D.Jesus and People (2:23-25)

D.Jesus and People (2:23-25)

III. THE SIGNS AND PUBLIC DISCOURSES OF THE CHRIST (2:1-12:50)

A. THE FIRST SIGN — WATER INTO WINE (2:1-11)¹

10« the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, land Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine." 4 "Dear woman, why do you involve me? " Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come." 5His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." 6Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.^a 7Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim. 8Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bride-groom aside 10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." 11 This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

a. Greek two to three metretes (probably about 75 to 115 liters)

It is often suggested that this miracle is not historical, but that, when the wine ran out, Jesus commanded water to be used. The "master of the banquet," entering into the spirit of the event, made a merry quip about this being the best wine of all! Someone who did not understand heard the remark and thus the story of a miracle originated.² Others think that John has adapted a heathen legend to set forth Christian truth.³

Such reconstructions founder on verses 9 and 11. In the first place John says that the water became wine. He records a miracle. And in the second place it was a miracle that had profound effects on those who had begun to follow Jesus. It is impossible to maintain that "his disciples put their faith in him," and that he "thus revealed his glory," on the basis of nothing more than a good joke.⁴ Nor is it easier to think that John would say this about a heathen legend. Plainly he records the miracle because he believes that it happened. But for him the miracles are all "signs": they point beyond them-selves. This particular miracle signifies that there is a transforming power associated with Jesus. He changes the water of Judaism into the wine of Christianity,⁵ the water of Christlessness into the wine of the richness and the fullness of eternal life in Christ, the water of the law into the wine of the gospel.⁶ While this "sign" is recorded only in this Gospel, it should not be overlooked that there are partial parallels in the Synoptics. Thus the image of a wedding feast is used with reference to the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:1-14; 25:1-13; Luke 12:36), and the disciples in the presence of Christ are likened to wedding guests rejoicing with the bridegroom (Mark 2:19). Again the contrast of Jesus' message with Judaism is illustrated by the wine and the wineskins (Luke 5:37ff.).

J. Duncan M. Derrett has a very valuable discussion of this miracle.⁷ He points out that in the ancient Near East there was a strong element of reciprocity about weddings, and that, for example, it was possible to take legal action in certain circumstances against a man who had failed to provide the appropriate wedding gift.⁸ This is quite foreign to our wedding customs and we are apt to overlook such possibilities. But it means that when the supply of wine failed more than social embarrassment was involved. The bridegroom and his family may well have become involved in a heavy pecuniary liability. The gift made by Jesus was thus doubly important.

1-2 For "the third day" see on l:19-28.⁹ The expression occurs only here in this Gospel. Verses 43-51 of the first chapter have given us the events of five days of the momentous week John describes. Nothing is said of day 6. "The third day," by the inclusive mode of reckoning then current, brings us to day 7. Cana is mentioned in this passage, in 4:46; 21:2, and nowhere else in the New Testament. On each occasion it is qualified by "of Galilee." Evidently it was not a well-known place.¹⁰ John does not disclose the identity of the happy couple, but the presence of the mother of Jesus (neither here nor anywhere else does he make use of her name¹¹ ) and the invitation extended to Jesus show that friends of the family were involved. The whole attitude of Mary, her taking action when the wine ran out, and her giving of instructions to the servants accords with this.¹² It is sometimes said that Jesus and his disciples¹³ were unbidden guests, being "invited" only when they turned up unexpectedly. It is inferred that it was their presence that caused the supply of wine to be inadequate. There is nothing in the narrative to show that this was in fact the state of affairs. The Greek may well mean that they had been invited earlier.¹⁴ We should perhaps comment on the lack of any mention of Joseph (he is not mentioned anywhere in this Gospel other than in the expression "son of Joseph" (1:45; 6:42). It may be that he had died before these days, though against this the natural inference from 6:42 is that he was alive then.

Our information about the details of marriage ceremonies (as distinct from marriage regulations) in first-century Jewry is far from complete. It may be filled out by assuming that customs did not alter greatly, so that earlier and later references may help us. We know that marriage was preceded by a betrothal that was much more serious than is an engagement with us. It meant the solemn pledging of the couple, each to the other, and was so binding that to break it divorce proceedings were necessary.¹⁵ At the conclusion of the the betrothal period the marriage took place, on a Wednesday if the bride was a virgin and on a Thursday if she was a widow (Ket. 1:1). The bridegroom and his friends made their way in procession to the bride's home. This was often done at night, when there could be a spectacular torchlight procession. There were doubtless speeches and expressions of goodwill before the bride and groom went in procession to the groom's house, where the wedding banquet was held. We assume that there was a religious ceremony, but we have no details. The processions and the feast are the principal items of which we have knowledge. The feast was prolonged, and might last as long as a week (cf. Judg. 14:12).¹⁶

3 On this occasion the wine was all used up before the end of the feast.¹⁷ This meant more than the disruption of the festivities.¹⁸ There was something of a slur on the hosts, for they had not fully discharged the duties of hospitality. This may indicate that they were poor and had made the minimum provision, hoping for the best. It is also possible that the lack of wine involved another embarrassment, in that it rendered the bridegroom's family liable to a lawsuit. They were legally required to provide a feast of a certain standard.¹⁹

Until this time Jesus had never performed a miracle (v. 11), but his mother's words to him²⁰ show that she reposed trust in his resourcefulness. They may show more. Godet suggests that there was a "state of extraordinary exaltation" as a result of the events recorded in the first chapter. Mary would have shared in this. In addition she knew that angels had spoken about Jesus before his birth and that she had conceived him while still a virgin. She knew that his whole manner of life stamped him as different. She knew, in short, that Jesus was the Messiah, and it is not unlikely that she now tried to make him take such action as would show him to all as the Messiah she knew him to be.²¹

4 Jesus' address to her, "Woman," is not as cold in the Greek as in English. He uses it, for example, in his last moments as he hangs on the cross and tenderly commends her to the beloved disciple (19:26).²² This vocative was "a term of respect or affection" (LS). Yet we must bear in mind that it is most unusual to find it when a son addresses his mother. There appear to be no examples of this use cited other than those in this Gospel. It is neither a Hebrew nor a Greek practice. That Jesus calls Mary "Woman" and not "Mother" probably indicates that there is a new relationship between them as he enters his public ministry.²³ And if the form of address is tender, the rest of Jesus' words make it clear that there was something of a barrier between them.²⁴ Evidently Mary thought of the intimate relations of the home at Nazareth as persisting. But Jesus in his public ministry was not only or primarily the son of Mary, but "the Son of Man" who was to bring the realities of heaven to people on earth (1:51). A new relationship was established. Mary must not presume.²⁵ The meaning of "My time has not yet come"²⁶ in the context is surely, "It is not yet time for me to act." Yet we should notice a remarkable series of passages throughout this Gospel which refer to the "hour" or the "time" of Jesus. This is said not to have come in 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20, as well as here. But when the cross is in immediate prospect Jesus says, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified" (12:23; cf. also 12:27; 13:1; 16:32; 17:1; the same idea may be present in Matt. 26:18, 45; Mark 14:41).²⁷ If we are right in linking the present passage with the later ones Jesus is thinking of his messianic function. At the threshold of his ministry he looks forward to its consummation.²⁸

5 Clearly Mary did not understand Jesus' words as a sharp rebuke. She doubtless realized that things between them were not the same as they had been hitherto. But she realized also that Jesus was not unmindful of the present difficulty, and that he would take what action was necessary. So she commanded the servants to obey his instructions.

6 John now draws attention to the presence of six large waterpots made of stone.²⁹ The half dozen represented a good store of water for carrying out the kind of purification of which we read in Mark 7:1-4. Before the meal servants would have poured water over the hands of every guest. If there was a large number of guests a good deal of water would have been needed. John does not elaborate, but says enough for his Greek readers to understand why so much water was provided. "Holding" means "having space for"; it refers to capacity, not actual content. Some commentators find symbolism in the number six. The Jews saw seven as the perfect number, and six accordingly was short of perfection and thus lacking, incomplete.³⁰ The six pots are then held to symbolize Judaism as imperfect. There may be something in this, but a strong objection is that the narrative contains nothing that would symbolize completeness, which would surely be required to correspond to the incomplete. Jesus does not create or produce a seventh pot.

7 Jesus tells "them," evidently the servants (as NIV), to fill the pots.³¹ This they do, "to the brim." This is possibly to indicate that there could be no addition to the contents. These pots at the time of the miracle contained nothing but water.

8 Jesus' next command is "draw some out" and then "take it to the master of the banquet." This evidently means that they are to draw from the big water pots. But, since the verb is the normal one for drawing water from a well,³² Westcott and others have thought that Jesus means them to draw from the well and take that water directly to the chief table. This is within the range of possibility, but it is open to the not inconsiderable objection that, if it be accepted, there seems no reason for mentioning the waterpots or for Jesus' command that they be filled up. That they were filled right up to the brim surely indicates that they have some part to play in the story. Since the verb can be used for drawing water from a large vessel we need not doubt that that is what was done.³³ The master of the banquet" (an official mentioned here only in the New Testament) is apparently one of the guests charged with the duty of being the chairman who presided over the gathering.³⁴

9-10 John does not say how or when the miracle took place. He simply speaks of "the water that had been turned into wine."³⁵ He does not even tell us how much water was changed into wine. It is usually held that it was all the water in the six waterpots, in which case Jesus was making a bountiful wedding gift to the couple, who were evidently poor. Not only did he rescue them from what might well have been a crippling liability, but he provided that they began their married life with an unexpected asset. There will be spiritual significance also, for the "sign" points to the truth that Christ abundantly supplies all the need of his people (cf. 1:16). This interpretation is not, however, certain. It is possible that John refers to the water actually drawn out (somewhat in the manner of the lepers who found themselves cleansed as they went to report to the priests, Luke 17:12-14). On this view, however, it is hard to see a reason for mentioning the size of the pots. It is better accordingly to accept the first-mentioned view. Either way what happened was startling. The master of the banquet did not know the origin of the wine he was tasting, but he recognized its quality. He summoned the bridegroom (who was responsible for the feast), and commented on his departure from common custom. People universally put out the better wine at the beginning of a feast, while palates are still sensitive. It is only when their guests³⁶ are somewhat affected (the verb rendered "have had too much to drink" means "are drunken"³⁷ ) that they produce the worse wine.³⁸ This bridegroom, however, has kept the good³⁹ wine until the end. We are thus left in no doubt as to the quality of the wine that resulted from the miracle.⁴⁰

11 John rounds off the narrative with a reminder of the nature of the event and its effect on the disciples. He gives a precise note of locality ("in Cana of Galilee") in accordance with his general tendency to stress the factuality of the events he records. This is the first⁴¹ of Jesus' miracles, which John, as often, calls "signs."⁴² It is characteristic of them not so much that they arouse wonder and are hard to explain, nor even that they are demonstrations of the divine power, but rather that they point us to something beyond themselves. They show us God at work. They are meaningful. (See also Additional Note G, pp. 607-13.)

John tells us further that Jesus "revealed his glory" (for "glory" see on 1:14). This is very important for the Evangelist. His declared intention in writing his Gospel is to show that "Jesus is the Christ" (20:31). This involves the clear recognition that he is fully man, it is true, but it also involves bringing out the truth that he is more. Throughout the first chapter he has shown us both aspects. Jesus is the Logos who was with God and was God. He is also the "Teacher" to whom Andrew and his friend came (1:38). Neither aspect should be overlooked. So now he tells us that the "sign" he has described displayed the glory of Jesus.⁴³ This might be hidden from the casual observer.⁴⁴ Indeed, John says nothing at all of the effect of the "sign" on the master of the banquet or on the guests generally or on the servants who certainly knew what had happened. But his disciples saw "his glory" and they "put their faith in him" (Rieu: "his disciples' faith in him was fixed"). The glory of the Messiah was revealed to some and hidden from others. The disciples are now said to have "believed" in him. Nathanael has already been recorded as a believer (1:50), and now others join him. They had known enough about Jesus before this to follow him. Now in this miracle they saw his glory, and despite his outward lowliness they put their trust in him.⁴⁵

INTERLUDE (2:12)

12After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.

12 After the wedding⁴⁶ Jesus and those with him went down to Capernaum⁴⁷ for a short stay. The verb is appropriate, for Cana was on the uplands whereas Capernaum was by the Sea of Galilee. Capernaum was evidently a place of some importance, for we read of a centurion and his soldiers there (Matt. 8:5-9) as well as a customs post (Matt. 9:9), and John tells of a royal official who evidently lived in that city (4:46). John does not say why Jesus went there. He has already been described as "of Nazareth" (1:45), but it may be that his family had now moved to Capernaum⁴⁸ (though against this is the expression "a few days," which looks like a reference to a short visit). From the Synoptists we know that Capernaum was Jesus' center throughout most of his ministry, and it might even be called "his own town" (Matt. 9:1). "His mother" is not mentioned again until the passion narrative. The expression "his brothers" has been variously understood. The most natural way of taking it is to understand the brothers to be children of Joseph and Mary, the "Helvidian" view (from Helvidius, a fourth-century theologian who advocated it). The expression occurs several times in the Synoptic Gospels, and never with any qualification such as would be expected if the words were to bear any other meaning. The view is supported by appealing to the statements that Joseph "had no union with her until she gave birth to a son" (Matt. 1:25) and that Jesus was Mary's "firstborn, a son" (Luke 2:7). The most natural interpretation of both passages is that Joseph and Mary had children after the birth of Jesus.

In the second century of our era, however, the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity appeared. Where this was held, the possibility of any other children was, of course, excluded. Two alternative explanations of "his brothers" were proposed. One saw them as the children of Joseph by a former marriage (the view of Epiphanius), and the other as Jesus' cousins (the view of Jerome). This last-mentioned view is almost universally rejected nowadays except by some Roman Catholics. There seems nothing in its favor and much against it (e.g. "brother" does not mean "cousin," the correct word for which existed and was in use in the New Testament, Col. 4:10). The Epiphanian view can claim the support of many writers of antiquity and some in modern times. The principal evidence for it is the very appearance of the tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity. But this can scarcely outweigh the natural sense of the passages cited from Matthew and Luke. Even J. B. Lightfoot, who favored the Epiphanian view, admits that such expressions would have been avoided by people who thought the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity of paramount importance. The Helvidian view by far the most probable.⁴⁹

No indication is given as to which disciples accompanied Jesus. Probably we should understand those mentioned in chapter 1.

Β, CLEANSING THE TEMPLE (2:13-17)

13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" 17His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me. "^a

a. 17 Psalm 69:9

The Synoptists each have an account of a cleansing of the Temple (Matt. 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46). The Markan account is the fullest, but even so it is shorter than John's. John differs from Mark in mentioning oxen and sheep, the scourge of cords, the word for "money changers" (v. 14),⁵⁰ the "pouring out" of the money (NIV, "scattered the coins"), and the command, "Get these out of here!" John's word for "overturned" is different from that in any of the Synoptics,⁵¹ and whereas they say that Jesus quoted Isaiah 56:7 followed by Jeremiah 7:11, John does not speak of him as citing any Scripture. But he does say that the disciples remembered Psalm 69:9, which none of the Synoptists records. He does not mention, as Mark does, Jesus' prohibition of carrying anything through the Temple, that is making a shortcut of it. Mark says that Jesus overturned the seats of the sellers of doves, John only that he told them to take "these" things away. But the most important difference is one of time. In this Gospel the cleansing of the Temple is the first great public act of Jesus' ministry; in the other Gospels it is the last.

The usual explanation of all this is that there was but one cleansing and that it took place, as the Synoptists allege, at the climax of the ministry.⁵² It was probably the event that sparked off the opposition of the high priests and led to Jesus' arrest. John's placing of the incident on this view is due to the fact that he has a theological rather than a chronological approach. John is making it clear that from the outset of his ministry Jesus repudiated what was central to the Temple cultus and further that his death and resurrection were critically important.⁵³ If we hold that there could have been only one cleansing this is probably the way to understand it.

But why should we make this assumption? The Johannine narrative is firmly embedded in a great block of non-Synoptic material. Apart from the work of the Baptist (which is manifestly different from anything in the Synoptics)⁵⁴ nothing in the first five chapters of this Gospel is to be found in any of the Synoptics. Of course, it is not impossible that John took one lone Synoptic episode and bound it firmly into his own framework as far from its correct historical setting as he could make it. But in view of the major differences in wording and in setting, as well as in time, we will require more evidence than a facile assumption that two similar narratives must refer to the same event.⁵⁵ The words in common are few: "sellers," "tables," "doves," "money changers," and "drove out," and without them it would be practically impossible to tell a story of Temple cleansing.

Moreover, the evil in question was one that was likely to recur after a check. Jesus' action, though salutary, is not likely to have put a permanent end to the practice.⁵⁶ or can it be said that the authorities would certainly have taken such action after one incident as would effectively prevent a recurrence. At the time indicated in John Jesus was quite unknown. His strong action would have aroused a furor in Jerusalem, but that is all. The authorities may well have been disinclined to go to extremes against him, especially if there was some public feeling against the practices he opposed.⁵⁷ It was quite otherwise at the time indicated in Mark. Then Jesus was well known and vigorously opposed by the high-priestly party. His action would inevitably lead to strong counteraction.

Murray makes the point that, at the trial before Caiaphas, there was difficulty in establishing the words used by Jesus on this occasion (v. 29; Mark 14:56-59). This is intelligible if the reference is to an event that occurred two or three years earlier;⁵⁸ scarcely so if it had taken place within the week. The differences in the wording of Jesus' protests in the two accounts may also well point to two occasions, especially if Murray is right in seeing in "you have made it 'a den of robbers' " a reference to the determination of the authorities to kill Jesus. This would have been true on the second occasion, but not on the first.⁵⁹ Tasker finds two cleansings and thinks of this one as explaining the mission of scribes sent to Galilee to oppose Jesus. The mission is mentioned, but no reason given for it in Mark 3:22.⁶⁰ R. G. Gruenler discovers two cleansings and regards this as important: "There are two cleansings in the gospel accounts, appropriately framing the beginning and the ending of his redemptive ministry. . . ."⁶¹

13 John refers to three Passovers (four if 5:1 be taken of a Passover). The first is that mentioned here and in verse 23. There is a second in 6:4, while the third is referred to several times (11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28,39; 19:14). If, as seems probable, we take 5:1 to refer to another feast we are left with three Passovers, which will give us a minimum of two years for Jesus' ministry, and possibly something approaching three years. Each of these feasts John calls "the Jewish Passover" (for "the Jews" see on 1:19). Westcott, Barrett, and others think the expression points to the existence of a Christian Passover distinct from that of the Jews. But this is intrinsically unlikely, for at this period the Christians were not noted for the production of liturgical feasts. There is not much evidence in the New Testament even for the observance of Sunday (though enough to show that the day was kept). Again the Christian Passover was already sacrificed (1 Cor. 5:7), which would be a strange mode of speech if the Christians observed an annual festival of that name. There is also the difficulty that the Feast of Tabernacles is referred to in similar fashion (7:2). Are we to think of a Christian Feast of Tabernacles also? Where is this to stop? It is best to take the expression as John's usual explanation inserted for the benefit of his Gentile readers; it was a feast the church did not keep and there was thus need for an explanation for church members. The Passover commemorated the great deliverance of the people from Egypt (Exod. 12). John mentions the festival much more than do the Synoptists, and this may well be part of his plan to bring out the messianic significance of Jesus. What was foreshadowed in the great Passover deliverance of old was brought to its consummation in the sacrifice of Jesus.⁶²

14 The "temple" signifies the whole of the Temple precincts, including the various courts as well as the holy place.⁶³ Here clearly one of the courts is meant.⁶⁴ It is certain that the selling⁶⁵ referred to here took place in the outer courtyard, the court of the Gentiles. The reason for the practice was, of course, the convenience of having at hand a supply of the victims required for the prescribed sacrifices. People who came to worship from a distance could scarcely bring their offerings with them. If they were to sacrifice at all they must have some way of purchasing the appropriate victims when they reached Jerusalem. Those "exchanging money"⁶⁶ plied their trade because it was permitted to make money offerings in the Temple only in the approved currency. People from other countries would bring all sorts of coinage with them and this had to be changed into acceptable coins. An astonishing number of commentators affirm that the reason for the unacceptability of other currencies was that the coins bore the Emperor's image or some heathen symbol. But, as Israel Abrahams pointed out long ago, Tyrian coinage was not only permitted but expressly prescribed (Mishnah, Bekh. 8:7), and this bore heathen symbols.⁶⁷ He thinks that the reason for the prescription was that this coinage was "of so exact a weight and so good an alloy." Whatever the reason, people had to change their money before making their offerings and this required that money changers should be at work somewhere.

15-16 Jesus made a whip⁶⁸ of "cords" (more probably "rushes"⁶⁹ ) and proceeded to drive the traders⁷⁰ from the Temple with their goods. It is clear that it was not so much the physical force as the moral power he employed that emptied the courts. "It was surely the blazing anger of the selfless Christ rather than the weapon which He carried which really cleared the Temple Courts of its noisy, motley throng."⁷¹ He overturned the tables used by the money changers and poured out their money. He commanded the dovesellers to take their birds away. His words to them are important, for they give the reason for his whole action: "How dare you turn⁷² my Father's house⁷³ into a market!"⁷⁴ (Moffatt, "My Father's house is not to be turned into a shop!"). The play on the word "house" is missed in modern translations (ARV retains it with "make not my Father's house a house of merchandise"). In the Markan story the traders are stigmatized as making the Temple "a den of robbers," but here the objection is not to their dishonesty, but to their presence: Jesus is objecting to the practice, and not merely to the way it is conducted. It is sometimes said that this represents an attack on the whole sacrificial system, for it would not have been possible to maintain the sacrifices unless people from afar could purchase the necessary victims in a convenient place. But that is just the point. A "convenient" place need not be within the temple precincts. It is to this that Jesus makes his objection, and not to anything else.⁷⁵

17 The effect on the disciples was to remind them of Psalm 69:9.⁷⁶ The action of Jesus gave evidence of a consuming zeal for the house of God. The ancient Scriptures found their fulfillment in what he did. "The action is not merely that of a Jewish reformer: it is a sign of the advent of the Messiah" (Hoskyns). We should not miss the way this incident fits in with John's aim of showing Jesus to be the Messiah. All his actions imply a special relationship with God. They proceed from his messianic vocation. The citation from Scripture is important from another point of view, for it accords with another habit of this Evangelist. While John does not quote the Old Testament as frequently as do some other New Testament writers, it is still the case, as Richard Morgan says, that "the Old Testament is present at every crucial moment in the Gospel."⁷⁷ It is one of John's great themes that in Jesus God is working his purposes out. Every critical moment sees the fulfillment of Scripture in which those purposes are set forth.

C. DESTROYING AND RAISING THE TEMPLE (2:18-22)

18 Then the the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" 19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." 20The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

The Synoptics tell of a cleansing of the Temple, but they have nothing equivalent to this section. John records a cryptic saying of Jesus and goes on to give both a Jewish misunderstanding of it and his own interpretation.⁷⁸ Characteristically he rounds it off with the effect of all this on the faith of the disciples.

18 The cleansing of the Temple was a startling act. It had its implications not only for the condemnation of the Temple traders, but also for the Person of Jesus (see on v. 17). It was a messianic action. The Jews (for this term see on 1:19) demanded⁷⁹ that Jesus authenticate his implied claim by producing a "sign" (see the comments on v. 11 and Additional Note G, pp. 607-13). Interestingly they did not dispute the rightness of his action. They were not so much defending the Temple traffic as questioning Jesus' implied status. Their demand arose from the facts that the Jews were a very practical race and that they expected God to perform mighty miracles when the messianic age dawned.⁸⁰ Thus their test for a messianic claimant was, Can he do the signs of the Messiah? Paul could think of the Jews as seekers after signs just as typically as the Greeks were pursuers of wisdom (1 Cor. 1:22). In the Temple cleansing the Jews discerned a messianic claim (note again how faithfully John records anything that bears on Jesus' messiahship), and they demanded accordingly that he authenticate himself by a sign.

19 Despite the hesitation of some critics the genuineness of this saying is beyond reasonable doubt, as is shown by the persistence of references to it. At the trial of Jesus one of the charges brought against him was that he had said he would destroy the Temple and raise it up again (Matt. 26:60-61; Mark 14:57-59). The mockers flung the same accusation at the dying sufferer on the cross (Matt. 27:40; Mark 15:29).⁸¹ Stephen's opponents said, "We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place ..." (Acts 6:14; cf. Acts 7:48; 17:24). There is possibly another echo of the same accusation in the charge that Paul taught people "against... this place" (Acts 21:28), all the more so since the detailed charge against Stephen is an elaboration of the simple "This fellow never stops speaking against the holy place and against the law" (Acts 6:13). It is clear that the charge was persistent and repeated. It is idle to deny that there was any reality behind it at all, and to put the whole thing down to the malice of false witnesses.⁸² While there is no reason to doubt that those who testified against Jesus at his trial were ready to say almost anything to get him condemned, yet the evidence before us is that they used a distorted version (or rather versions — their witness did not agree, Mark 14:59) of a genuine saying of Jesus. What was this saying? There is nothing that seems adequate in the teaching recorded in the Synoptic Gospels.⁸³ But this saying does meet the conditions. It has the necessary references to the destruction and raising again of the Temple, and it is not easy to understand. It would readily be misunderstood and misremembered.

Jesus usually refused to give a sign when asked for one (Mark 8:11 -12; cf. his refusal to answer the question of John 6:30). He complains that, though his enemies could discern the weather signs in the heavens they were quite unable to recognize more important signs, "the signs of the times," when they were before them (Matt. 16:3). But in the Synoptic Gospels he regularly pointed to his resurrection as the only sign that would be given to these people (Matt. 12:39-40; 16:4;Luke 11:29). "Destroy" is literally "loose."⁸⁴ The verb is often used of untying and the like. It can refer to the loosing of the component parts from one another and so mean "destroy" (cf. its use for the breaking up of part of a ship, Acts 27:41, and the breaking down of "the dividing wall of hostility," Eph. 2:14). It can also be used of the dissolution of life, or killing. The imperative here seems equivalent to a conditional, "If you destroy ... I will raise up," though Howard equates it with the future tense, "You will destroy" (IB).⁸⁵ It is possible also that we should discern something of the prophetic method wherein the spoken word initiates the action in which the purpose of God is worked out. There is irony in the fact that ultimately the Jews themselves were to be the means of bringing about the sign they asked Jesus to produce, and which they did not recognize when it came. There is further irony in that to put Jesus to death was to offer the one sacrifice that can truly expiate sin, and thus doom the Temple as a place for the offering of sacrifice. Jesus' word for "temple" denotes the shrine, the sanctuary, the very dwelling place of deity.⁸⁶ It may be applied to the believer (as in 1 Cor. 6:19), but Jesus' use of the word probably implies that God dwelt in him in a very special way.⁸⁷ In three days" means "within the space of three days" and does not pinpoint the event.

20 The Jews explode in an incredulous question. Their temple was a magnificent structure. Herod had commenced its rebuilding partly to satisfy his lust for building, and partly in an attempt to stand well with his Jewish subjects, among whom he was very unpopular; for both reasons it was important that the building be outstanding.⁸⁸ Work was still going on at his death, and for that matter, for long after. The Temple was not completed until A.D. 63. The Jews accordingly mean here that the work has been proceeding for forty-six years.⁸⁹ The fact that it was still not complete would heighten their amazement at a statement that they understood to mean that Jesus claimed the power to erect its like in a mere three days. "You" is emphatic. Though they had asked Jesus for a sign they mocked the suggestion that he of all people could do such a thing. Incidentally the pattern we see in these verses, a saying of Jesus, a complete misunderstanding, and an explanation, recurs in this Gospel (e.g. 3:3ft; 4:10ff., 32ff.; 6:41ff., 51ff.; 11:11ff.; 14:7ff.). It is not, of course, confined to John (see, for example, Mark 7:15ff,; 8:15ff.), and we may see in it one of the ways in which Jesus instructed his hearers.

21 The Evangelist gives his own comment. Jesus⁹⁰ was not talking about the temple of stones and mortar that they saw about them. He was talking about his body. It is possible to understand "his body" of the church, which in Paul's writings is explicitly called the body of Christ (Eph. 1:23; 4:16; Col. 1:18). On this view the saying would mean that Jesus would presently establish his church⁹¹ (cf. Matt. 16:18). There is little to be said for this. Such a saying would be far more cryptic than a reference to the resurrection. And there is no evidence for the application of the term "body" to the church for many years after this time. A somewhat similar suggestion is that Jesus referred to the destruction of the Temple as a living force, that is he spoke of the abolition of the sacrifices in the new system he would set up.⁹² It is not easy to understand this as his meaning.

More commonly scholars think that Jesus was referring to the literal Temple. But since we can scarcely think of him as undertaking to raise up the literal Temple in three days they feel that John is not giving us the saying exactly as it was spoken, and that its original form is lost. Jesus said something about the Temple, possibly about its being superseded in the new covenant he had come to establish, and the saying was misunderstood.

Such explanations, however, are in no way superior to that put forward by John. These factors are relevant:

(i)Jesus did predict the resurrection, though the disciples did not understand what he meant (Matt. 12:40; 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19, 26, 32; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33). One such prediction with its specific mention of "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:40) comes in the same chapter as the reference to the "greater than the temple" (Matt. 12:6).

(ii)Jesus said something about the temple that referred in some way to its destruction. But the saying was not clear and straightforward. At his trial it was felt to be a useful charge to level at him, but the witnesses could not agree on the form of it (Mark 14:59). This argues for some such cryptic saying as the one we have here.

(iii)In Jesus' teaching "three days" almost always refers to the period leading up to the resurrection. It is not easy to see how this expression could have been attached to a saying about the Temple unless Jesus himself had connected the two. The explanations mentioned above ignore the three days, or explain them as "a short time." This meaning is found in the Old Testament, but it is not common in the Gospels.

(iv)The persistence of the saying in accusations leveled at Jesus and afterward at his followers shows that he must have said something of the sort, and said it in such a way that it was impressed on the minds of his hearers, more especially of his opponents. Such a saying as this, made immediately after the cleansing of the Temple, meets the requirements. It would be easy for his foes to misinterpret it, their attention being focused on the material Temple at that moment. And it would not be inappropriate for Jesus to be thinking at that time of the real nature of his mission.

While then the primary reference of the saying is surely to the resurrection of Jesus it would be quite in the Johannine manner to see a double meaning in the words. It may well be that they point us also to the ultimate abolition of the Temple and of the Temple sacrifices.⁹³ The words about rebuilding will in that case refer to their replacement by the spiritual temple⁹⁴ and the new covenant effected by the death and resurrection of Christ.⁹⁵ This is all the more likely in that all these events are inseparably bound up with one another.⁹⁶ Such a double meaning would link the saying on the one hand with the Matthean passages noted above, and on the other with the temple "not made by man" of Mark 14:58 (cf. Acts 7:48; 17:24).

22 John does not say that the saying was luminous to "his disciples" (for this expression see on v. 2). But when Jesus was raised⁹⁷ they remembered it, and it was then a strengthening of faith for them. John tells us that they then "believed the Scripture." In the singular "scripture" often refers to a single passage.⁹⁸ If this is the case here, it is not easy to identify the passage in mind. It may perhaps be Psalm 16:10, which is interpreted of the resurrection (Acts 2:31; 13:35), or Isaiah 53:12, which is not unfairly understood of the resurrection, for it speaks of the activity of the Servant after his death. There is a reference to being raised on the third day (Hos. 6:2), but this does not seem relevant to Jesus' resurrection.

The disciples believed not only "the Scripture" but also "the words⁹⁹ that Jesus had spoken." This placing of Jesus' saying alongside Scripture is interesting and its christological implications should not be overlooked. Notice also that the disciples are not said to have believed this saying until they saw it fulfilled. Jesus was fond of parabolic language, and evidently they took this to be another example. They may well have reasoned, "Obviously he cannot mean a rising from the dead in a literal sense. What then does he mean?" But when the resurrection took place they saw the meaning of the words, and they believed them. May we not see in this a fulfillment of Jesus' later words, "the Holy Spirit . . . will remind you of everything I have said to you" (14:26)?

D. JESUS AND PEOPLE (2:23-25)

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.^a 24But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.

a. 23 Or and believed in him

John inserts a short section to show the success that attended the ministry of Jesus in Jerusalem¹⁰⁰ at this time, and also to show Jesus' knowledge of people and independence of them. When many came to believe on him he did not commit himself to them. He was not dependent on human approval. The Master went his own way, unswayed by the passing enthusiasms of people. He knew people thoroughly.

23 For "the Passover Feast" see on verse 13,¹⁰¹ and for believing on the name see on 1:12. The verb "believed" is in the aorist tense; many came to the point of decision. Yet we should probably not regard them as having a profound faith. They believed because they saw¹⁰² the "signs" (cf. 6:2 and see Additional Note G, pp. 607-13), While such faith is better than none (see 6:26), it is not the deepest faith (cf. 20:29).¹⁰³ It is no more than a beginning. R. H. Lightfoot points out that it is "only a first attraction to the Lord (cf. 4^45.48), and does not yet know Him as the Son of man, still less as the unique Son of God, and is therefore imperfect and liable to be overthrown; and of this He, the Word become flesh, is well aware." Strachan brings out the unsure basis of this faith by translating, "So long as they were beholding." The reference to Jesus' "signs" and the imperfect tense of the verb "was doing" (showing that Jesus continued to do signs) are somewhat perplexing, for John records no sign in Jerusalem unless the cleansing of the Temple be called such. But he disclaims any attempt at being exhaustive (20:30; 21:25). There is no doubt that he wants us to think of Jesus as continually manifesting his glory but he does not go into details.

24 Jesus is set in emphatic contrast to those who saw his signs.¹⁰⁴ There is an interesting word play, for the verb "entrust" in this verse is that rendered "believed" in the previous one. Because of what they knew of Jesus from his signs many came to put their trust in him. But because he knew¹⁰⁵ all people Jesus put his trust in none of them (GNB misses the point with "because he knew them all"; John is referring to people in general, not only to this group). The verb used of his action is in the imperfect tense; it denotes his habitual attitude.¹⁰⁶ To believe on the basis of the signs is to take as basic something we can see and to which we give weight on the basis of our experience. Jesus calls people to trust him for what he is, not because he passes the tests we set. Those who had been attracted by the miracles would have been ready to try to make an earthly king of him (cf. 6:15). But he did not trust himself to them. He looked for genuine conversion, not enthusiasm for the spectacular.¹⁰⁷

25 The idea of witness is a prominent one in this Gospel (see on 1:7), but John tells us that there was one form of witness that was not needed, namely a witness that would inform Jesus about people's innermost being. "He" is emphatic; there is no doubt as to the fact of Jesus' knowledge. This is to be understood in the light of the Old Testament view that God alone knows "the hearts of all men" (1 Kings 8:39). It involves an unobtrusive, but not unimportant, claim about the Person of Jesus.¹⁰⁸

———————————————

1. According to Bultmann this section of the book is the beginning of the manifestation of the glory of Jesus. Chapters 3-12 set forth its manifestation before the worldand chapters 13-17 before believers (p. 77).

2. See, for example, Leslie D. Weatherhead, It Happened in Palestine (London, 1944), pp. 43-44. Weatherhead imagines the scene: "The wine runs out. Water is served. Why, that's the best joke of all! They lift their wine-cups, as we do in fun when we shout, 'Adam's ale is the best of all.' The bridegroom is congratulated by the master of ceremonies, who carries the joke farther still. 'Why you've kept the best wine until now.' It requires only a servant going through the room into the kitchen for a wonderful rumour to start" (pp. 50-51).

3. J. Estlin Carpenter draws attention to the parabolic nature of the miracle: "It is a parable in action. The wine that failed was the old wine of Judaism" (The Johannine Writings [London, 1927], p. 377). He goes on to note the rites associated with the god Dionysos and he suggests that the Fourth Evangelist has transformed the miracles of Dionysos "into an imaginative symbol of the glory of Christ" (p. 380). Similarly Bultmann thinks that the story is doubtless (zweifellos) from heathen legend. But this is pure assumption. The parallels are not close enough to carry conviction. "No part of this legend as we know it bears any very close resemblance to the miracle at Cana" (R. E. Williams, JBL, LXXXVI [1967], p. 312, n. 1) John gives the impression that he is telling what happened and recording it for its meaning. That the story may well have been used to show the superiority of Christ to Dionysos is likely, but that its origin is in pagan legend does not follow. Hoskyns totally rejects the idea: "Neither in the actual narrative of the miracle of Cana nor anywhere else in the rest of the Gospel" can he find any hint of the transformation of a Greek story (Detached Note 3, p. 191). See also the notes in Barrett, who, while being ready to allow for the possibility of some Dionysiac elements, concludes, "it seems clear that John meant to show the supersession of Judaism in the glory of Jesus. It is possible that in doing so he drew material from Dionysiac sources; but it was Jewish purificatory water which stood in the water pots and was made the wine of the Gospel." Strachan brings out another valuable point when he says, "The whole style of the Johannine narrative of the Cana miracle is itself sufficient to disprove this (i.e. Carpenter's view). In addition, the Evangelist in his battle with the Docetists could not afford to 'transform' mythical stories into allegedly historical incidents." Wright also rejects Carpenter's view, but he himself suggests that "some incident and some words of Jesus are fused in the creative imagination, and by the spiritual insight, of the author, into a kind of parable. The incident and the words are treated by the Evangelist with the utmost freedom." This is no improvement on Carpenter and is just as subjective. It is one thing to say that John saw a symbolic meaning in this story; it is quite another to say that he constructed a parable. Others derive the story from Philo who says, "But let Melchizedek instead of water offer wine, and give to souls strong drink, that they may be seized by a divine intoxication, more sober than sobriety itself" (Leg. Alleg. 3.82). But again the parallels are not nearly close enough. Barclay views the narrative this way: "So to the Jews John said: 'Jesus has come to turn the imperfection of the law into the perfection of grace.' And to the Greeks John said: 'Jesus has come really and truly to do the things you only dreamed the gods could do.' " This may well be the point of John's telling the story. But it does not imply that he derived it from either his Jewish or his Greek predecessors. He recounts a Christian story that is valuable in both contexts.

4. Bailey rejects the jest idea, going on to say: "no event in the Gospel bears stronger evidence of personal observation." Cf. Murray, "It is morally incredible that 'the beginning of signs' can have been a conjuring trick"; and again, "I cannot help feeling that the statement of the effect of the sign on the faith of the disciples comes straight from the personal experience of one of them."

5. A. R. Vidler has a sermon on this story in which he says that John is trying to drive home a contrast, "the contrast between the old Jewish order of things, which was based on trying to observe the Law, and the new Christian order of things which springs from the grace and truth brought into the world by Jesus the Messiah, and which consists not in trying to be good but in rejoicing in the generosity of God" (Windsor Sermons [London, 1958], p. 68). F. F. Bruce speaks succinctly of "Christ's changing of the water of Jewish purification into the wine of the new age" (Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls [London and Grand Rapids, 1956], p. 135).

6. yle finds eschatological significance in the story: "To attend a marriage feast, and cleanse the temple from profanation were among the first acts of our Lord's ministry at His first coming. To purify the whole visible Church, and hold a marriage supper, will be among His first acts, when he comes again."

7. Biblische Zeitschrift, N.F., VII (1963), pp. 80-97; this was republished in Law, pp. 228-46. To the literature there cited for information about wedding customs we should add H. Granquist, "Marriage Customs in a Palestinian Village," in Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum III, 8 (Helsingfors, 1931), pp. 1-200; VI, 8 (1935), pp. 1-366.

8. quot;The groomsmen's gift [counts as a loan and] can be recovered through a court of law" (Mishnah, B.Bat. 9:4).

9. . A. T. Robinson suggests that the meaning is simply "Tuesday," the third day of the week, "For there was and still is today in Greek or Hebrew no other way of designating that day of the week" (The Priority of John [London, 1985], p. 166). Against this, the expression comes after an impressive sequence of references to "the next day" and the like.

10. osephus says that he once had his quarters there (Vit. 86). But it is certainly not mentioned often in ancient literature.

11. his is puzzling, all the more so since this Evangelist is usually so explicit with names. Α. Η. N. Green-Armytage links this with the absence of all mention of the Apostle John by name. "If, as described in the Gospel, she was committed to the care of the beloved disciple and thereafter treated by him as his own mother, this way of referring to her is exactly what we should expect" (John Who Saw [London, 1952], p. 85 n.). For John's use of names see further SFG, pp. 237ff.

12. t may be significant that Mary "was (ην)" there, while Jesus and the others were "invited" (έκλήθη, aorist). She had apparently taken up residence.

13. Bernard points out that the expression oi μαθηταΐ αύτοῦ (Jesus' disciples as distinct from those of other rabbis) was the earlier designation, oi μαθηταί, "the disciples," being later. It is a mark of John's acquaintance with the primitive state of affairs that he usually employs the former expression, as here.

14. Taking the aorist έκλήθη in the sense of the pluperfect. See Abbott, 2461. This is the way NIV takes the Greek; Knox, Schonfield, Moffatt, and others are similar.

15. . C. H. Lenski says, "The Jewish betrothal was the marriage itself. ... No religious ceremony and no vows of any kind accompanied this home-bringing although it was made a festive occasion with a procession and a feast" (The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel [Minneapolis, 1964], p. 40). Against this is the sealing of the "contract" at the marriage in Tob. 7:14. It seems that the actual marriage was more than simply the betrothal. See the article on Marriage in IDB, 3, pp. 278-87.

16. or information about marriage in New Testament times see SBk, I, pp. 500-517; II, pp. 372-99, the relevant articles in ISBE. IDB, etc., and the works cited in n. 6.

17. ohn says ύστερήσαντος οίνου. This is the sole occurrence of this verb in this Gospel. It is unusual, for ύστερέω in the active more often means "lack" than "be lacking."

18. t did mean this. The rabbis could say, "there is no rejoicing save with wine" (Pes. 109a). This does not point to carousing, for drunkenness was severely reprobated, and wine was normally well watered, the usual dilution being one part wine to three parts water (Soncino Talmud, Pes. p. 561, n. 7). But wine was a symbol. Its absence would mar so joyous an occasion as a wedding feast.

19. "Our bridegroom stood to lose financially — say, up to about half the value of the presents Jesus and his party ought to have brought" (Derrett, Law, p. 238).

20. προς αύτόν. G. D. Kilpatrick finds πρός used in this way after λέγω 8 times in all in this Gospel, after ειπον 10 times (including two v.l.), and after κατηγορέω, and αποχρίνομαι once each (the latter a v.l.). But there seems no difference in meaning from the more usual constructions (BT, 11 [I960], pp. 176-77).

21. Calvin suggests that Mary may have been trying to get Jesus "to allay the guests' annoyance with some godly exhortations, at the same time relieving the embarrassment of the bridegroom.'' But her words seem to mean more than this.

22. Jesus used it also in addressing women for whom he was performing miracles (Matt. 15:28; Luke 13:12), the woman at the well (John 4:21), the adulteress (8:10), and Mary Magdalene at the tomb (20:15). In none of these can we detect any harshness.

23. f. Hoskyns, "before her request, He first makes it plain that He is no longer able to act under her authority (contrast Luke ii.51) or in response to her wishes. The time of her authority is over: she must lose her son: this is the destiny that has been laid upon her (Luke ii.35)." Derrett says, "The appellation 'woman' causes no difficulty: it is universally recognised that it implies no hostility or rudeness, though the correct explanation, namely that a religious devotee or ascetic will speak to a woman, if unavoidable, only in the most formal terms, seems not to have attracted attention" (Law, pp. 89-90). The trouble with this is that the Gospels picture Jesus as anything but a "religious devotee or ascetic." He was described as "a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and 'sinners' " (Luke 7:34). And he did talk with women (e.g., ch. 4). The position of Hoskyns is preferable.

24. The expression is found in Judg. 11:12; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 3:13; 2Chron. 35:21; Matt. 8:29; Mark 1:24; Luke 8:28. Turner has examined the use of the construction in LXX and concludes, "The remark of Jesus to his mother appears to be a polite request to refrain from interference and to leave the whole matter to him" (Grammatical Insights, p. 47). Barclay translates, "Lady, let me handle this in my own way," and Bruce, "Why trouble me with that, lady?" Vincent Taylor (on Mark 1:24) understands the Old Testament expression to mean, "Why dost thou meddle with us?" but this is too strong for the present passage. Godet gives its force as, "This formula signifies, that the community of feeling to which one of the interlocutors appeals is rejected by the other, at least in the particular point which is in question." Cf. Morton Smith, "Jesus is asking his mother why she intrudes in his affairs, why she bothers him" (JBL, LXIV [1945J, p. 513). Sometimes Roman Catholic scholars think Mary is asking for a miracle. Thus J. Cortes sees Jesus as meaning, "What has changed between us? Why do you hesitate to ask me for a miracle? The hour of my Passion, in which you will not be able to ask me for miracles nor will I work them, has not come yet. You are as always my mother and I am your son. Therefore I will gladly accept your petition" (New Testament Abstracts, IIΙ [1958-59], p. 247). The difficulty with this position is that there was a change. Jesus had never previously worked a miracle (v. 11), so Mary might well hesitate to ask for one. The beginning of the public ministry altered all Jesus' relationships, but Mary was apparently slow to grasp this.

25. There is a valuable note on this passage by Edgar J. Goodspeed (BT, 3 [1952], pp. 70-71). He thinks there is no adequate English translation for γύναι and counsels that it be left untranslated. To him Jesus' words suggest "his independence of action," and he translates, "Do not try to direct me. It is not yet time for me to act." See also the note of Harry M. Buck (BT, 7 [1956], pp. 149-50). He advocates the rendering, "Madam, why is that our concern?" Perhaps Goodspeed's position is better.

26. It is possible to take the expression as a question, "Has not my hour now come?" Brown cites Gregory of Nyssa and Theodore of Mopsuestia in ancient times and Boismard and Michl in recent days as adopting this view. But it should almost certainly be rejected. Where οὔπω introduces a question (e.g. Mark 4:40; 8:17, 21) the answer expected is "No," not "Yes." Moreover, Johannine usage is against it. In all John's eleven other uses of the word the meaning is negative (cf. especially 7:30; 8:20).

27. "We might even say that the whole life of Jesus is directed towards this 'hour' which will be the high point of his life" (de la Potterie, pp. 21-22).

28. O. Cullmann discusses the miracle in Early Christian Worship (London, 1954), pp. 66-71, and takes these words to point to the cross. He lays down the principle that "it belongs to the very essence of John's Gospel that words are used in a double sense, that they signify on the one hand something material, and on the other hand point to something quite different" (p. 68). The wine, then, is "a pointer to the wine of the Lord's Supper" (p. 69), while the water is a reference to Jewish rites of purification. "In place of all these rites there comes now the wine of the Lord's Supper, the blood of Christ" (p. 70; see p. 69, η. 1 for others who find a reference to the Lord's Supper). There are interesting and suggestive points in this approach, but it does seem to be reading a good deal into the text. That John often uses words with a double meaning is undoubted, but we cannot go on to say that a reference to "the hour" plus one to wine compels us to discern an allusion to the Eucharist. Cullmann sees one or other of the sacraments almost everywhere in John. Bultmann, by contrast, doubts whether there are any references to the sacraments in this Gospel (p. 360).

29. Clay pots could become unclean, and if this happened they must be destroyed (Lev. 11:33). But stone vessels did not become unclean (Kel. 10:1; Par. 3:2). Κ. E. Bailey says that the average household would have had one such jar, and the rest would have been borrowed (Poet and Peasant [Grand Rapids, 1976], [p. 123, n. 24).

30. Yet we should not overlook the fact that Philo views six as "the perfect number." His reason is that it is "equal to the sum of its factors, 3, 2 and 1" (De Decal. 28).

31. Ryle comments, "Duties are ours. Events are God's. It is ours to fill the waterpots. It is Christ's to make the water wine."

32. We should, however, be quite clear that the verb has no original or necessary connection with wells, άντλέω is connected with ἄντλος, "bilge-water." LS gives its first meaning as "bale out bilge-water, bale the ship." The word is used quite generally of drawing water, and not infrequently it is employed in metaphorical senses (see LS). There is no linguistic reason for insisting on a well. The word is peculiar to John in the New Testament (he uses it 4 times).

33. Westcott objects to the view we have adopted on the ground that "It seems most unlikely that water taken from vessels of purification could have been employed for the purpose of the miracle." But surely that is just its point. It is not simply "purification" but " Jewish purification." It is precisely Judaism that is transformed by the power of God in Christ. More recently S. H. Hooke has maintained the position that the water was drawn from the well (NTS, 9 [1962-63], pp. 374-75), but he adds little to what the earlier commentators have said on this point. Is there perhaps a connection with the thought that Jesus gives that water which "will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life" (4:14)?

34. There is a difficulty in that the άρχιτρίxλινος (the title used here) was rather like a headwaiter, not an honored guest. His duty was "to arrange the tables and food" (AS). In this story, however, he is clearly not a servant, for he can summon the bridegroom (v. 9). He is a guest, and an important one. His function appeals to be much like that usually designated by the term συμποσιάρχης, "toast master" (in Sir. 32[35]: 1-2 the guest with this responsibility is called the ήγούμενος).

35. Cf. Augustine, "even as that which the servants put into the water-pots was turned into wine by the doing of the Lord, so in like manner also is what the clouds pour forth changed into wine by the doing of the same Lord. But we do not wonder at the latter, because it happens every year: it has lost its marvellousness by its constant recurrence. And it suggests a greater consideration than that which was done in the water-pots. For who is there that considers the works of God, whereby this whole world is governed and regulated, who is not amazed and overwhelmed with miracles?" (8.1; p. 57).

36. The verb μεθυσθῶσιν lacks a subject, a construction that John employs from time to time. Here he can scarcely mean the indefinite "people" (which is what the construction would normally signify). But there is no real difficulty; the context shows that "their guests'' is meant (as NIV).

37. Schonfield translates, "when everyone is drunk." Barrett reminds us that "There is of course no ground here for conclusions regarding the degree of intoxication of the guests at this wedding; John finds the remark a neat way of emphasizing the superior quality of the wine provided by Jesus — the new faith based on the eschatological event is better than the old."

38. Cf. the term έωλοκρασία, defined by LS as "mixture of dregs, heel-taps, etc., with which the drunken were dosed at the end of a revel by their stronger-headed companions." This is, of course, not a parallel, and John does not use this word. But it shows what could happen at a banquet.

39. The word is καλός, which in John does not differ in meaning from ἀγαθός. See the note on 1:46.

40. P. W. Meyer argues that this verse brings out an important symbolical meaning. To him the story refers to the Christian salvation in contrast to Hellenistic ideas. According to the latter the best came first, the heavenly man before the earthly, the divine before the deterioration we see in the world. Salvation then was a reversal of the process, with the recovery of the original. But Christ brings us a salvation that is miraculously new. God has kept the best wine until last (JBL LXXXVI [1967], pp. 191-97).

41. The Greek reads Ταύτην έποίησεν ἀρχήν κτλ. The absence of the article gives a meaning like "This he did (as) a beginning of signs." See Abbott 2386 (i).

42. σημεία. John never uses δύναμις, the Synoptists' favorite word for the miracles, which stresses the element of power. R. T. Fortna says, "the σημεία were not prodigies in any sense; in the face of them men do not marvel or fear, but believe" (JBL, LXXXIX [1970], p. 153). He concludes his article by denying that the resurrection is the chief sign: "For John, the chief sign is rather Jesus' death, perceived as his glorification, by which he gives 'life' (3:14f.; 12:32)" (p. 166).

43. Cf. Bultmann: "that he manifested his δόξα is nothing other than that he manifested the όνομα of the Father (17.6)." Richardson points out that John "records no scene of Transfiguration, as do the three Synoptists; he regards the whole of Christ's incarnate life as an embodiment of the δόξα of God, though the glory is revealed only to believing disciples and not unto 'the world' " (An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament [London. 1958], p. 65).

44. It is easy to miss it. That glory "was not revealed at the imperial palace in Rome. Or at Herod's temple in Jerusalem. Or at the colonnaded Acropolis in Athens. But here, in an impoverished village of Cana, nestled away in an obscure corner of Galilee" (Ken Gire, Incredible Moments with the Savior [Grand Rapids, 1990], p. 6).

45. For πιστεύω εις see on 1:12 and Additional Note E, pp. 296-98.

46. "After this" translates μετά τοῦτο, an expression John uses again in 11:7, 11; 19:28; he uses the plural μετά ταῦτα in 3:22; 5:1, 14; 6:1; 7:1; 19:38; 21:1. Bernard thinks that when the singular is used it is always implied that the time interval is short, whereas the plural is much more general (p. cviii). Barrett and Bultmann, however, deny that there is a distinction, and in view of John's habit of making slight variations in similar statements but without distinction of meaning (see on 3:5) they may well be right.

47. The spelling favored by most authorities is Καφαρναούμ (Kapharnaoum), equivalent to כפר נחום, "village of Nahum." The exact location is not known, but Tell Hum and Khan Minyeh have been strongly supported. In any case, it must have been on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee.

48. It may support this that in Mark 3:31ff. Jesus' mother and brothers appear at Capernaum, and that in Mark 6:3, while Jesus' brothers are named, only his sisters are spoken of as remaining at Nazareth. This would be natural if the sisters had married and later the rest of the family had moved to Capernaum.

49. See further J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London, 1902), pp. 252-91; J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James (London, 1910), pp. v-lv; R. V. G. Tasker, The General Epistle of James (London, 1956), pp. 22-24; V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1959), pp. 247-49; Godet, in loc. Taylor concludes, "There can be little doubt that the Helvidian view stands as the simplest and most natural explanation of the references to the brothers of Jesus in the Gospels" (Mark, p. 249). He points to the significance of this: "The fact that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, it may be held, underlines the reality and completeness of the Incarnation" (ibid.). Those who oppose the Helvidian view stress the facts that it is almost universally held that James of Jerusalem was one of "the brothers of the Lord," that the Epistles of James and Jude are held to have been written by these brothers, and that if such prominent Christians were really sons of Mary it would have been impossible for the tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity to have arisen so early. The argument must be treated with respect, but it can scarcely outweigh the natural meaning of Scripture. The Helvidian view is to be preferred.

50. ερματιστής. The Synoptists use κολλυβιστής, which John has in v. 15.

51. John has άνέτρεψεν; Matthew and Mark have κατέστρεψεν.

52. Some scholars accept the Johannine dating, pointing out that, as Mark records but one visit to Jerusalem, he had to place the cleansing then. Ivor Buse says, "The explanation of the most complicated series of facts seems to be that both John and Mark were dependent upon an earlier account of the Temple Cleansing and that the influence of this earlier account led Matthew and Luke to make the same corrections in the Marcan story" (ExT, LXX [1958-59], p. 24). His argument is ingenious but unconvincing. R. H, Lightfoot devotes two chapters to the incident (The Gospel Message of St. Mark [Oxford, 1950], pp. 60-79). He finds himself unable to say whether the cleansing came early or late, though he inclines toward the Markan date. He does not discuss the possibility of two cleansings. Ε. B. Redlich argues for displacement, thinking that 2:13-3:21 was removed by an editor from an original position after 12:36 (ExT, LV [1943-44], pp. 89-92). His arguments are answered by G. Ogg (ExT, LVI [1944-45], pp. 70-72).

53. Cf. Barclay, "John, as someone has said, is more interested in the truth than in the facts" (cf. B. W. Bacon, "He aims to give not fact but truth" [The Making of the New Testament [London, n.d.], p. 223]); "He was not interested to tell men when Jesus cleansed the Temple; he was supremely interested in telling men that Jesus did cleanse the Temple." But this is not the impression left by reading this Gospel. John was interested in facts. He speaks much more often, for example, of witness (a means of attesting facts) than does any of the other Evangelists. He includes notes of times and place. I see no reason to hold that he saw any conflict between truth and facts; he cared about both. It is further the case that the point of view put forward by Barclay, though widely held, does not face the very real difficulty of explaining how John could confront opponents of a docetic type with such a lighthearted attitude toward facts.

54. Cf. the discussion in P. Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, 1938), ch. 1. See also SFG, pp. 23ff.

55. Most recent scholars simply assume the point. Thus Dodd says: "The suggestion that the temple was twice cleansed is the last resort of a desperate determination to harmonize Mark and John at all costs. The only legitimate question is whether the (single) cleansing is to be placed early or late in the Ministry" (HTFG, p. 157, n. 2). But with all respect, this is rhetoric, not reasoned argument. The question should be resolved by evidence, not dogmatism. The reason some scholars hold to two cleansings is not "a desperate determination to harmonize," but the number and character of the differences between the two accounts. Despite the assertions of some critics there are practically no resemblances between the two narratives, apart from the central act

56. Plummer thinks it "incredible that anyone who had contemporary evidence could through any lapse of memory transfer a very remarkable incident indeed from one to the other. On the other hand the difficulty of believing that the Temple was twice cleansed is very slight. Was Christ's preaching so universally successful that one cleansing would be certain to suffice? He was not present at the next Passover (vi.4), and the evil would have a chance of returning. And if two years later He found that the evil had returned, would He not be certain to drive it out once more? Differences in the details of the narratives corroborate this view."

57. Cf. Bailey, "1 cannot see that it is unlikely that Jesus should have repeated His action, though it is surprising that He should not have been immediately arrested on the first occasion. But the Temple authorities were not popular, and v. 23 suggests that He had popular support for what He did."

58. It is quite possible that Jesus' saying was repeated during his ministry (see n. 80 below). Even so, Murray's point will hold. If there was only one cleansing Jesus' words must have been spoken then, and if it was only a few days before the trial it would be very remarkable indeed if the authorities could find no witnesses who could agree on what he said.

59. See also Westcott's careful comparison of the accounts, yielding the conclusion that there were two cleansings,

60. Tasker says, "it may be suggested that it was because Jesus made this early attack upon traditional Pharisaic worship at the capital, that the mission of scribes was sent from Jerusalem to Galilee, when they entered upon what was virtually a 'counter-attack' by

61. The Trinity in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, 1986), p. 30.

62. See R. H. Lightfoot, Appended Note (pp. 349-56), for a discussion of the extent to which the idea of the Lord as the Passover victim pervades this Gospel. Hendriksen gives a brief account of the Passover ritual, and there is a fuller one in Edersheim's The Temple (London, n.d.), ch. XII. See also my article, "The Passover in Rabbinic Literature" (.ABR, IV [1954-55], pp. 59-76).

63. The word is ἱερόν. By contrast ναός signifies the "shrine," the "holy place," the "sanctuary." The former is not used metaphorically in the New Testament, but the latter is used of the body of Christ (v. 21) and is also applied to believers (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16).

64. At first sight it seems unlikely that animals would be allowed into any of the Temple courts, because of the risk of their getting loose and defiling the sanctuary. But V. Eppstein argues from Rosh Hash. 31a and other passages in the Babylonian Talmud that there was a dispute between Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, as a result of which the high priest allowed merchants to set up animal stalls within the temple precincts ("The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple," ZNTW, 55 [1964], pp. 42ff,).

65. The present participle τοὐς πωλοῦντας will denote the habitual practice.

66. The word κερματιστής properly denotes one who changes large money into small (κερματίζω = "to cut small"). In the next verse the word is κολλυβιστής, from κόλλυβος, originally a small coin, and then the fee for exchange. Weymouth renders the former term "money-changers" and the latter "brokers." But in this passage there is surely no difference in meaning. Both terms apply to those who carried on the business of money changing. A certain charge was legitimate. But the Temple money changers had a monopoly and often charged exorbitant rates. They have been estimated to have made an annual profit of about £stg. 9,000 a year, while the Temple tax brought the Temple authorities about £stg. 75,000 a year. The enormous wealth of the temple is illustrated by the fact that the Roman Crassus is said to have taken from it a sum equal to about two and a half million pounds sterling. See A. Edersheim, LT, I, pp. 367ff. for details. He relates that on one occasion the action of Simeon, the grandson of Hillel, caused the price of a pair of pigeons to fall from the equivalent of 15s. 3d. to 4d, This is related in Mishnah, Ker. 1:7 (where the price dropped from a golden denar [worth 25 silver denars] to a quarter of a silver denar).

67. Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I (Cambridge, 1917), pp. 83-84. He says: "It is strange enough that while the bronze coins circulated in Judaea should conform scrupulously to the tradition and represent nothing but inanimate objects, the payment of Temple dues should not only be accepted but required in coins containing figures on them. Reinach meets this objection by the suggestion that 'once thrown into the Temple treasury, all gold and silver coins were melted down and transformed into ingots' " (p. 84).

68. There is some support for the reading ὡς φραγέλλιον, "as it were a whip" (p⁶⁶ ק⁷⁵ fl and some MSS of the OL). But this reading is probably not original and in any case it does not give us a significantly different meaning. The term is found here only in the New Testament, and it is not so far attested in earlier writings.

69. The expression is φραγέλλιον ἐx σχοινίων. Yet it should be noted that in the only other occurrence of σχοινίον in the New Testament, namely Acts 27:32, it denotes ropes on a ship. Schonfield renders "a lash of twisted rushes."

70. This is the most natural way of understanding the masculine πάντας even though the following τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας means "both the sheep and the oxen." If animals only had been meant πάντα would have been more natural (see also Field, pp. 85-86).

71. Η. E. W. Turner, Jesus Master and Lord (London, 1957), p. 325. Cf. also Hengstenberg, "Christ had a powerful confederate in the consciences of the offenders" (cited by Reynolds).

72. The force of the present, μὴ ποιεῖτε, is "stop making." It implies that the action is going on. Moulton has a long note in which he shows that in the New Testament the distinction between the present and aorist tenses in prohibitions is observed, and specifically is this the case with John (Μ, I, pp. 122-26)

73. Not "our Father's house." Jesus never joins people with himself in such a way as to indicate that their relationship to the Father is similar to his (cf. 20:17). Bernard says that Jesus uses "my Father' 27 times in John, 16 times in Matthew, and 4 times in Luke. The Temple is often called "the house of God" in the Old Testament. Jesus' words amount to a claim to deity. Cf. Dalman, "In Jewish parlance it is unusual to refer to God in common discourse informally as Father without adding the epithet 'heavenly' " (The Words of Jesus [Edinburgh, 1902], p. 190). He examines Jesus' usage and concludes, "The usage of family life is transferred to God: it is the language of the child to its Father" (p. 192).

74. Cf. R. H. Lightfoot: "The word 'merchandise' suggests a reference to the messianic passage Zech. 14²¹-end, if is is translated 'In that day (the day of the Lord) there shall be no more a trafficker in the house of the Lord of hosts'." It is quite in the Johannine manner to introduce in this way a subtle allusion to Jesus' messiahship, his great theme (20:31).

75. Cf. Strachan, "It is erroneous to suppose that Jesus' action is an attack on the whole sacrificial system. His motive was one of reverence for my Father's house, and of deep concern that the spirit of worship should thus be dissipated at its very door." The court in which all this noisy and boisterous traffic took place was the only court to which Gentiles might go when they wished to pray or meditate in the Temple. They ought to have been able to worship in peace. Instead they found themselves in the middle of a noisy bazaar. "A place that should have stood as a symbol for the freedom of access of all nations in prayer to God, had become a place associated with sordid pecuniary interests" (Wright). On the necessity for sternness in the face of evil Wright quotes Ruskin, that it is "quite one of the crowning wickednesses of this age that we have starved and chilled our faculty of indignation." But L. Goppelt sees more in Jesus' action: "Jesus attacked an institution that apparently contradicted the meaning of the temple and yet for the temple's sake was necessary. As an eschatological call to repentance, this attack was intended to uncover the questionable nature of the old and to summon to the new" (Theology of the New Testament, I [Grand Rapids, 1981], p. 96).

76. The formula of quotation is γεγραμμένον έστιν. The participial construction is usual in this Gospel (see 6:31, 45; 10:34; 12:14, 16; 15:25). The Synoptists prefer γέγραπται, as does Paul, and this formula is found in 8:17 (though even here א has the more usual Johannine formula). No real difference of meaning appears to attach to these two formulae. Whichever way Scripture is cited it is regarded as authoritative.

77. Interpretation, XI [1957], p. 156 (Morgan's italics).

78. See the excellent discussion in Dr. Alan Cole's Tyndale Lecture, published under the title 'The New Temple (London, 1950). Cole argues that the Temple references in Matthew "necessitate and indeed presume the Saying and interpretation found in Jn. ii.19" (p. 21). He sums up his conclusions in these terms: "(1) There was a certain amount of truth in the charge of the two witnesses at the trial of the Lord, as in that of the witnesses at Stephen's trial. (2) The fuller Marcan version of the Saying, espedaily in respect of its pair of correlated adjectives, represents what the early Church fully believed to be the teaching of the Lord. (3) These points are inexplicable unless the Saying recorded in the fourth Gospel at the account of the Temple purge (Jn. ii.19) be accepted. (4) The interpretation there given is not merely 'Johannine mysticism,' but corresponds to the primitive postresurrection belief of the Church at large" (p. 52).

79. John says that they "answered" (άπεκρίθησαν) and Morgan sees significance in the verb: "It is quite significant. The rulers recognized the startling challenge in what He had done in cleansing the Temple courts. As He stood in lonely dignity, coins scattered, animals dispersed in every direction, and with the animals those who owned them gone, they gathered about Him and they 'answered' Him. It was an answer to what He had done."

80. See Edersheim, LT, II, pp. 68-69 for examples of this tendency in the rabbinic literature.

81. It is possible that the present participles, ό . . . και οικοδομῶν in both accounts point to a repeated claim by Jesus. At the very least they do not look like a reference to a single isolated saying.

82. It may be significant that Matthew does not call those who brought this charge "false" witnesses (KJV is based on an inferior reading). There was a measure of truth in their words. Mark does call them false, but his meaning is probably not that Jesus did not utter the saying, but that he did not mean it in the sense claimed.

83. Cf. C. F. D. Moule, "Putting the synoptic and the Johannine evidence together — and the two appear to be independent — we have a strong presumption that Jesus did say something about the destruction and replacement of the temple. This is important, because (apart from this saying) there seems to me to be no direct evidence that Jesus ever said anything which might have exposed him to the charges popularly levelled against him and brought with more formality against his follower Stephen" (JThS, n.s., I [1950], p. 30; the whole article, "Sanctuary and Sacrifice in the Church of the New Testament," is important).

84. Λύσατε. Abbott points to Eccl. 11:9 as a parallel construction, for it contains an imperative that implies a threat (2439 [iv]). Temple understands the word as "not an empty challenge, but a judgement on their mentality and policy which will involve the destruction of the Temple." Christ will then raise up "what shall thereafter be the habitation of God among men, that Risen Body which after the Ascension and Pentecost finds its earthly manifestation in that 'holy temple in the Lord, in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit' (Ephesians 11,21-22)."

85. Beasley-Murray comments, "it is an ironical call for them to carry on their behavior to its limit, which will end in the destruction of the temple of which they are guardians" (p. 40).

86. His word is ναός. For its distinction from Ιερόν see above, n. 60.

87. Cf. Matt. 12:6, "a greater thing than the temple is here" (ARVmg.). However we interpret the neuter it is clear that the "greatness" exceeding that of the Temple is closely connected with Christ. If we take it as equivalent to the masculine, Cole's words bring out the meaning: "Why is Christ 'greater than the Temple'? There can be only one all-embracing answer. It is because God's presence is more manifest in Him than in the Temple, On Him, not on the Temple, now rests the Shekinah" (The New Temple, p. 12). Similar thoughts are brought out in the Prologue to this Gospel, where the very Word of God "became flesh" in Jesus, he tabernacled among us, and the glory of God was manifest in him (1:14). Barrett comments, "the human body of Jesus was the place where a unique manifestation of God took place and consequently became the only true Temple, the only centre of true worship" (see on v. 21). Luther explains that when Christ calls himself a temple this means that "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9; Luther, vol. 22, p. 250)

88. Josephus says that the work was begun in the eighteenth year of Herod's reign (Ant. 15.380). This would be 20-19 B.C., and if the Jews' statement is accurate the date of this incident will be A.D. 27 or 28.

89. Τεσσαράκοντα και έξ ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη ό ναός ούτος is difficult. Robertson explains the case of έτεσιν as instrumental, though it might be regarded as locative, "the whole period regarded as a point of time" (Robertson, p. 527). Barrett thinks it a combination of the two. The aorist is constative, the lengthy process being viewed as one whole. Yet the application of this tense to an edifice that was not to be completed for many years is not easy. There is, however, a parallel in LXX 2 Esdr. 5:16 (= Ezra 5:16), καὶ ἀπò τότε ἕως τοῦ νῦν ᾠκοδομήθη και οὺχ έτελέσθη. It is not unlikely that the words in John refer to the completion of a definite stage of the work, and perhaps no building was going on at the time they were uttered. Some scholars think that the ναός as against the ιερόν had been completed. The problem of the aorist would be solved if we could think (with Abbott, 2021-24) that the reference is to the temple of Zerubbabel, begun in 559 B.C. and completed in 513 B.C. and now being added to by Herod. But Herod's rebuilding was so extensive that this seems most unlikely. The problem is discussed in detail by G. Ogg, The Chronology of the Public Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 153-67. He concludes that the reference gives us no firm date. Nevertheless it does indicate within a year or two the time of Jesus' ministry. J. B. Lightfoot in an important note has shown that it is difficult to square this reference with the idea of a late writer who sat loose to accurate historical writing. It would have involved some abstruse research, both into Jesus' life and Herod's building program. And it is impossible to think of anyone doing all this work and then not drawing attention to it. See E. Abbot, A. R Peabody, and J. B. Lightfoot, The Fourth Gospel (London, 1892), pp. 158-60.

90. Note the emphatic έκεΐνος (see on 1:8). In contrast to the Jews (who did not understand) he spoke.

91. Cf. Wright: "The symbolism of Jesus was misunderstood in His day, as in every age it has been misunderstood. What He meant was that if they succeeded in destroying the true worship of Him whom he knew to be the Father, in this place, he would raise another 'temple' in the lives of His followers. This would be the true 'temple of his body.' God's temple is where He is known and worshipped." Similarly Cullmann says that the reference to the temple not made with hands (Mark 14:58) "can only refer to the community of disciples" (Early Christian Worship, p. 72, n. 3). R. H. Fuller dissents. John, he thinks, "does not speak of the church as the body of Christ: John 2:21 is often expounded in a Pauline sense, but it probably refers to the literal body of Jesus which passed through death to resurrection" (The New Testament in Current Study [London, 1963], p. 129). This view is surely correct.

92. Barclay thinks that Jesus meant that he would put an end to the Temple and to Temple worship: "He had come to show men a way to come to God without any Temple at all." He proceeds: "That must be what Jesus actually said; but in the years to come John saw far more than that in Jesus' saying. He saw in it nothing less than a prophecy of the Resurrection; and John was right. He was right for this basic reason, that the whole round earth could never become the temple of the living God until Jesus was released from the body and was everywhere present." Granted that the saying contains all this, why could not Jesus have meant it so? Why should John find in the words more than his Master who uttered the saying?

93. Jacob Neusner points out that the money changing was closely connected with the payment of the half-shekel (Exod. 30:11-16) that was used to purchase the animals for the daily sacrifices and thus for atonement for sin. He points out that women, slaves, or minors might pay the half-shekel, for they participated in the benefits of the sacrifices, but Gentiles and Samaritans were excluded from both. The work of the money changers in the temple courts was thus central to the Jewish system. He agrees with E. P. Sanders in seeing Jesus' action as"a broader statement that the Temple would be destroyed, for, in consequence of the cult's abrogation by reason of its uselessness, the daily whole offering sustained by every Israelite through his or her half-sheqel offering had no task to perform in the system of atonement and expiation of sin" (NTS, 35 [1989], pp. 289-90).

94. Bertil Gartner has shown that there are affinities with and differences from the teaching of Qumran (The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament [Cambridge, 1965]). The sectarians rejected the worship of the Jerusalem temple and thought of themselves as the new temple. But they lacked any equivalent of Christ. Gartner says, "the temple symbolism of the New Testament is built on the work of Christ; this it was believed had replaced the temple and its sacrifices once and for all. In short, the boundary between Qumran and the New Testament, in this matter of the content and function of temple symbolism, goes through the person of Christ" (pp. 104-5).

95. Cf. R. H. Lightfoot; "there is in this story, thus set before us here, a triple depth of meaning. First, the Lord performs an act by which He condemns the methods and the manner of the existing Jewish worship. Secondly, this act, as set forth by St. John, is a sign of the destruction of the old order of worship, that of the Jewish Church, and its replacement by a new order or worship, that of the Christian Church, the sanctuary or shrine of the living God. And thirdly, intermediate between the old order and the new order is the 'work' — the ministry, death, and resurrection — of the Lord, which alone makes possible the inauguration and the life of the new temple."

96. Cf. Hoskyns, "The rejection and putting to death of Jesus, His resurrection, the destruction of the temple and the end of animal sacrifice, the presence of God in the midst of the community of those who believe in Jesus, and the removal of sin — these are not isolated, separable occurrences. The sign that is given to the Jews is, therefore, the sign of the resurrection."

97. In accordance with the usual New Testament usage the resurrection is ascribed to the Father, as the passive, ἠγέρθη, shows. Bernard, however, is incorrect when he says, in objection to the preceding saying's being understood of the resurrection, "by the Ν. T. writers God the Father is always (Bernard's emphasis) designated as the Agent of Christ's Resurrection. . . . Jesus is not represented as raising Himself" (on v. 19). Similarly Strachan, "The Resurrection is never regarded in the New Testament as the act of Christ Himself. It is the supreme act of God's almighty power." While it is true that the New Testament generally refers to the Father's action, Jesus himself said on a number of occasions that he would rise (Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 18:33; 24:7, 46; some MSS also in Matt. 17:9, 23; Luke 9:22; cf. also John 10:17-18). It is also said that he rose (Acts 10:41; 17:3; 1 Thess.4:14). This point is often overlooked, as when Schnackenberg writes, "Here, in contrast to the rest of the N.T., which speaks of the resurrection of Jesus as the work of God ..." (p. 352).

98. In John this is clear enough in passages like 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36, 37, and this creates a presumption that other occurrences of ή γραφή also have a single Old Testament passage in mind, even though we are not able to identify it with certainty (namely 7:38, 42; 20:9). But the possibility remains that sometimes the general sense of the Old Testament may be meant. It is perhaps no coincidence that the two most difficult to pin down are this verse and 20:9, both of which refer to the resurrection. John may mean that this is the general tenor of Old Testament teaching.

99. Actually John uses the singular "the word." For John's use of λόγος see Additional Note A, pp. 102-11. John use γραφή 12 times, the most in any New Testament book (next come Acts and Romans each with 7).

100. έν τοῖς Ίεροσολύμοις (for this form see on 1:19). The article is found with this name elsewhere in the New Testament only in 5:2; 10:22; 11:18. It is difficult to see the reason for it. Perhaps as Bernard suggests, it means "the precincts of Jerusalem." The form with the article is found also in 2 Macc. 11:8; 12:9; 3 Macc. 3:16.

101. ohn adds έν τῇ έορτῇ to "the Passover," this being his first use of the noun. It is indicative of his interest in the feasts generally that he uses the term 17 times, whereas Matthew and Mark use it only twice each and Luke 3 times.

102. ohn is fond of the verb θεωρέω, which he uses 24 times; in the whole New Testament it occurs 58 times, so he has nearly half of its occurrences. The verb is often said to denote a more concentrated gaze than say, βλέπω, but it is difficult to see this consistently carried through (though this meaning may be in mind on some occasions). It can be used for the deepest and most perceptive sight (6:40), but on the other hand there is no such connotation here. In the comment on 1:32 we noted R. E. Brown's examination of John's words for seeing, in which he finds that while John certainly does have different kinds of sight in mind these are not consistently linked with particular words. We conclude that θεωρέω is a favorite word with John and is used of a variety of kinds of seeing.

103. Luther speaks of this as a "milk faith." This he explains as "a young faith of such as enthusiastically accede, give in, and believe but just as quickly withdraw when they hear something unpleasant or unexpected" (Luther, vol. 22, p. 251).

104. As we see from the emphatic αυτός, which opens the clause and the adversative δέ.

105. The verb is γινώσχω. For the use of the articular infinitive see on 1 :48. Some differentiate this verb from οιδα, suggesting that it denotes acquired knowledge, the knowledge that comes from observation and reasoning, whereas οίδα points to immediate, intuitive knowledge. The former is said to be partial and growing, the latter complete and absolute. But it is very doubtful whether the distinction can be pressed, especially in this Gospel. Bernard has a helpful comment (on 1:26): "Both verbs are used of Christ's knowledge of the Father; γινώσκω at 10¹⁵ 17²⁵, οιδα at 7²⁸ 8⁵⁵. Both are used of the world's knowledge (or ignorance) of God, or of that possessed by the Jews: γινώσκω at !10 1723.25 ₈55 ₁₆3_י !; 1Jn31.6; oιαδ at 728 819 1521 both are used 0f man's knowledge of God and Christ: γινώσκω at 14^7.9 17³, 1 Jn. 2⁴·¹³·¹⁴ 4⁶·⁷·⁸ 5²⁰, and οίδα at l^31..33 4²² 14⁷. Both are used of Christ's knowledge of men or of ordinary facts, e.g. γινώσκω at 2²⁵ 5^6.42 gl5 10¹⁴·²⁷, and οιδα at 6⁶⁴ 8³⁷ 1 3³. The word used for the Father's knowledge of the Son is γινώσκω (10¹⁵), and not οιδα as we should have expected. With this array of passages before us, we shall be slow to accept conclusions which are based on any strict distinction in usage between the two verbs." The view that the two verbs can be differentiated is argued by J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St Paul (London, 1904), pp. 178-79. But Bernard's case is strong. And it may be reinforced by the reflection that John habitually uses minor variations without significant difference of meaning (see on 3:5). John never uses the noun γνώσις, but the importance he attaches to knowledge is perhaps indicated by the fact that he uses γινώσκω 56 times and οιδα 85 times. As we have seen, both verbs are used of a variety of aspects of knowledge. But the really significant thing is the knowledge of Christ and of God, which are interconnected. To know Christ is to know the Father (14:7).

106. John quite often draws attention to unusual knowledge possessed by Jesus (4:17; 5:42; 6:61, 64; 13:1, 11; 18:4).

107. Loyd makes a comparison between this chapter and the temptation narrative: "(i) He will not mm stones into bread to satisfy His own hunger; but He turns water into wine to meet the needs of others, (ii) He will not leap from the pinnacle of the Temple in order to capture the popular imagination; but He does the unpopular thing of cleansing the Temple, (iii) He will not fall down and worship Satan in order to gain worldly power; but insists upon the need of individual conversion."

108. It is probably significant that "what is in the heart of his neighbour" is one of the seven things the rabbis thought of as hidden from people (Mekilta Exod. 16:32). John assigns this knowledge explicitly to Jesus. Odeberg points out that in one place or another John attributes to Jesus knowledge of the other six as well (FG, p. 45). John clearly regards Jesus as possessed of a knowledge that is more than human, but just as clearly he does not regard this as vitiating his real humanity. Jesus' knowledge is derived from his close communion with his Father (8:28, 38; 14:10).

↑ Back to top