Chapter Two

1–12. The miracle at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. – 13–25. Christ in Jerusalem. Cleansing of the temple.

John 2:1. On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. John 2:2. Jesus also was invited to the wedding, and his disciples. It was the third day after the day on which Christ called Philip (John 1:43). This day Christ was already spending in Cana of Galilee, where He came, probably because His Most Pure Mother had gone there earlier than He—to a wedding in a familiar family. First He probably came to Nazareth, where He lived with His Mother, and then, not finding Her, set out with the disciples to Cana. Here both He and His disciples—probably all five—were also invited to the wedding. But where was Cana located? In Galilee there was only one known Cana—a small town situated about one and a half hours’ journey to the northeast of Nazareth. Robinson’s assumption that there was another Cana four hours to the north of Nazareth has no sufficiently sound basis.

John 2:3. And when the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine. John 2:4. Jesus said to her, “What is there between you and me, woman? My hour has not yet come. John 2:5. His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He tells you, do it. Wedding celebrations lasted among the Jews for seven days (Gen 29:27; Judg 14:12-15). Therefore, by the time Christ came with His disciples, after several days had already passed in feasting, there was a shortage of wine—the hosts apparently were not wealthy. The Most Holy Virgin, having probably already heard from Christ’s disciples about the words that John the Baptist had spoken about her Son, and about the promise of miracles that He had given His disciples two days before, thought it possible to turn to Christ with reference to the difficult position of the hosts. She may also have had in mind the circumstance that Christ’s disciples by their presence at the feast had disrupted the hosts’ calculations. In any case, however, it is certain that she expected a miracle from Christ (St. John Chrysostom, Blessed Theophylact). Christ in response to this request of the Mother answers with the following words: “What is there between you and me, woman? My hour has not yet come.” Apparently, in the first half of the answer there is contained a certain reproach of the Most Holy Virgin for wanting to urge Him to begin performing miracles. Some even see a tone of reproach in the fact that Christ calls the Most Holy Virgin here simply “woman” or woman, not “mother.” And indeed, from what Christ says further about His “hour,” one can conclude with certainty that Christ by His question wanted to say that henceforth she should cease to regard Him with the former earthly maternal view, by virtue of which she previously considered herself to have every right to make demands on Christ as a mother to a son. “Earthly kinship, though distinguished by closeness, had no decisive significance in His Divine activity. As at His first appearance in the temple, so now, at His first manifestation of His glory, the finger that points to His hour does not belong and could not belong to His Mother, but exclusively to His Heavenly Father” (Edersheim). Nevertheless, the question of Christ contains no reproach in our sense of the word. Here Christ only gives an explanation to His Mother regarding what their mutual relations should be henceforth. And the word “woman” (γύναι) contains nothing offensive in application to a mother, that is, in a son’s form of address to his mother. We see that Christ called His Mother by this name at the time when, looking upon Her with love before death, He pointed out John as Her protector in the future (John 19:26). Finally, in the second half of the answer: “My hour has not yet come,” one cannot possibly see a refusal of the Mother’s request. Christ says only that the hour to perform a miracle has not yet come. From this it is evident that He wished to fulfill the Mother’s request, but only at the moment indicated to Him by His Heavenly Father. And the Most Holy Virgin herself understood Christ’s words in exactly this sense, as is evident from the fact that she said to the servants that they should do everything He would command them.

John 2:6. Now there were six stone water jars standing there, as was the custom of the Jews for purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. John 2:7. Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. John 2:8. And He said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” And they took it. According to Jewish custom, at table one had to wash one’s hands and vessels (cf. Matt 15:2). Therefore, a large quantity of water was prepared for the wedding feast. With this water Christ commanded the servants to fill six stone jars, with a capacity of two or three measures (by measure here, probably, is meant the ordinary measure of liquids—the bath, which was approximately equal to four buckets). Such jars, holding up to ten buckets of water, stood, of course, in the courtyard, not in the house. Thus, in the six jars there was about 60 buckets of water, which Christ transformed into wine. The miracle was accomplished on such a scale so that no one could later explain it in a natural manner. But why did Christ not produce wine without water? He did this so that “those who drew the water themselves would be witnesses of the miracle, and it would not seem like a phantom at all” (St. John Chrysostom).

John 2:9. When the master of the feast tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom John 2:10. and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first; and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now. The master of the feast tasted the wine and found it very good, which he declared to the bridegroom. Such testimony confirms that the water in the jars was indeed transformed into wine. In fact, on the part of the master of the feast, there could be no auto-suggestion here, because he evidently did not know what the servants had done by Christ’s command. Moreover, the master of the feast certainly did not allow himself intemperance in the use of wine and consequently was fully capable of determining the true quality of the wine served to him by the servants. Thus, Christ, by commanding that the wine be brought to the master of the feast, thereby wanted to eliminate any occasion for anyone to doubt whether there was truly wine in the jars. However, the guests also were sufficiently able to appreciate the wine served to them. We are made to think so, first, by the consideration that Christ and the Most Holy Virgin would not have remained in a house where there were intoxicated people, and, second, that the hosts were not wealthy people and did not have too much wine, so there was nothing with which to “get drunk.” The master’s expression: “when people have drunk freely,” has the meaning that sometimes not very hospitable hosts serve bad wine, which happens when guests are already incapable of sufficiently appreciating the taste of wine. But the master of the feast does not say that in the present case the host had such consideration or that the guests were intoxicated. The evangelist breaks off the account of the conversation between the master of the feast and the bridegroom and says nothing about the impression the miracle made on all the guests. For him it was important to speak of this miracle only insofar as it served to strengthen the faith of Christ’s disciples.

John 2:11. Thus Jesus performed His first miracle in Cana of Galilee and revealed His glory; and His disciples believed in Him. “Thus Jesus performed His first miracle...” According to the most authoritative codices, this place should be given such a translation: “He did this (ταύτην) as the beginning (ἀρχήν) of signs (τῶν σημείων).” The evangelist regards the miracles of Christ as signs that attest His Divine dignity and messianic calling. In this sense the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “the signs (more precisely—signs) of an Apostle (in me) were performed with complete patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works” (2 Cor 12:12). Although Christ three days before had given His disciples proofs of His miraculous knowledge (John 1:42-48), in that case He showed Himself only as a seer, and such had existed before Him. But the miracle in Cana was the first of His deeds about which He Himself said that no one had performed such deeds before Him (John 15:24). The meaning of this sign and its importance is indicated in the words: “and revealed His glory.” What glory is meant here? One can understand no other glory than the divine glory of the incarnate Logos, which the apostles beheld (John 1:14). And in the further words of the evangelist: “and His disciples believed in Him,” there is a direct indication of the effect of this manifestation of the glory of the incarnate Logos. The disciples of Christ gradually came to faith in Him. At first their faith was in an embryonic state—this was while they were with John the Baptist. Then this faith became greater when they drew near to Christ (John 1:50), and after the manifestation of His glory at the wedding in Cana they attained such a degree of faith that the evangelist found it fitting to say of them that they “believed” in Christ, that is, they were convinced that He is the Messiah, and moreover a Messiah not only in that limited sense in which the Jews expected, but a being standing above ordinary messengers of God. Perhaps the evangelist’s remark that the disciples “believed” was made in view of the impression which Christ’s presence at a joyful marriage feast, of course, made on the disciples. Having been trained in the strict school of John the Baptist, who had accustomed them to fasting (Matt 9:14), they could have come into some perplexity regarding the attitude toward the joys of human life that their new Teacher manifested, He Himself having taken part in the feast and having brought them here. But now, when Christ confirmed His right to act differently from John by a miracle, all doubts of the disciples should have disappeared and their faith strengthened. And the impression from the miracle in Cana produced on the disciples should have been especially strong because their former teacher had not performed even one miracle (John 10:41).

John 2:12. After this, He went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days. After the miracle in Cana, Christ set out for Capernaum with His mother, His brothers (regarding Christ’s brothers, see commentary on Matt 1:25), and His disciples. The reason why Christ went to Capernaum is explained by the fact that three of the five disciples of Christ lived in this city, namely, Peter, Andrew, and John (Mark 1:19). They could continue their fishing work here without ceasing to remain in communion with Christ. Perhaps the other two disciples, Philip and Nathanael, also found work here for themselves. But what did the coming to Capernaum of the Mother and brothers of Christ mean? It is most likely that the entire family of Jesus Christ decided to leave Nazareth. And indeed, from the Synoptic Gospels we see that soon Capernaum became the permanent place of residence of Christ and His family (Matt 9:1; Mark 2:1; Matt 12:46). In Nazareth, only the sisters of Christ remained, apparently already married (Matt 13:56). Regarding “Capernaum” see the commentary on Matt 4:13. “Went down”—more precisely: “descended.” The road from Cana to Capernaum went downhill.

John 2:13. The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem In Capernaum Christ apparently did not announce Himself in any way: He was to begin His public ministry in the capital of Jewry and precisely in the temple, in accordance with the prophecy of Malachi: “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me; and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming” (Mal 3:1). On the occasion of the approaching Feast of the Passover Christ set out, or more precisely, went up (ἀνέβη) to Jerusalem, which appeared to every Israelite as standing on the very highest point of Palestine (cf. Matt 20:17). With Him at this time were His disciples (verse 17), and perhaps also His mother and brothers.

John 2:14. and found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. According to the custom of pilgrims, Christ immediately upon arriving in Jerusalem visited the temple. Here, of course, chiefly in the outer court, which served as the place where pagans were allowed to pray, and partly in the temple porticoes, He found people who were selling sacrificial animals to pilgrims or were engaged in exchanging money, since at the Passover every Jew was obliged to pay the tax on the temple (the didrachm; see Matt 17:24) and necessarily in Hebrew coin, which was offered to pilgrims by money-changers. The coin that was required to be deposited in the temple treasury was the half-shekel (in our money about 40 kopecks, corresponding to eight grams of silver).

John 2:15. And making a whip out of cords, He drove out all the merchants from the temple, and also the sheep and oxen; and He poured out the money of the money-changers and overturned their tables. This commerce and money exchange violated any devotional disposition of those who came to pray. It was especially burdensome for those pious pagans who had no right to enter the inner court where the Israelites prayed, and who therefore had to hear the bleating and lowing of animals and the cries of merchants and customers (it should be noted that merchants often asked triple the price for animals, and customers naturally raised disputes with them). Christ could not tolerate such a desecration of the temple. He made a whip from scraps of rope that lay about with the animals and drove the merchants off the temple grounds along with their cattle. He treated the money-changers even more strictly, pouring out their money and overturning their tables.

John 2:16. And He said to those who sold pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade. Christ treated the sellers of pigeons more gently, commanding them to remove the cages with birds (ταῦτα—“this,” not ταύτας—“these” or pigeons). He even deigned to give these sellers an explanation of why He had come to the defense of the temple. He said to them: “Do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” Christ considers Himself obliged to stand up for the honor of His Father’s house, evidently because He regards Himself as the true Son of God, the only Son, who alone can rule in His Father’s house.

John 2:17. His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me. None of the merchants and money-changers made any protest against Christ’s actions. Some of them might have seen in Him a zealot—one of those zealots who, after the death of their leader, Judas of Galilee, remained faithful to his motto: to restore the Kingdom of God by the sword (Acts 5:37; Josephus. “Jewish Wars,” II 8, 1). Others, probably, realized that they had up to now acted wrongly in breaking into the temple with their goods and setting up something like a marketplace here. As for the disciples of Christ, they perceived in Christ’s action, in His zeal for God’s house, the fulfillment of the prophetic words of the Psalmist, who, in saying that zeal for God’s house consumed him, thereby predicted with what zeal for God’s glory the Messiah would conduct His ministry. But since in the psalm cited by the evangelist (Psalm 68) the discourse is about the sufferings that the Psalmist endured for his devotion to Jehovah (Ps 68:10), the disciples of Christ, remembering this psalm passage, must have also thought about the danger to which their Teacher was exposing Himself by coming forth so boldly against those abuses which evidently enjoyed the protection of the priests. These priests, Edersheim notes, were certainly not simple priests who came at a certain time to serve in the temple, but permanent officials from among the priests, living in Jerusalem, leaders of the priesthood and especially from the family of the high priest, who were constantly able to profit from these advantages. From this commerce the merchants had to pay a certain percentage of their profits to the officials in the temple, and from the Talmud it is known that the market at the temple belonged to the sons of the high priest Annas.

John 2:18. So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things? “The Jews,” that is, the ruling figures in the Jewish nation (cf. John 1:19), the priests of the highest rank (so-called “sagans”) immediately demanded of Christ, whom they probably took for a zealot (cf. Matt 12:4), that He provide some sign in proof of His right to act as a denouncer of the disorders prevailing in the temple. They, of course, could not deny that their chief position was only temporary, that the “faithful prophet” must appear, and before his coming, Simon Maccabee and his descendants had taken upon themselves the rule of the Jewish nation (1 Macc 14:41). But of course, this “faithful prophet” must prove his divine mission by something. In this sense they propose their question to Christ. Let Christ perform a miracle! But they did not dare to seize Him, because the people also were indignant at the profanation of the temple, which the priests, for profit’s sake, had permitted.

John 2:19. Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews demanded of Christ a miracle as proof that He was an authorized messenger of Jehovah, and Christ expresses His willingness to give them such a miracle or sign. But He gives His answer in a somewhat cryptic form, so that Christ’s words were not understood not only by the Jews, but even by the disciples (cf. verse 22). In saying “Destroy this temple,” Christ seems to refer to the Jewish temple itself, which is indicated by the addition “this” (τοῦτον). If, in saying these words, Christ had pointed to His body, then there would have been no misunderstanding: all would have understood that Christ was prophesying about His violent death. Thus, under “temple” (ὁ ναός in contrast to τὸ ἱερόν, which means all the buildings of the temple and the court; cf. verses 14–15) one could first understand the temple that was clearly visible to all. But, on the other hand, the Jews could not fail to see that such an understanding of Christ’s utterance could not be limited to this. After all, Christ said that they would destroy the temple, while they certainly could not imagine that their hands would rise against the destruction of the national sanctuary. And furthermore, Christ presents Himself as the restorer of this temple that the Jews are destroying, and evidently acting against the will of the Jews themselves, the destroyers. Here again there arose some sort of misunderstanding! But still, if the Jews and Christ’s disciples had paid more careful attention to Christ’s words, they could have understood them despite all their apparent mystery. At the very least, they should have asked what Christ meant by this, obviously figurative, utterance; but they deliberately dwell only on the simple literal sense of His words, trying to show all their groundlessness. But later, after Christ’s resurrection, for His disciples it became clear that Christ indeed spoke of the temple in a twofold sense: both of this stone temple of Herod, and of His body, which also represented the temple of God. “You,” as it were Christ said to the Jews, “will destroy your temple through destroying the temple of My body. By killing Me as your adversary, you will thereby bring upon yourselves the judgment of God, and God will deliver your temple to destruction by enemies. With the destruction of the temple, worship must also cease, and your Church must come to an end. But I will raise My body in three days, and together with that I will establish a new temple, as well as new worship, not confined by those boundaries in which it existed before.”

John 2:20. Then the Jews said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days? The Jews consider Christ’s words about the miracle that He could perform in three days to be outright absurd. They mockingly remark to Him that Herod’s temple took forty-six years to build—how could Christ restore it if it were destroyed, in three days, that is, in the shortest possible time (as probably they understood the expression “in three days”; cf. 1 Chr 21:12; Luke 13:32)? By “building the temple” the Jews evidently mean the work continuing in the temple on the erection of various temple buildings, work that was only completed in the year 63 A.D., and thus only seven years before its destruction.

John 2:21. But He was speaking of the temple of His body. John 2:22. When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. Christ made no answer to the remark of the Jews; it was clear that they did not wish to understand Him, much less accept Him. The disciples of Christ also did not turn to Him with questions about the words He had spoken, and Christ Himself had no need to give them an explanation on this occasion. The purpose for which He appeared in the temple was achieved: He declared His intention to begin His great Messianic activity and began it with the symbolic action of cleansing the temple. At the same time it became apparent what attitude the representatives of the Jewish nation would take toward Him. Thus He opened His public ministry.

John 2:23. Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. John 2:24. But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, because He knew all men, John 2:25. and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man. Here the evangelist speaks of the impression that Jesus Christ made by His first public appearance in Jerusalem on the masses of people. Since the Lord at this time performed many signs or miracles (see verse 11) during the eight days of the Passover feast, and since He frequently came forward in the role of a teacher, as is evident, for example, from Nicodemus’s words (John 3:2), and partly from the words of Christ Himself (John 3:11), many believed in Him. If John here mentions only the “signs” that led many Jews to Christ, by this he testifies that for the majority the signs were indeed the decisive factor in their conversion to Christ. Therefore the apostle Paul also said: “Jews demand signs” (1 Cor 1:22). They believed “in His name,” that is, they saw in Him the Messiah and wanted to form a community with His name. But the Lord knew all these believers well and did not trust in the firmness of their faith. He knew all those who met Him both by His miraculous insight, examples of which He had recently shown to His disciples (John 1:42-50). Therefore the number of Christ’s disciples did not increase during these eight days of the feast. Modern criticism (for example, Zahn, Holtzmann) supposes that John is relating in the second half of the chapter under consideration the same event that, according to the Synoptics, occurred at the last Passover—the Passover of Suffering. Some critics consider the chronological indication of the Synoptics more correct, doubting the possibility of such an event in the very first year of Christ’s public ministry, while others prefer John, supposing that the Synoptics placed the event not where it should have been placed (cf. Matt 21 and following, as well as parallel passages). But all the doubts of the critics are without foundation. First of all, there is nothing incredible about the Lord coming forward as a denouncer of the disorders prevailing in the temple, in this center of Jewry, and even at the very beginning of His public ministry. He was indeed obliged to come forward boldly in the central place of Jewry, in the Temple of Jerusalem, if He wanted to announce Himself as a messenger of God. And furthermore the prophet Malachi, who foretold the coming of the Messiah, said that He would appear precisely in the temple (Mal 3:1) and, as can be concluded from the context of the speech (see the following verses in that same chapter of Malachi), would execute His judgment there upon the Jews who were proud of their righteousness. Moreover, if the Lord had not come forward so openly at that time as the Messiah, even His disciples might have doubted Him, to whom it must have seemed strange that their Teacher, who had already performed a great miracle at the wedding in Cana, suddenly withdrew from the attention of the people again, remaining in the quiet of Galilee. It is said: “But Christ could not immediately have announced that He is the Messiah—He did this much later.” To this is added that by coming forward as a denouncer of the priests, Christ immediately put Himself in hostile relations with the priesthood, who could immediately seize Him, thus putting an end to His activity. But this objection also has no force. Why should the priests have seized Christ if, as they could not help but realize, He was merely demanding lawfulness from the merchants? Furthermore, Christ did not direct His denunciations at the priests themselves; He merely drove out the merchants, and the priests, of course, could have even hypocritically thanked Him for being concerned about the honor of the temple. Besides, the priests’ plot against Christ developed gradually, and they certainly would not have dared, without careful deliberation in the Sanhedrin, to take any decisive steps against Christ. In general, criticism was unable to bring forward sufficiently convincing arguments in favor of making the impossibility of the repetition of the event of the expulsion of merchants from the temple persuasive. On the contrary, there are some important differences between the accounts of the Synoptics and John regarding this event. Thus, according to John, the Jews asked Christ by what right He was purifying the temple, but according to the Synoptics, the chief priests and scribes did not ask such a question, but only reproached Him for accepting praise from children. Furthermore, according to the testimony of the Synoptics, the Lord’s words to the defilers of the temple sound much harsher than His words in John. There the Lord speaks as a Judge come to punish men who have made of the temple a “den of robbers,” while here He reproaches the Jews only for having turned the temple into a place of trade. * * * Notes If then (that is, the Jews) ask Him by what authority He is purifying the temple, this question is still not a sign of open hostility toward Christ on their part...