Bible Commentaries
John 2

Verses 1-25

II 1-11 The Marriage Feast at Cana —1. The third day should be reckoned from the beginning of the Galilean journey which covered a distance of some 70 or 80 miles. It may have been a Wednesday, the usual day for the ’marriage of a maiden. The bridegroom and bride are unknown, and the identifications: Simon the Zealot, John the Evangelist, Susanna, etc., are mere romancing. Cana is not Qana 8 miles from Tyre, probably not Kirbet Qana near Sepphoris, but rather Kefr Kenna four miles NE. of Nazareth, for which there is a reasonably solid tradition. If, as is likely, Mary was present as a relative, the invitation to Jesus and his disciples would have been on her account, although Nathanael may have had something to do with it. St Joseph evidently was dead.

2. Nuptial festivities lasted a week and were called in Aramaic mištî?â (drink-festival) with which accords the rabbinical dictum: ’Where there is no wine, there is no joy’.

3. As wine supplies (especially when the family was poor) partly depended on gifts from those invited, the advent of Jesus and five disciples may well have contributed to the imminent (or already complete, Codex S) shortage, quickly noted by the charitable eye of the Blessed Virgin. Her brief announcement of the situation to Jesus is meant as a petition.

4. His answer has created three difficulties: (1) The term of address sounds severe, if not belittling; (2) the answer seems a refusal; (3) the reason given admits more than one interpretation. As regards the first: ’Woman’ both in Gk and Semitic is a title not indeed of domestic intimacy (our Lord would not have used it at Nazareth) but of solemn honour. This honorific solemnity of the word on the lips of Jesus himself may be tested in John 4:21; John 20:15, but most of all in 19:26, when he addressed his mother from the cross. Concerning the second: the Master’s question which literally reads: ’What to me and to thee?’ has to be understood from biblical and not modern usage. Therefore it does not mean: ’What concern is it of ours?’ or ’There is no need for you to tell me’. In all the biblical passages where it occurs, Jg 11:12; 2 Kg 16:10, 19:22; 4 Kg 3:13; 2 Par 35:21; Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24, the phrase signifies, according to circumstances, a great or lesser divergence of viewpoint between the two parties concerned. In 2 Kg 16:10 it means total dissent; in Jg 11:12 it voices a complaint against an invader. In our passage, also, divergence must be admitted. In a sense our Lord’s answer is a refusal, but not an absolute refusal, rather a refusal ad mentem, as a Roman Congregation would say, and the Blessed Virgin understood her Son’s mind from the tone of his voice. His first public miracle belonged to the divine programme of his Messianic mission into which flesh and blood could not enter. His answer is therefore an assertion of independence of his Mother, similar to the word he spoke in the temple about his Father’s business. The Blessed Virgin’s subsequent action shows that the tone of our Lord’s protest on this occasion was neither a curt nor an unqualified refusal. On the third point, namely the sentence: ’My hour is not yet come’, it is obvious that we cannot read the words as a question: ’Is not My hour already come?’ Although the view has the support of Tatian, St Gregory of Nyssa and Knabenbauer, neither the context nor the Gk seem to admit interrogation. ’My hour’ has been variously understood as the hour of my Passion when I shall recognize the mother of my mortality (St Aug), or (more probably) the hour fixed for my public manifestation through the working of miracles.

5. Mary, understanding perfectly that our Lord’s action would not be a family business, but would nevertheless follow the course of charity, gave orders to the servants with all confidence.

6. The water-pots (perhaps mostly borrowed) were large, for water had to be taken from them and poured on hands and vessels according to the rules of Jewish purification. Stone and not earthenware was proof against legal defilement. Six pots, containing 2 or 3 attic metretae each, would give a total capacity between 6 x 2 x 8 1/2 = 102 and 6 x 3 x 8 1/2 = 153 gallons.

7. ’Filled . . . to the brim’ shows the water, as it were, peeping out of the vessels and, no doubt, suggested Crashaw’s beautiful pentameter: ’Nympha pudica Deum viditet erubuit—the bashful maiden water saw its God and blushed’.

8. The architrichlinus, to whom the servants were ordered to bring the wine in a smaller vessel, probably in a cup, was to be the first witness of the unexpected provision. He would have been a local expert in convivial arrangements, not a symposiarch of the classic type (cf.Ecclus 32:1).

9. He did not know whence the wine was.

10. But once he had testified to-its excellence, the servants could tell the facts. The custom: ’Good wine to fresh palates, and less good afterwards’ is not otherwise known from contemporary writings, but we cannot deny its local authenticity—possibly it reflects Galilean parsimony—and it is certainly an outspoken testimony that would have called attention to the miracle, so that this would very soon have become known to all present.

11. This first of Christ’s miracles is, like all others, a sign of his divine power showing the ’glory of the Only-begotten’. His disciples had already believed in him, but now they believed more strongly. Catholic piety finds almost inexhaustible riches in these 11 verses (Gospel of 2nd Sunday after Epiphany). The passage shows the sanctity of marriage, the Wisdom of God approving domestic joy, the power of the Blessed Virgin’s intercession, and even the law of her mediation. Besides, it suggests the thought that Christ’s own nuptials with his Church have begun, the water of the old dispensation is becoming the good wine of the new, and an image is offered of the Eucharistic wine which is to gladden the heart of man.

12 Descent to Capharnaum —Not long after the marriage at Cana Jesus went to Capharnaum—a descent of some 1,550 feet, from 870 above Mediterranean level to 680 below, in a distance of less than 20 miles. Not now but later he made Capharnaum his own city, Matthew 9:1, by adopting it as the centre of his Galilean ministry. The more probable and common identification is Tell Hum, but the site of Capharnaum has also been sought at ’Ain Tabigha, Kirbet Minych and even Kheraze—all of which are within a radius of a few miles. Capharnaum was a very Jewish city, and Peter and Andrew had a house there. It was a natural rendezvous for pilgrims forming into caravans for the Paschal journey to Jerusalem.

The present stay, being for this purpose, lasted ’not many clays’. ’His brethren’ were the cousins or other relatives of our Lord, and were certainly neither full nor half-brothers or sisters (cf. art. ’Brethren of the Lord’ for discussion of the evidence).

2:13-3:36 First Judean Ministry.

13-22 Cleansing of the Temple —This cleansing is probably to be distinguished from that which took place on Monday before the Passion, Matthew 21:12f. That such a vindication by Jesus of the majesty of his Father’s house occurred twice—at the beginning and at the end of the public life—is not improbable; the differences of detail are not favourable to identification; moreover. Jn and the Synoptists show enough chronological intention in the matter to exclude the hypothesis of one and the same event. [There are however weighty arguments for holding that there was only one Cleansing of the Temple and that it did indeed occur at the beginning of the public life of our Lord where Jn places it. The reason why the synoptic gospels place it at the end may be that Mk and Lk in general follow the arrangement of Mt which is logical rather than chronological, and which accordingly groups all incidents connected with Jerusalem’ under the last Jerusalem visit.—Gen. Ed.]

13. The ’Pasch of the Jews’ marks the feast as belonging to the old order. ’Ascent’ was almost a technical term for the festal pilgrimage.

14. The sale of sacrificial animals (oxen, sheep, doves) and the setting up of tables of exchange in the court of the Gentiles, within the sacred enclosure (?e???) meant not only unbecoming noise and movement, Mark 11:16, but also avarice in which not the salesmen and changers only but the temple authorities also had their share. Foreign money had to be changed into the ancient half-shekel (called Tyrian, approximately is 6d) payable as annual capitation tax to the temple by every Israelite over twenty (cf.Matthew 17:24).

15. Cords were easily picked up in what had really become a market. Christ made a scourge (’as it were’ is not represented in the best MSS). The text does not say clearly whether the scourge was used on both men and animals; presumably so, in keeping with the drastic action of spilling the coins (???µa) and overturning the tables of the bankers.

16. Though they sold the offerings of the poor, there is no sufficient reason for supposing that the dove-sellers were less guilty than the others. Christ’s action stopped short of dispossessing the culprits, and birds in cages could not be driven out. Moreover, the word addressed to the dove-sellers is really addressed to all. ’My Father’s house’ involves the claim of divine Sonship.

17. This assertion of authority was so striking that the disciples thought of a verse from a Messianic Psalm, 68:10—quoted from LXX with its verb in the future. The verse is not merely accommodated, for in the Psalm the Just One is eaten up by his own zeal, not by the jealousy of persecutors.

18. Although the uneasy authorities had already received the witness of John the Baptist they now demanded further sign to authenticate Jesus’ personal authority to act thus.

19. The answer is like that given later to similar demands made in bad faith (cf.Matthew 16:4): ’Destroy this Temple’—rather ’sanctuary’ (µa??)—’and in three days I will raise it up’. The sign is the Resurrection. Consequently, our Lord’s words refer in no sense to the material inner sanctuary of the Zorobabelian-Herodian temple. The concessive imperative ’Destroy’ is prophetic, and shows clearly enough that the Jewish hostility which was to kill Jesus had begun that day. Such a saying from a Master, whose majestic zeal had just vindicated his Father’s house, should have provoked attentive thought, and the history of our Lord’s trial and crucifixion shows how it impressed itself; but actually it was now turned to ridicule. 20. A sanctuary 46 years in buildiftg to be destroyed and rebuilt in 3 days!—this is the sarcasm, which will be repeated on Calvary. The reference cannot be to the original Zorobabelian temple finished in 516 b.c. and not begun much earlier than 536. The Herodian reconstruction of Zorobabel’s edifice is meant. This had begun in the 18th year of Herod’s reign ( 20-19 b.c.) and is generally considered to have been finished only in a.d. 64. If the total includes the 18th year of Herod and counts 46 complete years up to the present Pasch (the aorist ????d?µ?T? with ?a?? not ?e??µ as subject, raises a doubt) we can fix with some confidence of probability the spring of a.d. 27 as the date of this event. [On the other hand Fr Sutcliffe (in A Two Year Public Ministry) has verified the contention of Fr Power Bi 9 ( 1928) 257 ff. that v 20 is to be rendered: ’This sanctuary has been built forty-six years’, i.e. was completed 46 years before, in 9 b.c.—Gen. Ed.] 21. Jesus spoke, however, about the sanctuary of his body, the most holy of all temples.

22. After the resurrection the disciples entered fully into the resurrection texts of the Scripture and this word of Jesus.

23-25 Imperfect Converts —The feast lasted 8 days, during which time many believed on account of the miracles worked by Jesus. Miracles are strong arguments of credibility. They prepare the mind for faith, but faith and especially deep faith is not the mere impression of miracles. These new adherents of Jesus at Jerusalem ’believed in his name’—accepted him as a divinely-sent Master. 24. St John’s double use of the verb p?steú? cannot easily be rendered in English. Those men trusted Jesus as a Master accredited by heaven, but Jesus did not trust himself to them. 25. The reason is that he had immediate and intimate knowledge of their dispositions—the ’searcher of hearts’ had no need to be told what depth of faith these believers had. He did not communicate himself entirely to them. St Augustine’s application to Catechumens is well known, but is only an accommodated sense.