent, but because the honorable appellations borrowed from the luxury and splendor of the rich are applied even to the marriages of the poor. But it is wonderful that a large quantity of wine, and of the very best wine, is supplied by Christ, who is a teacher of sobriety. I reply, when God daily gives us a large supply of wine, it is our own fault if his kindness is an excitement to luxury; but, on the other hand, it is an undoubted trial of our sobriety, if we are sparing and moderate in the midst of abundance; as Paul boasts that he had learned to know both how to be full and to be hungry, (Phi 4:12.)
11. This beginning of miracles. The meaning is, that this was the first of Christ’s miracles; for when the angels announced to the shepherds that he was born in Bethlehem, (Luk 2:8,) when the star appeared to the Magi, (Mat 2:2,) when the Holy Spirit descended on him in the shape of a dove, (Mat 3:16; Mar 1:10; Joh 1:32,) though these were miracles, yet, strictly speaking, they were not performed by him; but the Evangelist now speaks of the miracles of which he was himself the Author. For it is a frivolous and absurd interpretation which some give, that this is reckoned the first among; the miracles which Christ performed in Cana of Galilee; as if a place, in which we do not read that he ever was more than twice, had been selected by him for a display of his power. It was rather the design of the Evangelist to mark the order of time which Christ followed in the exercise of his power. For until he was thirty years of age, he kept himself concealed at home, like one who held no public office. Having been consecrated, at his baptism, to the discharge of his office, he then began to appear in public, and to show by clear proofs for what purpose he was sent by the Father. We need not wonder, therefore, if he delayed till this time the first proof of his Divinity. It is a high honor given to marriage, that Christ not only deigned to be present at a nuptial banquet, but honored it with his first miracle. There are some ancient Canons which forbid the clergy to attend a marriage. The reason of the prohibition was, that by being the spectators of the wickedness which was usually practiced on such occasions, they might in some measure be regarded as approving of it. But it would have been far better to carry to such places so much gravity as to restrain the licentiousness in which unprincipled and abandoned men indulge, when they are withdrawn from the eyes of others. Let us, on the contrary, take Christ’s example for our rule; and let us not suppose that any thing else than what we read that he did can be profitable to us.
And manifested his glory; that is, because he then gave a striking and illustrious proof, by which it was ascertained that he was the Son of God; for all the miracles which he exhibited to the world were so many demonstrations of his divine power. The proper time for displaying his glory was now come, when he wished to make himself known agreeably to the command of his Father. Hence, also, we learn the end of miracles; for this expression amounts to a declaration that Christ, in order to manifest his glory, performed this miracle. What, then, ought we to think of those miracles which obscure the glory of Christ?
And his disciples believed on him. If they were disciples, they must already have possessed some faith; but as they had hitherto followed him with a faith which was not distinct and firm, they began at that time to devote themselves to him, so as to acknowledge him to be the Messiah, such as he had already been announced to them. The forbearance of Christ is great in reckoning as disciples those whose faith is so small. And indeed this doctrine extends generally to us all; for the faith which is now full grown had at first its infancy, nor is it so perfect in any as not to make it necessary that all to a man should make progress in believing. Thus, they who now believed may be said to begin to believe, so far as they daily make progress towards the end of their faith. Let those who have obtained the first-fruits of faith labor always to make progress. These words point out likewise the advantage of miracles; namely, that they ought to be viewed as intended for the confirmation and progress of faith. Whoever twists them to any other purpose corrupts and debases the whole use of them; as we see that Papists boast of their pretended miracles for no other purpose than to bury faith, and to turn away the minds of men from Christ to the creatures.
12. He went down to Capernaum. The Evangelist passes to an additional narrative; for having resolved to collect a few things worthy of remembrance which the other three had left out, he states the time when the occurrence which he is about to relate took place; for the other three also relate what we here read that Christ did, but the diversity of the time shows that it was a similar event, but not the same. On two occasions, then, did Christ cleanse the temple from base and profane merchandise; once, when he was beginning to discharge his commission, and another time, (Mat 21:12; Mar 11:15; Luk 19:45,) when he was about to leave the world and go to the Father, (Joh 16:28.)
To obtain a general view of the passage, it will be necessary briefly to examine the details in their order. That oxen, and sheep, and doves, were exposed to salein the temple, and that money-changers were sitting there, was not without a plausible excuse. For they might allege that the merchandise transacted there was not irreligious, but, on the contrary, related to the sacred worship of God, that every person might obtain, without difficulty, what he might offer to the Lord; and, certainly, it was exceedingly convenient for godly persons to find oblations of any sort laid ready to their hand, and in this way to be freed from the trouble of running about in various directions to obtain them. We are apt to wonder, therefore, why Christ was so highly displeased with it. But there are two reasons which deserve our attention. First, as the Priests abused this merchandise for their own gain and avarice, such a mockery of God could not be endured. Secondly, whatever excuse men may plead, as soon as they depart, however slightly, from the command of God, they deserve reproof and need correction. And this is the chief reason why Christ undertook to purify the temple; for he distinctly states that the temple of God is not a place of merchandise
But it may be asked, Why did he not rather begin with doctrine? For it seems to be a disorderly and improper method to apply the hand for correcting faults, before the remedy of doctrine has been applied. But Christ had a different object in view: for the time being now at hand when he would publicly discharge the office assigned to him by the Father, he wished in some way to take possession of the temple, and to give a proof of his divine authority. And that all might be attentive to his doctrine, it was necessary that something new and strange should be done to awaken their sluggish and drowsy minds. Now,the temple was a sanctuary of heavenly doctrine and of true religion. Since he wished to restore purity of doctrine, it was of great importance that he should prove himself to be the Lord of the temple. Besides, there was no other way in which he could bring back sacrifices and the other exercises of religion to their spiritual design than by removing the abuse of them. What he did at that time was, therefore, a sort of preface to that reformation which the Father had sent him to accomplish. In a word, it was proper that the Jews should be aroused by this example to expect from Christ something that was unusual and out of the ordinary course; and it was also necessary to remind them that the worship of God had been corrupted and perverted, that they might not object to the reformation of those abuses
And his brethren. Why the brethren of Christ accompanied him, cannot be determined with certainty, unless, perhaps, they intended to go along with him to Jerusalem. The word brethren, it is well known, is employed, in the Hebrew language, to denote cousins and other relatives.
13. And the passover of the Jews was at hand; therefore Jesus went up to Jerusalem. The Greek words καὶ ἀνέβη, may be literally rendered, and he went up; but the Evangelist has used the copulative and instead of therefore; for he means that Christ went up at that time, in order to celebrate the passover at Jerusalem. There were two reasons why he did so; for since the Son of God became subject to the Law on our account, he intended, by observing with exactness all the precepts of the Law, to present in his own person a pattern of entire subjection and obedience. Again, as he could do more good, when there was a multitude of people, he almost always availed himself of such an occasion. Whenever, therefore, we shall afterwards find it said that Christ came to Jerusalem at the feast, let the reader observe that he did so, first, that along with others he might observe the exercises of religion which God had appointed, and, next, that he might publish his doctrine amidst a larger concourse of people.
16. Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise. At the second time that he drove the traders out of the Temple, the Evangelists relate that he used sharper and more severe language; for he said, that they had made the Temple of God a den of robbers, (Mat 21:13;) and this was proper to be done, when a milder chastisement was of no avail. At present, he merely warns them not to profane the Temple of God by applying it to improper uses. The Temple was called the house of God; because it was the will of God that there He should be peculiarly invoked; because there He displayed his power; because, finally, he had set it apart to spiritual and holy services.
My Father’s house. Christ declares himself to be the Son of God, in order to show that he has a right and authority to cleanse the Temple. As Christ here assigns a reason for what he did, if we wish to derive any advantage from it, we must attend chiefly to this sentence. Why, then, does he drive the buyers and sellers out of the Temple? It is that he may bring back to its original purity the worship of God, which had been corrupted by the wickedness of men, and in this way may restore and maintain the holiness of the Temple. Now that temple, we know, was erected, that it might be a shadow of those things the lively image of which is to be found in Christ. Thai; it might continue to be devoted to God, it was necessary that it should be applied exclusively to spiritual purposes. For this reason he pronounces it to be unlawful that it should be converted into a market-place; for he founds his statement on the command of God, which we ought always to observe. Whatever deceptions Satan may employ, let us know that any departure — however small — from the command of God is wicked. It was a plausible and imposing disguise, that; the worship of God was aided and promoted, when the sacrifices which were to be offered by believers were laid ready to their hand; but as God had appropriated his Temple to different purposes, Christ disregards the objections that might be offered against the order which God had appointed.
The same arguments do not apply, in the present day, to our buildings for public worship; but what is said about the ancient Temple applies properly and strictly to the Church, for it is the heavenly sanctuary of God on earth. We ought always, therefore, to keep before our eyes the majesty of God, which dwells in the Church, that it may not be defiled by any pollutions; and the only way in which its holiness can remain unimpaired is, that nothing shall be admitted into it that is at variance with the word of God.
17. And his disciples remembered. It is to no purpose that some people tease themselves with the inquiry how the disciples remembered a passage of Scripture, with the meaning of which they were hitherto unacquainted. For we must not understand that this passage of Scripture came to their remembrance at that time; but afterwards, when, having been taught by God, they considered with themselves what was the meaning of this action of Christ, by the direction of the Holy Spirit this passage of Scripture occurred to them. And, indeed, it does not always happen that the reason of God’s works is immediately perceived by us, but afterwards, in process of time, He makes known to us his purpose. And this is a bridle exceedingly well adapted to restrain our presumption, that we may not murmur against God, if at any time our judgment does not entirely approve of what he does. We are at the same time reminded, that when God holds us as it were in suspense, it is our duty to wait for the time of more abundant knowledge, and to restrain the excessive haste which is natural to us; for the reason why God delays the full manifestation of his works is, that he may keep us humble.
The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. The meaning is, that the disciples at length came to know, that the zeal for the house of God, with which Christ burned, excited him to drive out of it those profanations. By a figure of speech, in which a part is taken for the whole, David employs the name of the temple to denote the whole worship of God; for the entire verse runs thus:
the zeal of thy house hath eaten me up, and the reproaches of them who reproached thee have fallen on me, (Psa 69:9.)
The second clause corresponds to the first, or rather it is nothing else than a repetition explaining what had been said. The amount of both clauses is, that David’s anxiety about maintaining the worship of God was so intense, that he cheerfully laid down his head to receive all the reproaches which wicked men threw against God; and that he burned with suchzeal, that this single feeling swallowed up every other. He tells us that he himself had such feelings; but there can be no doubt that he described in his own person what strictly belonged to the Messiah.
Accordingly, the Evangelist says, that this was one of the marks by which the disciples knew that it was Jesus who protected and restored the kingdom of God. Now observe that they followed the guidance of Scripture, in order to form such an opinion concerning Christ as they ought to entertain; and, indeed, no man will ever learn what Christ is, or the object of what he did and suffered, unless he has been taught and guided by Scripture. So far, then, as each of us shall desire to make progress in the knowledge of Christ, it will be necessary that Scripture shall be the subject of our diligent and constant meditation. Igor is it without a good reason that David mentions the house of God, when the divine glory is concerned; for though God is sufficient for himself, and needs not the services of any, yet he wishes that his glory should be displayed in the Church. In this way he gives a remarkable proof of his love towards us, because he unites his glory — as it were, by an indissoluble link — with our salvation.
Now as Paul informs us that, in the example of the head, a general doctrine is presented to the whole body, (Rom 15:3,) let each of us apply to the invitation of Christ, that — so far as lies in our power — we may not permit the temple of God to be in any way polluted. But, at the same time, we must beware lest any man transgress the bounds of his calling. All of us ought to have zeal in common with the Son of God; but all are not at liberty to seize a whip, that we may correct vices with our hands; for we have not received the same power, nor have we been entrusted with the same commission.
18. What sign showest thou to us? When in so large an assembly no man laid hands on Christ, and none of the dealers in cattle or of the money-changers repelled him by violence, we may conclude that they were all stunned and struck with astonishment by the hand of God. And, therefore, if they had not been utterly blinded, this would have been a sufficiently evident miracle, that one man against a great multitude, an unarmed man against strong men, all unknown man against so great rulers, attempted so great an achievement. For since they were far stronger, why did they not oppose him, but because their hands were loosened and — as it were — broken?
Yet they have some ground for putting the question; for it does not belong to every man to change suddenly, if any thing is faulty or displeases him in the temple of God. All are, indeed, at liberty to condemn corruptions; but if a private man put forth his hand to remove them, he will be accused of rashness. As the custom of selling in the temple had been generally received, Christ attempted what was new and uncommon; and therefore they properly call on him to prove that he was sent by God; for they found their argument on this principle, that in public administration it is not lawful to make any change without an undoubted calling and command of God. But they erred on another point, by refusing to admit the calling of Christ, unless he had performed a miracle; for it was not an invariable rule that the Prophets and other ministers of God should perform miracles; and God did not limit himself to this necessity. They do wrong, therefore, in laying down a law to God by demanding a sign. When the Evangelist says that the Jews asked him, he unquestionably means by that term the multitude who were standing there, and, as it were, the whole body of the Church; as if he had said, that it was not the speech of one or two persons, but of the people.
19. Destroy this temple. This is an allegorical mode of expression; and Christ intentionally spoke with that degree of obscurity, because he reckoned them unworthy of a direct reply; as he elsewhere declares that he speaks to them in parables, because they are unable to comprehend the mysteries of the heavenly kingdom, (Mat 13:13.) But first he refuses to them the sign which they demanded, either because it would have been of no advantage, or because he knew that it was not the proper time. Some compliances he occasionally made even with their unreasonable requests, and there must have been a strong reason why he now refused. Yet that they may not seize on this as a pretense for excusing themselves, he declares that his power will be approved and confirmed by a sign of no ordinary value; for no greater approbation of the divine power in Christ could be desired than his resurrection from the dead. But he conveys this information figuratively, because he does not reckon them worthy of an explicit promise. In short, he treats unbelievers as they deserve, and at the same time protects himself against all contempt. It was not yet made evident, indeed, that they were obstinate, but Christ knew well what was the state of their feelings.
But it may be asked, since he performed so many miracles, and of various kinds, why does he now mention but one? I answer, he said nothing about all the other miracles, First, because his resurrection alone was sufficient to shut their mouth: Secondly, he was unwilling to expose the power of God to their ridicule; for even respecting the glory of his resurrection he spoke allegorically: Thirdly, I say that he produced what was appropriate to the case in hand; for, by these words, he shows that all authority over the Temple belongs to him, since his power is so great in building the true Temple of God.
This temple. Though he uses the word temple in accommodation to the present occurrence, yet the body of Christ is justly and appropriately called a temple. The body of each of us is called a tabernacle, (2. o 5:4; 2. e 1:13,) because the soul dwells in it; but the body of Christ was the abode of his Divinity. For we know that the Son of God clothed himself with our nature in such a manner that the eternal majesty of God dwelt in the flesh which he assumed, as in his sanctuary.
The argument of Nestorius, who abused this passage to prove that it is not one and the same Christ who is God and man, may be easily refuted. He reasoned thus: the Son of God dwelt in the flesh, as in a temple; therefore the natures are distinct, so that the same person was not God and man. But this argument might be applied to men; for it will follow that it is not one man whose soul dwells in the body as in a tabernacle; and, therefore, it is folly to torture this form of expression for the purpose of taking away the unity of Person in Christ. It ought to be observed, that our bodies also are called temples of God, (1. o 3:16, and 1. o 6:19; 2. o 6:16) but it is in a different sense, namely, because God dwells in us by the power and grace of his Spirit; but in Christ the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, so that he is truly God manifested in flesh, (1. i 3:16.)
I will raise it up again. Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity. And Paul reconciles both.
If the Spirit of Him, that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,
(Rom 8:11.)
While he makes the Spirit the Author of the resurrection, he calls Him indiscriminately sometimes the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes the Spirit of the Father.
20. Forty and six years. The computation of Daniel agrees with this passage, (Dan 9:25;) for he reckons seven weeks, which make Forty-nine years; but, before the last of these weeks had ended, the temple was finished. The time described in the history of Ezra is much shorter; but, though it has some appearance of contradiction, it is not at all at variance with the words of the Prophet. For, when the sanctuary had been reared, before the building of the temple was completed, they began to offer sacrifices. The work was afterwards stopped for a long time through the indolence of the people, as plainly appears from the complaints of the Prophet Hag 1:4; for he severely reproves the Jews for being too earnestly engaged in building their private dwellings, while they left the Temple of God in an unfinished state.
But why does he mention thattemple which had been destroyed by Herod about forty years before that time? For thetemple which they had at that time, though it had been built with great magnificence and at a vast expense, had been completed by Herod, contrary to the expectation of men, as is related by Josephus, (Ant. Book 15. chapter 11.) I think it probable that this new building of the temple was reckoned as if the ancient temple had always remained in its original condition, that it might be regarded with greater veneration; and that they spoke in the usual and ordinary manner, that their fathers, with the greatest difficulty, had scarcely built the temple in Forty-six, years
This reply shows plainly enough what was their intention in asking a sign; for if they had been ready to obey, with reverence, a Prophet sent by God, they would not have so disdainfully rejected what he had said to them about the confirmation of his office. They wish to have some testimony of divine power, and yet they receive nothing which does not correspond to the feeble capacity of man. Thus the Papists in the present day demand miracles, not that they would give way to the power of God, (for it is a settled principle with them to prefer men to God, and not to move a hair’s breadth from what they have received by custom and usage;) but that they may not appear to have no reason for rebelling against God, they hold out this excuse as a cloak for their obstinacy. In such a manner do the minds of unbelievers storm in them with blind impetuosity, that they desire to have the hand of God exhibited to them and yet do not wish that it should be divine.
When therefore he was risen from the dead. This recollection was similar to the former, which the Evangelist lately mentioned, (verse 17.) The Evangelist did not understand Christ when he said this; but the doctrine, which appeared to have been useless, and to have vanished into air, afterwards produced fruit in its own time. Although, therefore, many of the actions and sayings of our Lord are obscure for a time, we must not give them up in despair, or despise that which we do not all at once understand. (52) We ought to observe the connection of the words, thatthey believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken; for the Evangelist means that, by comparing the Scripture with the word of Christ, they were aided in making progress in faith.
(52) “Il ne faut pas pourtant quitter la tout par desespoir, ne mespriser ce que nous n’entendons pas tout incontinent.”
23. Many believed. The Evangelist appropriately connects this narrative with the former. Christ had not given such a sign as the Jews demanded; and now, when he produced no good effect on them by many miracles — except that they entertained a cold faith, which was only the shadow of faith — this event sufficiently proves that they did not deserve that he should comply with their wishes. It was, indeed, some fruit of the signs, that many believed in Christ, and in his name, so as to profess that they wished to follow his doctrine; for name is here put for authority. This appearance of faith, which hitherto was fruitless, might ultimately be changed into true faith, and might be a useful preparation for celebrating the name of Christ among others; and yet what we have said is true, that they were far from having proper feelings, so as to profit by the works of God, as they ought to have done.
Yet this was not a pretended faith by which they wished to gain reputation among men; for they were convinced that Christ was some great Prophet, and perhaps they even ascribed to him the honor of being the Messiah, of whom there was at that time a strong and general expectation. But as they did not understand the peculiar office of the Messiah, their faith was absurd, because it was exclusively directed to the world and earthly things. It was also a cold belief, and unaccompanied by the true feelings of the heart. For hypocrites assent to the Gospel, not that they may devote themselves in obedience to Christ, nor that with sincere piety they may follow Christ when he calls them, but because they do not venture to reject entirely the truth which they have known, and especially when they can find no reason for opposing it. For as they do not voluntarily, or of their own accord, make war with God, so when they perceive that his doctrine is opposed to their flesh and to their perverse desires, they are immediately offended, or at least withdraw from the faith which they had already embraced.
When the Evangelist says, therefore, that those men believed, I do not understand that they counterfeited a faith which did not exist, but that they were in some way constrained to enroll themselves as the followers of Christ; and yet it appears that their faith was not true and genuine, because Christ excludes them from the number of those on whose sentiments reliance might be placed. Besides, that faith depended solely on miracles, and had no root in the Gospel, and therefore could not be steady or permanent. Miracles do indeed assist the children of God in arriving at the truth; but it does not amount to actual believing, when they admire the power of God so as merely to believe that it is true, but not to subject themselves wholly to it. And, therefore, when we speak generally about faith, let us know that there is a kind of faith which is perceived by the understanding only, and afterwards quickly disappears, because it is not fixed in the heart; and that is the faith which James calls dead; but true faith always depends on the Spirit of regeneration, (Jas 2:17.) Observe, that all do not derive equal profit from the works of God; for some are led by them to God, and others are only driven by a blind impulse, so that, while they perceive indeed the power of God, still they do not cease to wander in their own imaginations.
24. But Christ did not rely on them. Those who explain the meaning to be, that Christ was on his guard against them, because he knew that they were not upright and faithful, do not appear to me to express sufficiently well the meaning of the Evangelist. Still less do I agree with what Augustine says about recent converts. The Evangelist rather means, in my opinion, that Christ did not reckon them to be genuine disciples, but despised them as volatile and unsteady. It is a passage which ought to be carefully observed, that not all who profess to be Christ’s followers are such in his estimation. But we ought also to add the reason which immediately follows:
Because he knew them all. Nothing is more dangerous than hypocrisy, for this reason among others, that it is an exceedingly common fault. There is scarcely any man who is not pleased with himself; and while we deceive ourselves by empty flatteries, we imagine that God is blind like ourselves. But here we are reminded how widely his judgment differs from ours; for he sees clearly those things which we cannot perceive, because they are concealed by some disguise; and he estimates according to their hidden source, that is, according to the most secret feeling of the heart, those things which dazzle our eyes by false luster. This is what Solomon says, that
God weighs in his balance the hearts of men, while they flatter themselves in their ways, (Pro 21:2.)
Let us remember, therefore, that none are the true disciples of Christ but those whom He approves, because in such a matter He alone is competent to decide and to judge.
A question now arises: when the Evangelist says that Christ knew them all, does he mean those only of whom he had lately spoken, or does the expression refer to the whole human race? Some extend it to the universal nature of man, and think that the whole world is here condemned for wicked and perfidious hypocrisy. And, certainly, it is a true statement, that Christ can find in men no reason why he should deign to place them in the number of his followers; but I do not see that this agrees with the context, and therefore I limit it to those who had been formerly mentioned.
25. For he knew what was in man. As it might be doubted whence Christ obtained this knowledge, the Evangelist anticipates this question, and replies that Christ perceived every thing in men that is concealed from our view, so that he could on his own authority make a distinction among men. Christ, therefore, who knows the hearts, had no need of any one to inform him what sort of men they were. He knew them to have such a disposition and such feelings, that he justly regarded them as persons who did not belong to him.
The question put by some — whether we too are authorized by the example of Christ to hold those persons as suspected who have not given us proof of their sincerity — has nothing to do with the present passage. There is a wide difference between him and us; for Christ knew the very roots of the trees, but, except from the fruits which appear outwardly, we cannot discover what is the nature of any one tree. Besides, as Paul tells us, that charity is not suspicious, (1. o 13:5,) we have no right to entertain unfavorable suspicions about men who are unknown to us. But, that we may not always be deceived by hypocrites, and that the Church may not be too much exposed to their wicked impostures, it belongs to Christ to impart to us the Spirit of discretion.
Joh 2:1. And the third day there was a marriage- On the third day after Jesus and his disciples arrived in Galilee, they went to a marriage feast (see on Mat 22:1-2.) in Cana; which is mentioned, Jos 19:28, as situated in the possession of the tribe of Asher not far from thecity of Sidon, and by consequence in the most northern part of Galilee. Hence it was called Cana of Galilee, to distinguish it from another Cana in the tribe of Ephraim, mentioned Jos 16:8; Jos 17:9. This latter Cana therefore was at no great distance from Jerusalem. Here Jesus furnished wine by miracle for the entertainment, at the desire of his mother, who was also bidden. Dr. Clarke thinks, that our Lord, in the course of his private life, had sometimes exerted his divine power for the relief of his friends; and that his mother, having seen and heard of those miracles, knew the greatness of his power, and so applied to him on this occasion. Or we may suppose that she had heard him speak of the miracles he was to perform, for the confirmation of his mission, and the benefit of mankind, and begged him to favour his friends with one in the present necessity. Probably Mary interested herself in this matter, because she was a relation, or an intimate acquaintance of the new-married couple, and had the management of the entertainment committed to her care. Some have supposed that this marriage was celebrated at the house of Cleophas or Alpheus, whose wife was sister to the mother of our Lord, (Ch. Joh 19:25.) and one of whose sons was Simon the Canaanite, whom some have thought to have been so called from being an inhabitant of this Cana, Mar 3:18 and this may be considered the more probable, as Mary was not only present at the feast, but was there-as a person concerned, and was solicitous about supplying them with wine, which, mixed with water, was the common beverage of the country: and when the feast was over, we are told, Joh 2:12 that Jesus was attended, on his leaving Cana, not only by his disciples, but by his brethren, or nearest kinsmen, who most likely came thither, as relations, to be present at the marriage. As Mary here is spoken of alone, it may be reasonable to conclude, that Joseph was now dead, and that he lived not to the time when Jesus entered on his public ministry; especially as he is nowhere mentioned in the gospel afterwards.
Joh 2:2. Jesus was called, and his disciples,- Was invited, &c. The persons called his disciples, who were with him at this marriage, as also at Jerusalem, and who accompanied him to the distant parts of Judea, and baptized those who offered themselves to his baptism, (see Ch. Joh 3:22 Joh 4:1-2.) seem to have been Philip, Simon, Andrew, and Nathanael, the four mentioned in the preceding chapter; for as these transactions happened before the Baptist's imprisonment, (Ch. Joh 3:24.) we cannot think that the disciples present at them had followed Jesus in consequence of the call given near the sea of Galilee, Mat 4:18 or the call spoken of Luk 5:1; Luk 5:39 because it is certain that neither the one nor the other was given till after the Baptist was put in prison.
Joh 2:3. When they wanted wine, &c.- The wine beginning to fail;- υστερησαντος . But a small stock possibly was provided at first, as the persons were not in the highest circumstances; and that began to fail the sooner, as greater numbers of guests attended than were expected, probably on account of Jesus, whose fame began to spread abroad. His mother, provident for the young couple, and having conceived great expectations, as she had good grounds, of her wonderfulSon,whosemiraculousconceptionshecouldneverforget,-anymorethan the wonderful circumstances which attended his birth,-and whose entrance on his public ministry she now observed with joy, witnessed as it was by a voice from heaven, and by the testimony of the Baptist-in this situation of things his mother saith unto him, They have no wine; hinting, as our Saviour's answer shews, that he would afford some miraculous supply; and it is plain, that notwithstanding the rebuke she met with, yet she had still a view to this by her direction to the servants afterwards, Joh 2:5.
Joh 2:4. Woman, what have I to do with thee?- The compellation with which Jesus addressed his mother, sounds harsh in our language, because with us it is never used, where respect is meant to be shewn. Nevertheless, woman anciently was a term of honour, being used in speaking to persons of the first quality, as wefind in the politest writers of antiquity. Besides, it was that by which our Lord addressed her at a time when his respect and tenderness for her cannot be called in question,-ch. Joh 19:26. The clause which in our translation runs, What have I to do with thee, might be rendered so as to have a milder aspect. What hast thou to do with me? For the original words τι εμοι και σοι, are evidently used in this sense, 2Sa 19:22. Mar 5:7. What hast thou to do with me? Mine hour is not yet come. "The season of my public ministry in this country is not yet come. Before I work miracles in Galilee, I must go into Judea and preach, where the Baptist, my forerunner, has been preparing my way." Some translate the latter clause interrogatively, Is not mine hour come? "The season of my public ministry, at which period your authority over me ceases?" Upon the whole, our Lord's answer to his mother, though perhaps intended as a slight rebuke, was not in the least disrespectful; as is evident likewise from the temper with which she received it, and from her desiring the servants to do whatever he ordered them. The generality of writers upon this subject have observed, with great justice I have no doubt, that this rebuke was intended by our Lord, in his prophetic spirit, as a standing testimony against that idolatry, which he foresaw after-ages would superstitiously bestow upon his mother, even to the robbing him of the right and honour of his alone Mediatorship and intercession.
Joh 2:6. After the manner of the purifying of the Jews,- Besides the purifications appointed by the law of God, there were a multitude of others then practised, in compliance with the tradition of the elders. Possibly this clause is thrown in by St. John, by way of explanation, as he wrote this gospel for the use of the Gentiles, who might be strangers to the Jewish customs. These water-pots are said to contain two or three firkins a-piece. Now the measures of the ancients are so very uncertain, that it is hardly possible to determine the exact contents of these vessels: some have computed them to contain about two or three hogsheads; and the Greek is so rendered in our translation, as to make them contain above one hundred gallons; but it is hardly probable the vessels were so large; and as the original word μετρητας signifies no more than measures, it is much better that we should leave it as we find it, unless the quantity could be determined with more certainty. It seems most probable that as the Jewish bath was the most common measure used in liquids, this is the quantity designed, where measuresare expressed without any limitation; and as the Jewish bath is reckoned to contain four gallons and a half, the contents of these vessels, if they are computed only at two measures each, will amount to no less than fifty-four gallons.
Joh 2:7. Fill the water-pots with water:- Mary was without doubt blameable for presuming to direct her Son in the duties of his ministry, her parental authority not extending to those matters; therefore he very justly gave her the gentle rebuke, Joh 2:4 in which he insinuated that his miracles were not to be performed at the desire of his relations for civil and private reasons; but in pursuance of the great ends that he had in charge,-the conversion and salvation of mankind. But though Mary might have had only private reasons of conveniency for asking this miracle, yet Jesus, knowing that it would tend to the confirmation of his disciples' faith, and to the advancement of his great cause, thought proper to comply; being not the less willing to exert his power, because his friends would reap some benefit from the matter of the miracle. Ordering the servants therefore to fill thewater-pots, which were at hand, to the brim, with water, he converted the whole mass of the liquid into excellent wine. The quantity of water turned into wine on this occasion, deserves notice. We have spoken something on the subject in the preceding note. The following is Dr. Macknight's remark: "The six water-pots in which the wine was formed, being appointed, for such purifications or washings as required the immersion of the whole body, were of a very large capacity; so that, being filled to the brim, there was an abundance of wine produced: but the deists, a sort of people who look on all Christ's actions with an evil eye, have not let this escape their censure, making it the subject of ridicule. This might have been spared, had they considered that the speech made by the governor of the feast to the bridegroom, Joh 2:10 does not imply that any of the company were drunk, as they would have itbelieved: it is only a comparison between the order in which he had produced his liquor, and that commonly observed by other people. [But see the note on that verse.] Besides, it ought to be considered, that Jesus did not order all the wine he furnished to be drank at this solemnity; though, according to the custom of Judea, it lasted a whole week. [See Jdg 14:12; Jdg 14:20 and the notes on Solomon's Song.] It is probable, that our Lord designed to provide for the future occasions of the new-married couple, making them a valuable and seasonable nuptial present in this delicate though miraculous manner: and surely he, who in the first creation made such liberal provision for the necessities of men, might on a particular occasion, when he was formingnourishment for the natural life of his friends, do it plentifully; because thus the favour was enhanced, and by the quantity furnished he both shewed his own exuberant goodness, and gave such magnificence to the miracle, as removed it beyond all probability of fraud. Whereas, had the quantity been considerably less,-only the cup, for instance, which was borne to the governor of the feast (as some have thought), who knows but the enemies of Christianity might have affirmed that here was no miracle at all; but that the water was artfully changed, and wine put into its place?-an impossible cheat in so large a quantity, especially as the transmutation happened the moment the vessels were filled. We need not then dispute with the deists, concerning the capacity of the measure mentioned by the Evangelist: let them make it as large as they please; let them suppose it was the attic measure of that name, equal to our firkin, and that each water-pot held three of those measures, the miracle will still be decent, and in all respects worthy both of the wisdom and goodness of him who performed it."
Joh 2:8. Bear unto the governor of the feast.- Among the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, it was usual at great entertainments, especially at marriage feasts, to appoint a master of the ceremonies, who not only gave directions concerning the form and method of the entertainment, but likewise prescribed the regulations in respect to drinking. Jesus therefore ordered the wine which he had formed, to be carried to the governor of the feast, that by his judgment passed upon it, in the hearing of all the guests, it might be known to be genuine wine of the best kind. Our Lord's furnishing wine for the feast by miracle shews, that all the creatures which God's power hath formed for, and his bounty bestowed on man, may be used consistently with piety, provided that the benefits be sanctified to us by the word of God, and by prayer; that is, if they be used in moderation, as the word of God directs, and with due expressions of thankfulness. We may observe, that every circumstance in this miracle was wonderfully directed by our Lord to shew its reality. For this purpose, Jesus ordered the water-pots to be filled with water; for the servants who poured the water out of one vessel into the other, could easily see that there was nothing but water in the vessel from which they had poured; and when the other was filled to the brim, it was equally visible that the vessel which they had filled, had nothing but water in it likewise. Further, it was known to all the guests that these pots or vessels never contained any thing but water; and as all the guests had washed themselves with the fluid contained in them, they were convinced that they held nothing but water. The changing of the water in the vessels was another proof to the same purpose; and the drawing out instantly shewed that there could be no fraud. The servants were so far from being parties with Jesus in any collusion, that they seem not to have known, or to have been willing to obey him, had not Mary ordered them to do it; which is another proof of the reality of this miracle. The ignorance of the governor concerning the filling of the pots, and the change made in the water, shews that he could not have been concerned in any deceit; as his, and not the guests tasting of the wine, and applauding it, shews that no other person could have been a party in the fraud, if there was any. These and other circumstances, which the diligent reader will observe, abundantly prove the reality of the miracle, and set it above the probability of a cavil.
Joh 2:9-10. The governor of the feast called the bridegroom,- The governor's application to the bridegroom, and not to Jesus, shews him to have been ignorant of the miracle; and could have proceeded from no other reason than his persuasion, that this wine had been provided at the expence of the bridegroom. Surprised at the exquisite delicacy of the flavour, he said to the bridegroom, "It is usualwith most men to set forth the good wine- τον καλον οινον, -at the beginning; and when men have drank plentifully,- οταν μεθυσθωσι,- then that which is worse: thou hast proceeded in a different manner; thou hast kept the good wine until now." In which words every discerning reader must remark, that there is not the least room for those many blasphemous insults upon the pure and spotless character of the holy Jesus, which deists and infidels have the hardiness to throw out, as we hinted on Joh 2:7. For, in the first place, the governor of the feast does not say even so much as that the present guests had drank plentifully; he only urges the common proceedings in such festivals as these; and the words rather countenance a contrary opinion, for he says, "Every man sets forth good wine at the beginning, and when it shall happen that men shall have drank plentifully, then that which is worse: thou (without any connecting particle in the original) hast kept the good wine until now. Thou hast not done as others do; the best wine comes last." Herein is the whole of the comparison: he by no means says that they had drank plentifully, or to excess: it is more than probable, that there was no appearance of such irregularity or excess; seeing that the governor was thus capable of distinguishing the relish of the good wine so instantly, which, when men have well drunk, is not the case; and therefore it is, that, as he says, bad wine is brought last. However, allowing, secondly, that the words, when men have well drunk, did refer to the present guests; yet the true meaning of the original word Μεθυσθωσι, and its use in scripture, shew that it signifies, not criminal drinking, or drinking to excess; its proper and immediate sense is, to drink after sacrificing, and so it is used in a religious import; and in several instances in scripture it is applied to drinking where there could be no excess. See Eph 5:18. But, thirdly, allowing both these objections to be true, namely, that these guests had already drunk well, and that the word so rendered does import criminal drinking; yet it will by no means follow, that the miracle which Christ now wrought was intended to encourage any vice of this sort. Far from the mouths of Christians, far from the hearts of men, be the least surmise or supposition of such a sort! It is most reasonable to conclude, that the change of the water into wine drew off their attention wholly from the feast to this divine and wonderful Person, who thus manifested forth his glory,and obtained the faith of his disciples: it is most reasonable to conclude, that this was a great means of sobriety and seriousness, bringing the be-holders to the usual admiration What manner of man is this!
Joh 2:11. And manifested forth his glory:- That is, demonstrated his power and character to the conviction of the disciples, and in some sense and degree to that of all the guests. This being the first miracle that they had ever seen Jesus perform, it tended not a little to the confirmation of their faith, and made his fame spread over all the neighbouring country. Moses confirmed his mission by producing water from a rock; but our Lord, by changing water into wine: and by that change he manifested himself to be the Lord of the creation. It was as easy for that Omnipotence which is the author of all things, to do this in the present method, as it is for him to do it every year from the moisture descending from heaven, which is imbibed by the roots of the vine, and after frequent filtrations is ripened in the grape. It is true the frequency with which this change occurs, renders it familiar and unnoticed; but when water is changed into wine in the vessels, the novelty makes a stronger impression on the mind; and the effect, though not a greater exertion of Almighty power than that which is produced by the common course of nature, strikes us much more than that which is become familiar.
Joh 2:14. And found in the temple- Moses, in Deu 14:24-25 from considering the necessity of the Jews resorting to the capital of their country, and the inconveniences which would attend the driving the cattle which were to be offered, and could be offered only there, gave them liberty, under the direction of Jehovah, to carrymoney with them, and purchase their victims on the spot. When, therefore, the Jews were dispersed among all nations, this injunction seemed not only convenient and prudent, but even necessary; and therefore it was appointed that those animals which were used in sacrifices, should be sold without the temple near the gates. This institution whichwas so convenient, was in process of time turned into abuse; and the market was at length kept in the very court of the Gentiles, the only place which was allotted to the Gentiles to worship in. The noise of the cattle, and the hurry of the place, were great obstacles to worship, especially when we consider that the numbers who thronged this court, amounted at one passover to no less than 3,000,000; when, according to Josephus, no less than 256,500 victims were offered. But the abuse did not rest here; for it is generally supposed that the priests let out this part of the temple for profit; and that the sellers, to enable themselves to pay the rent of their shops and stalls, demanded an exorbitant price for their commodities. Nay, it is said, that the priests and Levites very often sold the animals which they had received for sacrifices, to the dealers in cattle at a lower rate, that they might sell them again with profit; so that the same sacrifice was often sold to different persons, and the spoils or gains of the sacrifices were divided between the priests and the salesmen. In order to expedite this traffic, there were money-changers at hand, who gave the Jews of foreign countries the current money of Judea, in lieu of the money of the countries whence they came; and for this service they took a premium, which upon the whole became very considerable. Thus was the temple profaned by the avarice of the priests, and literally made a den of thieves. When our Lord viewed this scene of iniquity, we need not wonder at his indignation; for it was a zeal, which shewed his high regard to religion, and his implacable enmity to vice; while at the same time it illustrated the character given him by the prophet Mal 3:1.
Joh 2:15. A scourge of small cords,- It has been very justly observed, that this circumstance, seemingly slight, is inserted to shew that the instrument could not have been the cause of so wonderful an effect.
Joh 2:16. Make not my Father's house, &c.- It is remarkable, that at this ejection of those who profaned the temple, our Saviour says, Make not my Father's house, &c. but when he repeated this miracle towards the close of his life, when he had proved his divinity by a variety of miracles, he says My house, (Mat 21:13.) and rises in his expression there, respecting the abuse of this house; in which the Jews were the more inexcusable, and therefore deserved severer rebuke the second time, on account of this first experience of his holy indignation.
Joh 2:17. And his disciples remembered, &c.- In the apprehension of the disciples, their Lord exposed himself to great danger by turning out a body of factious and interested men, whom the priests and rulers supported. On this occasion, therefore, they called to mind that text in the Psalms, where it is said, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; imputing their Master's actions to such a concern for the purity of God's worship, as that by which David, his great type, was animated. See on Psa 69:9.
Joh 2:18. Then answered the Jews, &c.- A fact so public and remarkable as this, could not but immediately come to the knowledge of the priests and rulers of the Jews, whose supreme council sat in a magnificent chamber belonging to the temple; a fine rotunda, called from its beautiful pavement, Lishcath Hagazith, which stood on the wall of the temple, part of it within, and part of it without its sacred precincts. There seems to be no doubt that the Jews here mentioned were rulers; because we know that the great assembly of the Jewish rulers,-the sanhedrim,-sat in the temple. Christ's driving out the buyers and sellers must undoubtedly have come to their knowledge; and as their office seemed to authorise them to call him to an account, we are sure that their prejudicesagainst him would incline them to do it. The truth is, this affair had the mark of anextraordinary zeal; a zeal nothing inferior to that for which the prophets were famed; and this was the reason why the rulers came to him, desiring to know by what authority he had undertaken singly to make such reformation in the house and worship of God, especially in reference to matters which had been declared lawful by the council, and by doctors of the greatest reputation: and if he had any real authority for doing such things, they required him to shew it them, by working a miracle for that purpose. See Joh 2:23.
Joh 2:19. Destroy this temple,- The miracle which our Lord had already performed, in driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple, was sufficient to convince them of the authority by which he made this reformation, if they were to have been convinced by any miracle at all. Therefore our Lord, instead of satisfying their unreasonable demands, refers them to the great miracle of his resurrection; but refers them to it in such obscure terms, as prejudiced minds could not understand, till the prophesy itself was cleared and explained by the event; yet, if he either pointed to his body, or alluded to their commonly received opinions, one would wonder that they should have mistaken his meaning so far, as to suppose that he meant the temple in which they were at that time assembled. The temple itself was supposed to be inhabited by the Divinity, and to derive its holiness from that circumstance; but as the Divinity dwelt in the body of Christ, that body deserved the name of temple more justly than the building made with hands. One of the rabbies says expressly, that the Messiah, the holy Son of David, is the Holy of Holies; and if that opinion existed in the time of Christ, as probably it might, there could be no great obscurity in the application of this term then. By a similar figure of speech, the apostle calls the bodies of believers-the temple of God, on account of the inhabitation of the Holy Ghost. See Mar 14:58. Instead of destroy this temple, Dr. Heylin reads, ye will destroy. In the prophetic stile, says he, the imperative is often used for the future.
Joh 2:20. Forty and six years was this temple, &c.- Hath this temple been in building. Heylin. Though Herod finished what he proposed in eight or nine years, yet the Jews continued to beautify and adorn the temple for many years afterwards, even to the year 65.
Joh 2:22. And they believed the scripture,- They yet more firmly believed the scripture in all its prophesies concerning the Messiah's kingdom; and their faith in him was confirmed by the word which Jesus had spoken; for such a wonderful event as the resurrection of Christ, considered in its connection with this solemn prediction, justly appeared as the fullest conceivable proof of the whole plan of redemptio
Joh 2:23. In the feast-day,- At the festival,- εν τη εορτη . Dr. Heylin renders it at the festival of the passover. See on Mat 26:5. The miracles here spoken of, as well as those Ch. Joh 3:2 and Joh 4:45 plainly refer to some miracles wrought by Christ, the particulars of which are not transmitted to us.
Joh 2:24. Jesus did not commit himself unto them,- Did not discover himself to be the Messiah. He did not trust to those who believed merely on account of his miracles.-Because he knew all men. He had perfect knowledge of their dispositions, and was assured, on the present occasion, that the belief of many was not yet grown up to a full conviction; and foresaw that they would quickly fall off, when they found that he was rejected by the great men, and did not erect a secular empire. From the caution which Jesus used, we may learn, not rashly to put ourselves and our usefulness into the power of others; but to study a wise and happy medium between that universal prejudice and suspicion, which, while it wrongs the best and most worthy characters, would deprive us of all the pleasures of an intimate friendship; and an undistinguishing easiness and openness of temper, which might make us the property of every hypocritical pretender to kindness and respect.
Inferences drawn from the marriage in Cana, Joh 2:1-11. Was this then the first public miracle, O Saviour, that thou wroughtest? And could there be a greater miracle than this, that, having been thirty years upon earth, thou didst no miracle till now? That thy Divinity did hide itself thus long in flesh? That so long thou wouldst lie obscure in a corner of Galilee, unknown to that world which thou camest to redeem? That so long thou wouldst strain the patient expectation of those, who ever since the appearance of thy star waited for the revelation of a Messiah? We, silly creatures, if we have but a grain of virtue, are ready to set it out to the best appearance. Thou who receivedst not the Spirit by measure, wouldst content thyself with a willing obscurity, and concealedst that power which made the world-under the roof of a human breast, in a cottage of Nazareth! O Saviour, no one of thy miracles is more worthy of astonishment than thy not doing of miracles!
Thy first public miracle graceth a marriage. It is an antient and laudable institution. That the rites of matrimony should not want a solemn celebration, the Son of the Virgin, and the mother of that Son are both at the wedding. He that made the first marriage in Paradise, bestows his first miracle upon a Galilean marriage. He that was the author of matrimony, and sanctifies it, doth, by his holy presence, honour the resemblance of his eternal union with his church of the faithful. How boldly may be contemned all the impure adversaries of wedlock, when the Son of God pleases thus to honour it!
Happy is that wedding, where Christ is a guest! O Saviour, there is no holy marriage whereat thou art not; however invisible, yet truly present by thy Spirit and gracious benediction. Thou who hast betrothed thy believing people to thyself in truth and righteousness, do thou consummate that happy marriage of ours in the highest heavens.
It was no rich or sumptuous bridal to which Christ, and his mother, and his disciples, vouchsafed to come. We find him not at the magnificent feasts or triumphs of the great. The proud pomp of the world did not agree with the state of a servant: this Galilean bridegroom, before the expiration of his festival, wants drink for the accommodation of his guests.
The blessed Virgin feels a charitable compassion; and, from a friendly desire to maintain the decency of a hospitable entertainment, inquires into the wants of her host, pities them, and seeks anxiously to redress them. How well does it become the eyes of piety and Christian love to look into the necessities of others!
To whom should we complain of any want, but to the Maker and Giver of all things? When they wanted wine, The mother of Jesus said unto him, They have no wine. The blessed Virgin certainly, in some degree, knew to whom she sued. It would have been hard if some of the neighbour-guests, when duly solicited, had not been able to furnish the bridegroom with so much wine as might suffice for the remainder of the feast: but Mary evidently thought it best not to lade at the shallow channel, but rather to go to the fountain-head, where she might dip and fill the firkins at once with ease. It may be she saw that the train of Christ might help forward that defect; and therefore she justly solicits Jesus for a supply. Whether we want bread, or water, or wine, necessaries or comforts, whither should we run, O Saviour, but to that infinite munificence of thine, which neither denieth nor upbraideth? We cannot want if we cleave to thee: we cannot abound but from thee: give us what thou wilt, so thou give us contentment with what thou givest.
But what is this we hear?-A sharp answer to the suit of a mother.-Woman, what have I to do with thee? He, whose sweet mildness and mercy never sent away any supplicant discontented,-doth he only frown upon her who bare him?-He that commands us to honour father and mother, doth he disdain her, whose flesh he assumed? God forbid! But love and duty do not exempt parents from due admonition: she solicited Christ as a mother; he answers her as a woman: if she was the mother of his flesh, his Deity was eternal. She might not so remember herself to be a mother, that she should forget she was a woman; nor so look upon him as a son, that she should not regard him as a God: he was so obedient to her as a mother, that withal she might obey him as her God. Neither is it for us, in the holy affairs of God, to know any faces; yea, if we have known Christ heretofore according to the flesh, henceforth know we him so no more; much less do we substitute a woman as a mediator between God and man.
Yet even in this rough answer, as it may seem, doth the blessed Virgin descry cause of hope. If his hour was not yet come, it was therefore coming: when the expectation of the guests and the necessity of the occasion have made fit room for the miracle, it shall come forth and challenge their wonder. Faithfully therefore and observantly does she turn her speech from Jesus to the attendants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
However, she that had said of herself, Be it unto me according to thy word, now humbly says to others, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. This is the way to have miracles wrought for us, and in us,-obedience to his word. The power of Christ did not depend on the officiousness of these servants: he could have wrought wonders equally without their contribution; but their perverse refusal of his commands might have rendered them incapable of the favour of a miraculous exertion.
This scanty house was yet furnished with many and large vessels for outward purification, as if iniquity had dwelt upon the skin. Alas! it is the soul which needs scouring; and nothing can wash that, but the Blood which they desperately wished upon themselves and their children, for guilt, not for expiation. Purge thou us, O Lord, with hyssop, and we shall be clean; wash us, and we shall be whiter than snow.
The waiters could not but think so unseasonable a command, as we read in Joh 2:7.-Fill the water-pots with water, to be very strange. "It is wine that we want; why do we go to fetch water? If there be no other remedy, we could have sought this supply unbidden:" and yet so far has the command prevailed, that instead of talking of carrying flaggons of wine to the table, they go to fetch water in their vessels from their cisterns. There is no pleading of improbabilities against the command of an Almighty power.
How liberal are the provisions of Christ! If he had but turned the water in one of those vessels into wine, it had been a just proof of his power. But the abundance magnifies at once both his power and mercy. The munificent hand of God regards not our wants only, but our honest affluence; it is our sin and our shame if we turn his favours into wantonness.
There must be first a filling, ere there can be a drawing out. Thus in our vessels, the first care must be of our receipt, the next of our expence: God would have us to be first cisterns, and then channels. Our Saviour would not be his own taster, but he sends the first draught to the governor of the feast. He knew his own power, they did not; neither would he bear witness of himself, but draw it out of the mouths of others. They who knew not the original of that wine, yet praised the taste, Joh 2:10. Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, &c. but thou hast kept the good wine until now. The same bounty which expressed itself in the quantity of the wine, shews itself no less in the excellence: nothing can fall from that Divine hand which is not exquisite: that liberality would not provide mean accommodation for its guests. It was fit that the miraculous effects of Christ, which came from his immediate hand, should be more perfect than the natural. O blessed Saviour, how delicate is that new wine which we shall one day drink with thee in thy Father's kingdom! Yes, gracious Lord, thou shalt turn this water of our earthly afflictions into that wine of gladness, wherewith our souls shall be richly replenished for ever and ever! Make haste, my beloved; and be thou like to a roe, or to a young hart upon the mountains of spices.
REFLECTIONS.-1st, The first miracle of Jesus was wrought at a marriage-feast in Cana of Galilee. It was probably a marriage of some near relation of his mother Mary's, who seemed not to be there merely as a guest, but as one of the family. Christ was invited, and refused not the invitation given him on this occasion, but went with his disciples to grace the bridal feast with his presence and company, and put an honour upon the institution. Note; (1.) Our marriages can only then be expected to issue happily, when Jesus with his benediction crowns the indissoluble union. (2.) Religion teaches none to be unsocial or uncivil, but commands us to rejoice with those that rejoice. We are told,
1. The concern expressed by the mother of Jesus to her Son on account of the deficiency of the wine at this entertainment. The number of the guests, perhaps more than were expected, consumed the small quantity which these persons, who were probably in mean circumstances, had provided, and they might not be able to afford more. It seems she expected that he would soon begin to display his glorious power, and intimated that the present necessity afforded an opportunity for his miraculous assistance. Note; A genuine Christian interests himself in the distresses of his friends; and, when he can do no more to relieve them, fails not to commend their case to the kind Saviour's notice.
2. Our Lord gives her a reprimand for interfering in matters which did not belong to her. Though he was her son after the flesh, yet in the exercise of his miraculous powers he acted as the Son of God, and owed her no obedience. What a direct condemnation of the horrid idolatry of that church, which prays to the mother to command her Son! Besides, he adds, My hour is not yet come: the time for the public manifestation of his glory, by his openly performing miracles, was not yet come.
3. Though his mother silently submitted to his pleasure, she entertained hopes that he would grant her request, and take the matter into his consideration; and therefore privately bade the servants obey whatever orders he should give them. Note; (1.) We must not be discouraged in our faith, if our prayers are not immediately answered. (2.) Christ's commands are implicitly to be obeyed, without reasoning or hesitation.
4. Christ performs the miracle; and with circumstances which eminently displayed his glory. Six water-pots of stone were placed there, containing about two or three firkins each (see the annotations.). These water-pots Christ bids the servants fill with water to the brim, that there might be no suspicion of fraud in the miracle. They obeyed, and instantly the strange conversion was wrought. He orders them hereupon to draw out and carry this liquor to the governor of the feast, the person who was master of the ceremonies, or sat in the most honourable place on that occasion. No sooner had he tasted the wine which had been water, than he was struck with the delicious flavour, and, unacquainted whence it came, he observed to the bridegroom with surprize his unusual method of procedure. Others usually produced their best wine first, and afterwards, when men had well drank, that which was worse; but he had kept the good wine to the last, as the grace-cup, to conclude the entertainment. Note; (1.) God's creatures, and wine among the rest, are given for the good of man, and may be used with moderation; only we must be very careful that we do not, by intemperance, abuse our mercies and turn our blessings into curses by excess. (2.) Feasts need a governor to restrain the irregularities of those, who else perhaps, to their shame, would have no government over themselves. (3.) Whatever consolations believers here enjoy, the greatest are reserved for them at last, when, at the marriage-supper of the Lamb, they shall drink the new wine in the kingdom of God.
5. At the conclusion of this miracle the evangelist observes, that this was the first which Jesus performed after his entrance on his ministry; wherein he manifested forth his glory in such displays of his power and grace, wrought by his authoritative word, as exalted his own great name, and proved his own eternal Godhead and glory; and his disciples believed on him, confirmed in their assurance of the truth of that high character which he assumed. Note; The more we become acquainted with Christ in his word, the more shall we be convinced that this is he who should come, and shall be engaged to rest our souls on him for life and salvation.
2nd, Capernaum was the place where Christ usually resided, Mat 4:13. Hither he came with his mother, brethren, and disciples, who, struck with what they had seen, attended him to observe the further manifestations of his divine power and glory which he should make. His abode at this time at Capernaum was not many days, the Passover being at hand, which called him up to Jerusalem. Where we find him,
1. Purging the temple of those intruders who had defiled that holy place. Under pretence of accommodating with sacrifices, and change of money, those who came up to worship, a market was kept in the temple by the connivance of the priests, who probably made some considerable advantage by permitting such a profanation. But Christ, beholding with indignation such corruptions in the house of God, immediately began to vindicate the honour of that sacred inclosure, and, having made a scourge of cords, he drove out the traders with their beasts, overturned the tables of the money-changers, and bade those who sold doves to take them away; remonstrating with them on the wickedness of their conduct, Make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. Note; (1.) The love of filthy lucre is generally at the root of the corruptions which creep into the church of God. (2.) If God is our Father, we cannot but be grieved to see him dishonoured, and should zealously appear in his cause. (3.) They who are bold and faithful for God, will often see that one can chase a thousand; and that, if we dare stand up in his name, the consciences of sinners will cover them with confusion.
2. The disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. And this still more confirmed their faith, as they observed the scripture prophesies accomplished in him.
3. Being questioned by the Jews concerning the authority on which he acted, and required to give a sign in proof of the mission to which he pretended, He answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Since they refused to be convinced by other miracles, he refers them to the last sign which should be wrought, even his resurrection from the dead by his own divine power, after they had destroyed the temple of his body. As he had now cleansed his house from their profanations, so would he raise his own body which they should slay, and not suffer it to see corruption. They understood him as if he meant the material temple where he then was, which had now been forty-fix years building and beautifying (see the annotations): and they looked upon it as the most absurd of pretensions, for a mere man, as they presumed him to be, to assert that he could do that in three days, which had employed thousands of workmen so many years. Thus they ridiculed his assertion, though it appears they understood not his meaning. Note; (1.) It is just with God to give those up to their vain imaginations, who have no love of the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness. (2.) The grossest mistakes have been entertained by understanding literally what the scriptures have spoken figuratively, as in the doctrine of transubstantiation, drawn from the words of Christ, This is my body. (3.) The body of Jesus was the true temple, in which the fulness of the Godhead dwelt; and of him the temple at Jerusalem was but the type and figure. (4.) As the temple was the medium of worship, and they who prayed turned their faces thitherward, so is it through Christ Jesus alone that we can have access to and acceptance with God.
4. His disciples, though they, no more than the Jews, understood his meaning at that time, yet afterwards, when the events verified the prediction, and the Spirit poured out from on high opened their minds to understand the scriptures, reflected on this prophesy, and seeing the accomplishment of it in his resurrection, were the more deeply confirmed in their faith of the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. Note; The truths of scripture which we learn in younger years, though not understood at that time, yet are frequently of singular use when, at any future period, our souls are converted, and the eyes of our minds are opened, through the grace of God.
3rdly, During the seven days of the feast Christ preached openly the doctrines of his kingdom, and wrought mighty miracles in confirmation of the truths that he taught. In consequence of which,
1. Many believed in his name; at least, for the time, they were so struck with his miracles as to give their assent to his doctrine, and own him as the Messiah. But,
2. Jesus did not commit himself unto them, did not trust himself with them, or repose any confidence upon them; because he knew all men; the wickedness of some who would play the hypocrite in order to betray him; and the weakness of others, who in a time of danger might, through timidity, be tempted to desert him, or, through mistake and indiscretion, raise some disturbance through their vain imaginations that his kingdom was temporal, and his throne to be established by arms. And, being thus all-wise, he needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man, was acquainted with his inmost thoughts, yea, knew them before they were formed. Note; (1.) We should be cautious in whom we confide, and try before we trust. (2.) Christ knows the secrets of all hearts; he sees the devices of his subtle enemies, and the faults of his pretended friends; and he will bring every sinner to judgment, and every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.
