Chapter II
Ch. 2:1-11. THE MARRIAGE AT CANA IN GALILEE. Christianity not asceticism.
This miracle is recounted only by the Evangelist John. That fact does not discredit the account: it incidentally confirms the view that he wrote to supply what was lacking in the other Gospels.
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana66 of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there.
1, 2. The third day. That is, probably, after the interview with Nathanael described at the close of the preceding chapter. Lightfoot says that, according to Jewish custom, the weddings of virgins took place on the fourth day of the week, our Wednesday, and of widows on the fifth day, our Thursday.—There was a marriage. For description of wedding ceremonies among the Jews, with illustration of wedding procession, see Matt. 25:1-13, Prel. Note.—In Cana of Galilee. The traditional site is Kefr Kenna, four and one-half miles northwest of Nazareth. The more probable site is about nine miles north of Nazareth and six or eight hours from Capernaum. See Map, Vol. I, p. 50. Robinson describes it as a fine situation, and once a considerable village of well-built houses. They are now uninhabited and the whole region is wild and desolate.—And the mother of Jesus was there. Her name is never mentioned by John. The fact that Joseph is not mentioned in either of the Gospels, after Christ’s manhood, has led to the universal opinion that he was dead. The presence of Mary, and her apparent authority (ver. 5), indicates that the bride or bridegroom were connections or relatives. Different traditions represent respectively Alphæus, one of his sons, John the Apostle, and Simon the Canaanite as the bridegroom, but they are all equally untrustworthy. The Mormons maintain that this was the marriage of Jesus himself. The student will observe that it is said of Mary that she was there, of Jesus that he was called, an indication that he came at a later period, and probably after the marriage feast, which usually lasted for several days, had begun.—And his disciples. Probably those who had already begun to follow him, though not yet ordained as apostles, nor summoned by him to leave their regular avocations to become his constant companions. These were Andrew, John, Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael, and they were probably invited because they were with Christ, and out of consideration for him.
3 And when68 they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
3. And the wine failing. Not merely, as in our English version, when they wanted wine. The implication is that wine had been provided, but the supply proved insufficient. Possibly the unexpected addition of the five disciples of Christ exhausted it.—The mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Why did she appeal to him? There is certainly no ground for such an explanation as that of Bengel, that she meant to give a hint to Jesus and his disciples to go away! Nor is there any evidence that she asked him to work a miracle, or even definitely anticipated or desired it. If she were in any way responsible for the success of the feast, and the supply was falling short, the appeal for help to her son was natural; and it was specially so, if, as modern customs in the Orient indicate (see Ellicott’s Life of Christ, p. 118), the guests often contribute to the supplies at such entertainments. Along with this desire to do the bride and bridegroom a favor, there may have been, as Chrysostom suggests, a desire through her son to render herself conspicuous, and a vague and inexpressible feeling that he could, if he would, supply the want by a miracle, as Elijah supplied the widow’s cruse (1 Kings 17:14-16). And his quasi rebuke, if rebuke it be, may have been addressed to this mother’s vanity.
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. Some question has been made respecting the meaning of this language. It is clear (1) that woman is not a harsh term, and involves no tone of rebuke or reproof; for when Christ on the cross commends his mother to John’s care, he uses the same term, “Woman, behold thy son” (ch. 19:26); (2) the Greek phrase (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ) is properly rendered in our English version, What have I to do with thee? Though literally capable of the translation proposed by Dr. Adam Clarke, What is this to thee and me? that is, What is this to us? the uniform usage of the N. T. forbids this translation. The Greek is the same in the following passages, where the translation cannot be other than that given both there and here. Matt. 8:29, note; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke 8:28. I can only understand it as a disclaimer on Christ’s part of any responsibility in the matter, and an intimation that in his future mission he was not, as he had heretofore been, subject unto his mother. There may also be in it implied a gentle rebuke of her endeavor to elicit from him some display of his miraculous power, before the time for the commencement of his public ministry. Chrysostom interprets her spirit here by that of Christ’s brethren (ch. 7:4), and his reply by his refusal, later, to turn aside from his work at her solicitation (Matt. 12:47, 48). Evidently she did not regard his language as that of refusal, for she expects his aid, and bids the servants do his bidding. “She read a yes latent in his apparent no.”—(Trench.)—Mine hour is not yet come. Not mine hour to die, though that is usually the signification of this oft-repeated phrase in John’s Gospel (ch. 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1); but that would be here meaningless; nor, The hour to work this miracle, because the wine is not yet wholly exhausted, or the guests are not conscious of the lack, and have not asked for supply; but, The hour for me to begin my public ministry, accompanied as it is to be with the working of miracles, the hour for my manifestation. The Protestant commentaries see in the language here a rebuke of the spirit of Mariolatry, in this following the fathers; e. g., Chrysostom: “The answer was not that of one rejecting his mother, but of One who would show her that having borne him would have availed nothing, had she not been very good and faithful;” and Augustine: “As God he has no mother. And now that he was about to perform a divine work, he ignores, as it were, the human womb, and asks, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ as much as to say, Thou art not the mother of that in me which works miracles; thou art not the mother of my Godhead.”
5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever69 he saith unto you, do it.
5. His mother saith onto the servants. The fact that there were servants, and more than one, indicates that the family was in at least comfortable if not opulent circumstances. Christ associated with the rich as readily as with the poor; but the rich did not, as readily as the poor, associate with him. Her direction to the servants and their unquestioning obedience indicates that in this marriage festival she had some degree of authority.
6 And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And he saith unto them, Draw70 out now, and bear unto the governor71 of the feast. And they bare it.
6-8. The forms of the water-pot and of the ewer, with which the water was drawn or dipped out, are shown in the accompanying illustration. The water-pots may have set in the room; more probably in an ante-room or in the courtyard of the house. The fact that the water was provided for purifying is stated to account for the presence of so much water; and the reference to the manner of the Jews is added for the Gentile readers, for whom John especially wrote. On these ceremonial washings, see Mark 7:2-5, notes. The firkin (μετρητης) is equivalent to 8⅞ gallons; the whole amount of water, therefore, was between 100 and 150 gallons. Since the jars were filled to the brim, the water was apparent after they were filled; there was, therefore, no room for fraud or mistake. The statement of the exact number and proximate size indicates that we have here the description of an eye-witness. It also indicates that there were a large number of guests.
The quantity of wine made by Christ on this occasion has been the subject of some hostile criticism, as though it were an invitation to excessive drinking. But (1) there is no evidence that any more wine was created than was used. Whether it was changed in the stone jars, or as it was carried to the guests, does not appear; (2) in Palestine, a wine-growing and wine-consuming country, where it is not merely a beverage, but the beverage of the common people, four or five barrels of wine would not seem so extraordinary a supply as it would to us, nor would it produce any such effect in the consumption as an equal amount of the ordinary wines of to-day; (3) it is God’s way to pour out his bounty, not only in abundance, but in superabundance. As Christ created, not merely barely enough bread for the 5,000, but the disciples, after all were fed, gathered up twelve baskets full, so we may well believe that here he created not barely sufficient for the hour, but a superabundance which remained to bless the home after the departure of the guests. On the probable character of this wine, see below, Note on Christ’s example in the use of wine.
9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants72 which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine73 until now.
9, 10. The ruler of the feast. The same word as governor of the feast, in the preceding verse. Among the Greeks and Romans, a ruler of the feast (symposiarch) was commonly chosen, usually by lot, who regulated the whole order of the festivities, proposed the amusements, etc. A reference in the Apocrypha (Eccles. 32:1, 2) indicates that the same practice prevailed among the Jews. There is no ground for supposing the ruler of the feast in this case to have been other than a guest, who occupied this honorary office.—But the servants knew, they having drawn the water. Not merely, the servants which drew, knew; the reason of their knowledge is indicated; they knew because they had themselves filled the jars with the water, and drawn it out.—Called the bridegroom. Called out to him, probably across the table. The language which follows is sportive, and characteristic of such an occasion of festivity.—Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men are drunken, then that which is worse. The verb rendered in our English version “have well drunk” is literally are drunken. It is in the passive voice. This does not necessarily imply that in the East men counted on the inebriacy of their guests, and for that reason provided the best wine first, still less that the guests here were intoxicated. “The man says only in joke, as if it were a general experience, what he certainly may have often observed.”—(Meyer.) The ancient commentators have observed the difference between the feasts of the world and the feasts of Christ; the world gives its best wine at first, and when men have become intoxicated with it, then the poor, as the prodigal son experienced (Luke 15:13-16); Christ ever reserves the good wine to the last. See this thought beautifully drawn out by Jeremy Taylor in his Life of Christ. Comp. John 4:13, 14.
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested74 forth his glory: and his disciples believed75 on him.
11. This beginning of miracles. An incidental and indirect testimony that the miracles of Christ’s infancy, narrated in the apocryphal Gospels, are spurious.—And manifested forth his glory. Observe his glory; the miracles of the disciples did not manifest forth their glory, but that of their Lord (Acts 3:8; 14:11-15).—And his disciples believed in him. That is, the five that had already begun to follow him. But what or how much they believed is not indicated. They began to have that confidence in him which was not consummated till after his resurrection.
In respect to this miracle, observe, (1) The simplicity of the narrative. John does not directly assert that the water was made wine, nor that a miracle was performed, nor does he deduce any conclusion from the event; he simply narrates what he saw and heard—the jars filled with water, the contents drawn out, the testimony of the governor of the feast to the excellence of the wine carried to him; the reader is left to draw his own conclusion. (2) The utter failure of all naturalistic explanations, such as that Christ simply accelerated the process of nature, or changed the attributes of the water after the analogy of mineral waters, so as to give it the taste and appearance of wine, or that the taste and semblance of wine was due to a state of spiritual exaltation on the part of the company, all of which views have had defenders even among orthodox critics. See Lange’s and Meyer’s Commentaries for a statement of these and kindred interpretations. Meyer well says, respecting them all, “Instead of a transmutation of water we have a frivolous transmutation of history.” (3) The impossibility of deception or fraud. The jars are those belonging to the household; they are filled to the brim with water; it is drawn out by the servants; the judgment respecting the wine is pronounced by the governor of the feast, who does not know of the miracle. (4) The analogy of nature. “He who made the wine at this wedding does the same thing every year in the vines. As the water which the servants put into the water-pots was turned into wine by the Lord, so that which the clouds pour down is turned into wine by the same Lord. It excites no wonder in us, because it occurs every year.”—(Augustine.) (5) The moral and spiritual significance of the miracle. Contrast Christ’s ready consent to convert water into wine to add to the festivities of others, with his refusal to convert stones into bread to supply his own imperative needs (Matt. 4:3, 4); his conversion of water into wine, the symbol of inspiration and life, with the first miracle of Moses, who converted water into blood, an instrument and a symbol of death (Exod. 7:20, 21)—Christ brings life and power, Moses brings law and condemnation (Rom. 7:8, 9); his entrance on his ministry by attendance on a marriage festivity, and his miracle to prolong its festivities, with the asceticism of John the Baptist (Luke 1:15; Matt. 3:4). Compare his inauguration of the new covenant by a miracle at a marriage with God’s inauguration of the old covenant by ordaining and creating the marriage relation (Gen. 1:21-24). Notice in this miracle a type of Christ’s redeeming love, who converts the water of the law into the wine of the Gospel, and every soul which hears and obeys his creative command into an inspiring life-giving spirit (John 5:21; 6:33; 1 Cor. 15:45). Observe the fundamental lesson, that Christ’s example bids us not to withdraw from the world, nor abstain from its use, but to use without abusing it (1 Cor. 7:31), and that the assertion that Christianity bids men “make this earth as unpleasant to themselves as possible so as to secure hereafter the joys of heaven,” is a monstrous perversion of the teaching and example of Jesus Christ. Comp. Matt. 9:9, 10; 11:19; Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1; John 12:1, 2.
Christ’s example in the use of wine. 1. The facts. These are that Christ inaugurated his public ministry by attending a wedding feast, and there by a miracle creating a large quantity of wine—certainly all that the guests could use—for the simple purpose of prolonging the festivities of the occasion; that he was accustomed throughout his life to attend social gatherings where wine was freely used; that he used it freely himself, notwithstanding the fact that it subjected him to the reproaches and the misrepresentations of his enemies (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34); that he never directly or indirectly condemns the use of wine, though he does condemn drunkenness (Matt. 24:49; Luke 12:45); and that he directs its use by his church as a perpetual memorial of his atoning love, and employs it as a symbol of joy and fellowship in the world to come (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:18; 1 Cor. 10:16). The force of this example is strengthened by the reflection that drunkenness was common in the East before Christ’s day (Esther 1:10; Isa. 5:22; 28:7; Dan. 5:2-4; Hosea 4:11), and in Palestine and the neighboring countries during Christ’s lifetime, so that even the church of Christ had need of constant admonition against it (Matt. 24:49; Luke 15:13; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 11:21; Gal. 5:21; 1 Pet. 4:3); that a Jewish Sect existed, the Essenes (Matt. 3:7, note), who were total abstainers, with whom Christ never identified himself; and that he directly contrasts his life and example with that of John the Baptist (Matt. 11:19), who, as a Nazarite, was pledged against the use of wine and strong drink (Luke 1:15; Numb. 6:3). Attempts have been made to show that the wine which Christ made on this occasion and used on other occasions was not fermented. It is certain that there were in use in the Greek and Roman world, and presumptively in Palestine, three kinds of wine—fermented wines, which, however, were unlike our own fiery wines and contained only a small percentage of alcohol, and which were usually mixed in the use with water, in the proportion of two or three parts of water to one of wine; new wine, made of the juice of the grape, and, like our new cider, not fermented and not intoxicating; and wines in which, by boiling the unfermented juice of the grape, or by the addition of certain drugs, the process of fermentation had been stopped, and the formation of alcohol prevented. It is claimed that fermented wine was not used at the Passover, though I can find no other reason for this opinion than the fact that leavened, i. e., fermented bread was prohibited—a prohibition the sole object of which was to remind the Jews of the haste of the original passover. Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 11:21 (see note there) makes it evident that fermented wine was used by the primitive church in the administration of the Lord’s Supper; and the Rabbinical rule, requiring water to be mixed with the wine at the paschal feast (see Lightfoot on Matt. 26:27), lest drunkenness should disgrace it, makes it equally evident that wine was used in the original O. T. festival. There is nothing in the language of the N. T. to indicate any discrimination between fermented and unfermented wines; Christ himself never directly or indirectly discriminates between them; neither do any of his apostles; and it is apparently indicated if not necessarily implied in the account here, and in other passages, that it was the ordinary fermented wine which Christ employed; see especially Matt. 11:19, “Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber,” and Matt. 9:17, “No man having drunk old (fermented) wine, straightway desireth new (that of the last vintage and unfermented), for he saith the old is better.” The language of Mark 14:25, “I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine,” etc., plainly implies that he had been accustomed to drink it freely and as a beverage with his followers. I judge then that Christ here made, and throughout his life ordinarily used, fermented wine; and this is the nearly unanimous judgment of the best unprejudiced Biblical scholars. The opposite opinion is of later origin, an after-thought, the product not of impartial Biblical research, but of the temperance reformation. (2) Significance of these facts. It appears to me clear, in the light of these facts, that neither Christ’s precept nor his example can be cited in favor of the doctrine of total abstinence, as a universal and permanent obligation from all use of wine, even as a beverage; that it rather indicates that he recognizes the right and propriety of so using it; and that the doctrine and practice of total abstinence must be maintained, if at all, not by any specific precept, nor by the general course of Christ’s life, but from local and perhaps temporary considerations, and solely on the ground that the Christian must always be willing to surrender a lawful gratification for the sake of a higher good, either to himself or to others (Matt. 5:29, 30; Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 6:12). It is equally clear that neither Christ’s precepts nor his example justifies the ordinary drinking usages of American society of to-day, with its bars, its wine-shops, its beer-gardens, its fiery wines and strong liquors, and all its attendant evils. The ordinary wine of to-day is a very different article from that in Christ’s day. The word is the same, the thing is different. And the usages are equally different. It is not my province here to enter into a general discussion of the temperance question, or even of the Bible teaching on the subject; but for the convenience of the student I add, from my Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, a tabular view of the principal Bible passages which bear on the subject, either for or against the use of wines.
| THE BIBLE | |
| Commends Wine: | Condemns Wine: |
| As an offering to God with oil and wheat: | As a cause of violence and woe: |
| Numb. 18:12. | Prov. 4:17; 23:29-32. |
| Neh. 10:37-39. | Of self-security and irreligion: |
| As a blessing to man: | Isa. 28:7; 56:12. |
| Gen. 27:28-37. | Hab. 2:5. |
| Deut. 7:13. | As a poison: |
| Judges 9:13. | Deut. 32:33. |
| Prov. 3:10. | Prov. 23:31. |
| Isa. 65:8. | Hosea 7:5. |
| Joel 3:18. | As an accompaniment of wickedness: |
| Ps. 104:15. | Isa. 5:22. |
| Zech. 9:17. | As an emblem of divine wrath: |
| As an emblem of spiritual blessing: | Ps. 60:3; 75:8. |
| Isa. 55:1. | Isa. 51:17. |
| Sol. Song 7:9. | Jer. 25:15. |
| As a perpetual memorial of Christ’s atoning sacrifice: | Rev. 14:10; 16:19. |
| Matt. 26:26-29. | By the example of priests on entering the tabernacle: |
| Mark 14:22-25. | Lev. 10:8-11. |
| 1 Cor. 10:16. | Of Rechabites: |
| As a medicine: | Jer. 35:6. |
| Prov. 31:6, 7. | Of Nazarites: |
| 1 Tim. 5:23. | Numb. 6:2, 3. |
| By the example of Jesus Christ: | Of Daniel: |
| John 2:1-11. | Dan. 1:8, 12. |
| Luke 7:34. | |
Ch. 2: 12-22. CHRIST CASTS THE TRADERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE. An illustration of the character of Christ.—A symbol of the work of Christ.—An example to the followers of Christ.
This incident is narrated only by John. It is not to be confounded with the second casting out narrated by the synoptists. See note on Matt. 21:12, 13. This occurred at the first Passover in Christ’s public ministry; that at the last. There is a significance in the repetition. It indicates both the tendency of a corrupt church to corruption in spite of cleanings, a truth unhappily abundantly illustrated in history; and the persistence of Christ’s zeal, a quality imperfectly reflected in the zeal of his disciples. The probable date of this event was March, A. D. 28.
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
12. Went down to Capernaum. From Cana, which was the hill country, to Capernaum, which was on the shore of the sea of Galilee. For description of Capernaum, see Matt. 4:13. It would be on the natural though not necessary route from Cana to Jerusalem. This visit is not to be confounded with Christ’s permanent change of residence from Nazareth to Capernaum, which resulted from the mob in the former city (Luke 4:28-31); this did not take place till after the imprisonment of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12, 13). The statement that they continued not there many days, distinguished this visit from that permanent change of residence.—His mother and his brethren and his disciples. His public ministry had not yet fully begun; he had not, therefore, yet left his mother and brethren to devote himself to his work. That these were real brethren, not cousins or other relations, I think is clear, though by many doubted. See note on “Brethren of our Lord,” Vol. I, p. 187.
13 And the Jews’ passover76 was at hand, and Jesus77 went up to Jerusalem,
76 Ex. 12:14.
77 Verse 23; chap. 5:1; 6:4; 11:55.
13. And the Jews’ Passover was at hand. For origin of Passover see Exodus, ch. 12; for some account of its ceremonies see Matt. 26:26-30, Prel. Note.—And Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Observe, that he was accustomed to attend the Jewish feasts as well as the synagogue services. The corruption of the church did not cause his withdrawal from its public services (ch. 10:25).
14 And found78 in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
14. In the temple. Historically there were three temples: Solomon’s (1 Kings, ch. 6, 7; 2 Chron., ch. 3, 4), the temple of Zerubbabel, constructed at the time of the restoration under Nehemiah (Ezra 3:8-11; 6:3-5), and Herod’s. The latter, named for its builder, Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1, note), is the one mentioned here and elsewhere in the N. T. Its site, established with as much certainty as any in the N. T., was a rock platform in the southeast corner of Jerusalem, now occupied by the Mohammedan Mosque of Omar. In its erection ten thousand skilled workmen were employed; among them one thousand priests especially instructed in the arts of the stonecutter and the carpenter. The result was a temple whose architectural magnificence is thought never to have been surpassed in ancient or modern times. It was less a building than a collection of buildings, and covered an area of over nineteen acres. The stone was white marble, the roof cedar, the architecture probably a combination of the Greek and the Roman. On the east it overlooked the valley of the Cedron, forming an effective fortification. It also served as a defence on the north, where adjoined the tower of Antonia, the barracks of the Roman soldiery. On the south a single gateway, on the west four gateways, gave exit and entrance. On the east it was connected by a bridge over the Tyrophœan valley with Mount Zion, the site of Solomon’s and later of Herod’s palace. The remains of this bridge have been lately discovered. The annexed ground plan, from Henry Ward Beecher’s “Life of Christ,” will enable the reader to understand the internal structure of the temple. The illustration in Vol. I, p. 257, will give an idea of its external appearance. The reader is there supposed to be on the Mount of Olives looking down upon the temple from the east; Mount Zion with its palaces and towers is in the background; the long-roofed structure on the left, that is, the south, is the royal cloister or Stoa basilica. This is minutely described by Josephus (Ant. 15:11, 5). It consisted of a nave and two aisles, the side toward the country being closed by a wall, that toward the temple proper being open. It was 105 feet in breadth, 600 feet in length; the centre aisle was 100 feet high, the side aisles 50. The roof of cedar was supported by 102 Corinthian columns of white marble, the floor was a magnificent mosaic. Between this cloister and the temple structure was the open court of the Gentiles. It was open to all, heathen and Jew alike, and was used for the purpose of social and intellectual exchange, as well as for religious processional services. Here Christ (Matt. 21:23), and subsequently his disciples (Luke 24:53; Acts 5:21, 42), taught the people. Inscriptions in Greek and Latin forbade the heathen from passing beyond this court, under penalty of death. For a supposed infringement of this law Paul was mobbed (Acts 21:26-30). Within were the successive courts of the women, of Israel, of the priests. In this latter was the sacred furniture and utensils, the table of shewbread, the altar, the laver, etc. In the heart of this enclosure, investing all with a mysterious sacredness, was the Holy of Holies, veiled from even priestly gaze by the curtain, which was subsequently rent in twain at the time of Christ’s death (Matt. 27:57). This Holy of Holies, 90 × 30 feet, is seen in the illustration of the temple as restored, in the centre of the building; it constituted the most prominent feature. It was in the outer court of the Gentiles that the sheep and cattle and money-changers had gathered. The scattered Israelites were unable to bring in person the sacrifices for the altar. The Mosaic law permitted them to sell their first-fruits, and with the money purchase their gifts at Jerusalem (Deut. 14:24-26). They were also required to pay for the support of the temple service a half-shekel (Exod. 3:11-16; Matt. 17:24-27, notes). This must be paid in Jewish money, for Gentile coin would pollute the sacred coffers. Thus, gradually, the feast-days became great market-days, as they still are among the nomadic tribes of the Mohammedan religion. The priesthood, sharing in the profits, suffered the traffickers gradually to intrude into and occupy the outer court of the temple. Thus, not only were the religious services of the Jews disturbed by the bleating of sheep, the lowing of cattle, the cooing of doves, the clangor of the money-changers, and the hum of a busy market, but the Gentiles were absolutely driven from all participation in the religious benefits of the temple. To their exclusion Christ referred in the second expulsion (Mark 11:15-19, note). The priests winked not only at the sacrilege, but also at the double defrauding of God and man which accompanied it (Mal. 1:7, 8). The court of the Gentiles was worse than a market-place; it was a den of thieves. Thus Christ’s act was not only a vehement protest against the sacrilege which suffers business to encroach on the house and worship of God, but also a rebuke of the bigotry which is indifferent to the religious wants and worship of men not of our race, faith, or companionship.—Those that sold cattle, sheep, and doves. For sacrifices under the Levitical law; sheep, rams, lambs, goats, kids, bulls, cows, calves, doves, and sparrows were offered for this purpose. All sacrifices were required to be offered by the priesthood and in the temple. On the great feast-days, when the population of Jerusalem was increased to a million or more, the traffic must have been both large and profitable.—And the changers of money. Money-changers had in Greece and Rome their stalls or tables in the streets and market-places for the purpose of exchanging the coin of one nation for another. They are still to be found in Jerusalem, seated by their little glass cases, in which are saucers of brass filled with coins of silver and gold, of every size and value.
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.
15, 16. And when he had made a scourge of rushes. The original indicates that the scourge was made of the rushes which were used to bed the cattle. Christ picked these up from the floor and wove them together into a whip. Of course this fragile lash would not do much real execution. It was used as one might use a switch to alarm and so drive out the animals. The original shows very clearly that it was used for this purpose alone, and not to threaten the men with physical chastisement.—He drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. This is the correct rendering; our English version is ambiguous and so misleading.—And poured out the changers’ money. Poured it out upon the floor. This prevented their resisting, for it occupied their energies to pick up and save the coin.—And said unto them that sold doves. It is noteworthy that he drove out the sheep and cattle, which the owners could reclaim in the streets, but did not set the doves free, which would thus have been lost to their owners. A true Christian indignation never blinds to the true rights even of the most flagrant wrong-doers.—Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise. Compare Christ’s language at the second expulsion, Mark 11:17, note.
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written,79 The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
17. And his disciples remembered, etc. At the time, not afterward; if this had been meant it would have been expressed, as in ver. 22. It is not here stated that the utterance in Ps. 69:9 was a prophecy which Christ fulfilled; simply that his course recalled the language there. The fact indicates the vigor and intensity of Christ’s zeal in the manner and spirit of his action, as well as in the act itself.
This and the subsequent purification of the temple during the Passion week, indicate in Christ a vigor and intensity of character, and a power of indignation, which modern thought rarely attributes to him. They interpret the suggestive description of Christ’s personal appearance given by John in Rev. 1:13-16, the only hint of his personal appearance afforded by the New Testament. We can imagine that in this expulsion his eyes were as flames of fire, his feet firm in their tread like feet of brass, his voice as the sound of the ocean, his words as a two-edged sword. This indignation was aroused by (a) the sacrilegious covetousness which made God’s house a house of merchandise; (b) the fraud which converted it into a den of thieves; (c) the selfishness of the bigotry which excluded the heathen from the only court reserved for them. It should inspire in his disciples a like spirit of indignation (a) against the sacrilegious covetousness which converts the house of God into a mart of merchandise, whether by the sale of indulgences, masses, and prayers to others, or by employing it not for the praise of God but for the social and pecuniary profit of the pretended worshipper; (b) against the bigotry which permits us to look with indifference upon the exclusion of the poor, the outcast, the despised from the privileges of God’s house. It is a type of (a) the cleansing which Christ comes to do for every soul, which is a temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16), and out of which all unclean things must be driven by the power of God, before it is fit for God’s indwelling; (b) the final cleansing when he will come to cast out all things that defile and work abomination (Rev. 21:27). Observe that in Revelation the world is represented as dreading “the wrath of the Lamb.” Christ’s example here does not justify the use of physical force by the church to cleanse it from corruption; for Christ did not employ physical force. His whip was not a weapon; the power before which the traders fled was the moral power of Christ, strengthened by the concurring judgment of their own consciences and the moral sense of the mass of the people (Mark 11:15, note).
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign80 showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy81 this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
18, 19. What sign showest thou unto us? What evidence of authority to expel from the temple practices allowed by the priesthood. They questioned not the right of an inspired prophet to act thus, but the authority of Jesus as a prophet. The moral power before which all quailed was the greatest of signs; but to that they were indifferent. “They required signs to be proved by signs.”—(Bengel.) No other authority for any reformation is ever required than the power and grace to achieve it. The same question was repeated at the second cleansing, but it elicited a very different answer (Matt. 21:23).—Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. In interpreting this passage observe that (1) John himself explicitly declares Christ’s meaning, “He spake of the temple of his body” (ver. 21); (2) that not only the Jews, who might have willfully perverted Christ, misunderstood his meaning, but his own followers did not, till after his death, understand him (ver. 22); hence (3) the hypothesis that he pointed to himself when he said, “Destroy this temple,” is not only unnecessary but improbable. The words are a prophecy, but are purposely left enigmatical, to be interpreted by the event. The temple is itself a type of man, who is intended to be the temple of God, in which he will dwell; and therefore a type perfectly fulfilled only in Christ, in whom alone the Spirit of God dwelt without measure, and with no periods of partial or complete exclusion. The Jews in crucifying Christ destroyed the divine reality of which the building was only a symbol or prophecy; moreover they inaugurated that terrible drama of passion which ended in the literal destruction of the temple itself. For description of this destruction see Matt. ch. 24, Prel. Note. Some objections to this passage have been suggested. (1) The crucifixion of Christ and his resurrection taking place three years later cannot be a sign of his authority here. Ans. In fact Christ does not comply with the Pharisees’ demand for a sign but refuses it, as in the analogous passage in Matt. 12:34-40, where he also by a metaphor refers to his resurrection. (2) The prophecy would not be and in fact was not understood. Ans. It was not intended to be understood then, but to afford a basis for the faith of the disciples when subsequent history had interpreted it. It was an enigma more likely to be remembered because enigmatical. “Many such sayings he uttered which were not intelligible to his immediate hearers, but which were to be so to those who should come after. And wherefore doth he do this? In order that when the accomplishment of his predictions should have come to pass, he might be seen to have foreknown from the beginning what was to follow.”—(Chrysostom.) (3) The language is imperative and thus involves a command by Christ to crucify him. Ans. The imperative, Destroy this temple, is not equivalent to the future, You will destroy this temple; nor is it permissive merely, You may destroy this temple; nor yet is it a command, You must destroy this temple. It is a challenge. Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up. “It springs from painfully excited feelings, as he looks with heart-searching gaze upon that implacable opposition which was already beginning to show itself, and which would not be satisfied till it had put him to death.”—(Meyer.) (4) The language, I will raise it up, imputes to Christ the power of the resurrection which is uniformly attributed to the Father. Ans. This objection is founded on a misapprehension. The N. T. recognizes no such distinction between the Father and the Son as this objection implies, and Christ uses language elsewhere, as distinctly implying his own act in the resurrection as that used here (ch. 10:18; 11:25; comp. 5:39, 40, 44). The interpretation proposed by some writers, that Christ here speaks of the decay of the Jewish religion in its temple, and the building up of a new spiritual theocracy, will not be accepted by those who believe that John’s explicit declaration of Christ’s meaning is inspired and authoritative. Observe how the Jews intentionally misrepresented Christ’s saying; they accused him of threatening to destroy the temple (Matt. 26:61, note), when he had really prophesied that they would destroy it.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple82 of his body.
20. Forty and six years was this temple in building. The argument is a natural one, and seemed conclusive. The temple was commenced by Herod twenty years previous to the birth of Christ, and had been forty-six years in construction up to this time. It was not finally completed, however, till A. D. 64, under Herod Agrippa II; so that it was really over eighty years in building. The workmen were at this time still engaged upon it, and the language of the people refers to the work up to this time.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he83 had said this unto them: and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
22. When therefore he was risen from the dead. Not merely after but at the time of his resurrection and in the light of that fact, the disciples interpreted both what he had said and what the O. T. contained on this subject.—They believed the Scripture. Not the N. T., no part of which was written at the time of the resurrection; and the “Scripture” is here distinguished from the words which Jesus had spoken. The O. T. contained prophecies of the resurrection which are enigmatical, and probably were but imperfectly comprehended by even the most devout Jews, but which were interpreted by the event (Ps. 16:4 with Acts 3:15; Ps. 17:15; 73:23, 24; Isaiah 26:19; Hosea 6:2). For evidence that Christ, and subsequently the apostles, recognized in the O. T. prophecies of the resurrection, see Luke 24:26, 27; John 20:9; 1 Cor. 15:4.
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name when they saw the miracles which he did.
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he84 knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
23-25. Many trusted in his name, seeing the signs which he wrought, but Christ did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed not, etc. Compare with the English version the translation here given which approximates more nearly to the original; and observe respecting this that (1) the term miracle has acquired in modern theology a technical meaning it does not possess in the N. T. Christ may have wrought miracles at this time not recorded by the Evangelist (ch. 21, 25), but the belief of the Jewish disciples may have rested on such signs of his moral power as the expulsion of the traders from the temple; (2) their trust in his name was not necessarily a true spiritual acceptance of him as a personal Saviour from sin; the reverse is implied by the statement that they trusted him because they saw his miracles; and still more by the declaration respecting himself that he did not entrust himself to them; (3) this declaration would scarcely need interpretation were it not for a common misinterpretation. It does not imply that he held back from them his doctrine, or refused to work miracles for their benefit, but simply that he did not and could not enter into that close and unreserved personal intercourse with them which characterized his Galilean life and companionships. He knew them too well to do this; knew that when the spiritual and universal nature of his kingdom of love was revealed unto them, they would reject and crucify him. The statement that he knew what was in man, indicates a divine and supernatural reading of the secrets of the human heart, of which the N. T. affords many and striking illustrations (Matt. 9:4; Mark 2:8; Luke 7:39, 40). The declaration that he knew all men, indicates that this interior knowledge of the heart was not occasional and exceptional, but universal. Melancthon sees in the example of our Lord here an admonition of caution in opening our hearts unreservedly to strangers, even though they may seem to receive our word with kindness. Be friendly to all, be intimate with few.
Notes
66 ch. 4:46; Joshua 19:28.
2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.67
67 Heb. 13:4.
68 Eccles. 10:19; Isa. 24:11.
69 Luke 5:5, 6.
70 Eccles. 9:7.
71 Rom. 13:7.
73 Ps. 104:15; Prov. 9:2, 5.
75 1 John 5:13.
78 Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45.
79 Psalm 69:9.
80 ch. 6:30; Matt. 12:38, etc.
81 Matt. 26:61; 27:40.
82 Ephes. 2:21, 22; Col. 2:9; Heb. 8:2.
83 Luke 24:8.
84 ch. 16:30; 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9; 29:17; Jer. 17:9, 10; Matt. 9:4; Acts 1:24; Rev. 2:23.