Ch. 2:1-11. THE MARRIAGE AT CANA IN GALILEE. CHRISTIANITY NOT
ASCETICISM.
This miracle is recounted only by the Evangelist John. That fact does
not discredit the account: it incidentally confirms the view that he
wrote to supply what was lacking in the other Gospels.
[Illustration: CANA OF GALILEE.]
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana[66] of
Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there.
[66] ch. 4:46; Joshua 19:28.
2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the
marriage.[67]
[67] Heb. 13:4.
=1, 2. The third day.= That is, probably, after the interview with
Nathanael described at the close of the preceding chapter. Lightfoot
says that, according to Jewish custom, the weddings of virgins took
place on the fourth day of the week, our Wednesday, and of widows on
the fifth day, our Thursday.--=There was a marriage.= For description
of wedding ceremonies among the Jews, with illustration of wedding
procession, see Matt. 25:1-13, Prel. Note.--=In Cana of Galilee.= The
traditional site is Kefr Kenna, four and one-half miles northwest of
Nazareth. The more probable site is about nine miles north of Nazareth
and six or eight hours from Capernaum. See Map, Vol. I, p. 50.
Robinson describes it as a fine situation, and once a considerable
village of well-built houses. They are now uninhabited and the whole
region is wild and desolate.--=And the mother of Jesus was there.= Her
name is never mentioned by John. The fact that Joseph is not mentioned
in either of the Gospels, after Christ’s manhood, has led to the
universal opinion that he was dead. The presence of Mary, and her
apparent authority (ver. 5), indicates that the bride or bridegroom
were connections or relatives. Different traditions represent
respectively Alphæus, one of his sons, John the Apostle, and Simon the
Canaanite as the bridegroom, but they are all equally untrustworthy.
The Mormons maintain that this was the marriage of Jesus himself.The
student will observe that it is said of Mary that she _was there_, of
Jesus that he _was called_, an indication that he came at a later
period, and probably after the marriage feast, which usually lasted
for several days, had begun.--=And his disciples.= Probably those who
had already begun to follow him, though not yet ordained as apostles,
nor summoned by him to leave their regular avocations to become his
constant companions. These were Andrew, John, Simon Peter, Philip, and
Nathanael, and they were probably invited because they were with
Christ, and out of consideration for him.
3 And when[68] they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith
unto him, They have no wine.
[68] Eccles. 10:19; Isa. 24:11.
=3. And the wine failing.= Not merely, as in our English version, when
they wanted wine. The implication is that wine had been provided,
but the supply proved insufficient. Possibly the unexpected addition
of the five disciples of Christ exhausted it.--=The mother of Jesus
saith unto him, They have no wine.= _Why_ did she appeal to him?
There is certainly no ground for such an explanation as that of
Bengel, that she meant to give a hint to Jesus and his disciples
to go away! Nor is there any evidence that she asked him to work a
miracle, or even definitely anticipated or desired it. If she were
in any way responsible for the success of the feast, and the supply
was falling short, the appeal for help to her son was natural; and it
was specially so, if, as modern customs in the Orient indicate (see
Ellicott’s _Life of Christ_, p. 118), the guests often contribute to
the supplies at such entertainments. Along with this desire to do
the bride and bridegroom a favor, there may have been, as Chrysostom
suggests, a desire through her son to render herself conspicuous,
and a vague and inexpressible feeling that he could, if he would,
supply the want by a miracle, as Elijah supplied the widow’s cruse
(1 Kings 17:14-16). And his _quasi_ rebuke, if rebuke it be, may have
been addressed to this mother’s vanity.
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?
mine hour is not yet come.
=4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.=
Some question has been made respecting the meaning of this language.
It is clear (1) that _woman_ is not a harsh term, and involves no tone
of rebuke or reproof; for when Christ on the cross commends his mother
to John’s care, he uses the same term, “_Woman_, behold thy son” (ch.
19:26); (2) the Greek phrase (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ) is properly rendered in
our English version, _What have I to do with thee?_ Though literally
capable of the translation proposed by Dr. Adam Clarke, _What is this
to thee and me?_ that is, _What is this to us?_ the uniform usage of
the N. T. forbids this translation. The Greek is the same in the
following passages, where the translation cannot be other than that
given both there and here. Matt. 8:29, note; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke
8:28. I can only understand it as a disclaimer on Christ’s part of any
responsibility in the matter, and an intimation that in his future
mission he was not, as he had heretofore been, subject unto his
mother. There may also be in it implied a gentle rebuke of her
endeavor to elicit from him some display of his miraculous power,
before the time for the commencement of his public ministry.
Chrysostom interprets her spirit here by that of Christ’s brethren
(ch. 7:4), and his reply by his refusal, later, to turn aside from his
work at her solicitation (Matt. 12:47, 48). Evidently she did not
regard his language as that of refusal, for she expects his aid, and
bids the servants do his bidding. “She read a _yes_ latent in his
apparent _no_.”--(_Trench._)--=Mine hour is not yet come.= Not mine
hour to die, though that is usually the signification of this
oft-repeated phrase in John’s Gospel (ch. 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27;
13:1); but that would be here meaningless; nor, The hour to work this
miracle, because the wine is not yet wholly exhausted, or the guests
are not conscious of the lack, and have not asked for supply; but, The
hour for me to begin my public ministry, accompanied as it is to be
with the working of miracles, the hour for my manifestation. The
Protestant commentaries see in the language here a rebuke of the
spirit of Mariolatry, in this following the fathers; _e. g._,
Chrysostom: “The answer was not that of one rejecting his mother, but
of One who would show her that having borne him would have availed
nothing, had she not been very good and faithful;” and Augustine: “As
God he has no mother. And now that he was about to perform a divine
work, he ignores, as it were, the human womb, and asks, ‘Woman, what
have I to do with thee?’ as much as to say, Thou art not the mother of
that in me which works miracles; thou art not the mother of my
Godhead.”
5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever[69] he
saith unto you, do _it_.
[69] Luke 5:5, 6.
=5. His mother saith onto the servants.= The fact that there were
servants, and more than one, indicates that the family was in at least
comfortable if not opulent circumstances. Christ associated with the
rich as readily as with the poor; but the rich did not, as readily as
the poor, associate with him. Her direction to the servants and their
unquestioning obedience indicates that in this marriage festival she
had some degree of authority.
6 And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after
the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or
three firkins apiece.
7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with water.
And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And he saith unto them, Draw[70] out now, and bear unto
the governor[71] of the feast. And they bare _it_.
[70] Eccles. 9:7.
[71] Rom. 13:7.
=6-8.= The forms of the water-pot and of the ewer, with which the water
was drawn or dipped out, are shown in the accompanying illustration.
The water-pots may have set in the room; more probably in an ante-room
or in the courtyard of the house. The fact that the water was provided
for purifying is stated to account for the presence of so much water;
and the reference to the manner of the Jews is added for the Gentile
readers, for whom John especially wrote. On these ceremonial washings,
see Mark 7:2-5, notes. The _firkin_ (μετρητης) is equivalent to 8⅞
gallons; the whole amount of water, therefore, was between 100 and 150
gallons. Since the jars were filled to the brim, the water was apparent
_after_ they were filled; there was, therefore, no room for fraud or
mistake. The statement of the exact number and proximate size indicates
that we have here the description of an eye-witness. It also indicates
that there were a large number of guests.
[Illustration: WATER-POTS AND EWERS.]
The quantity of wine made by Christ on this occasion has been the
subject of some hostile criticism, as though it were an invitation to
excessive drinking. But (1) there is no evidence that any more wine
was created than was used. Whether it was changed in the stone jars,
or as it was carried to the guests, does not appear; (2) in Palestine,
a wine-growing and wine-consuming country, where it is not merely _a_
beverage, but _the_ beverage of the common people, four or five
barrels of wine would not seem so extraordinary a supply as it would
to us, nor would it produce any such effect in the consumption as an
equal amount of the ordinary wines of to-day; (3) it is God’s way to
pour out his bounty, not only in abundance, but in superabundance. As
Christ created, not merely barely enough bread for the 5,000, but the
disciples, after all were fed, gathered up twelve baskets full, so we
may well believe that here he created not barely sufficient for the
hour, but a superabundance which remained to bless the home after the
departure of the guests. On the probable character of this wine, see
below, Note on Christ’s example in the use of wine.
9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that
was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the
servants[72] which drew the water knew;) the governor
of the feast called the bridegroom,
[72] ch. 7:17; Ps. 119:100.
10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth
set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk,
then that which is worse: _but_ thou hast kept the
good wine[73] until now.
[73] Ps. 104:15; Prov. 9:2, 5.
=9, 10. The ruler of the feast.= The same word as _governor of the
feast_, in the preceding verse. Among the Greeks and Romans, a ruler
of the feast (_symposiarch_) was commonly chosen, usually by lot, who
regulated the whole order of the festivities, proposed the amusements,
etc. A reference in the Apocrypha (Eccles. 32:1, 2) indicates that the
same practice prevailed among the Jews. There is no ground for
supposing the ruler of the feast in this case to have been other than
a guest, who occupied this honorary office.--=But the servants knew,
they having drawn the water.= Not merely, _the servants which drew,
knew_; the reason of their knowledge is indicated; they knew because
they had themselves filled the jars with the water, and drawn it
out.--=Called the bridegroom.= Called out to him, probably across the
table. The language which follows is sportive, and characteristic of
such an occasion of festivity.--=Every man at the beginning doth set
forth good wine; and when men are drunken, then that which is worse.=
The verb rendered in our English version “have well drunk” is
literally _are drunken_. It is in the passive voice. This does not
necessarily imply that in the East men counted on the inebriacy of
their guests, and for that reason provided the best wine first, still
less that the guests here were intoxicated. “The man says only in
joke, as if it were a general experience, what he certainly may have
often observed.”--(_Meyer._) The ancient commentators have observed
the difference between the feasts of the world and the feasts of
Christ; the world gives its best wine at first, and when men have
become intoxicated with it, then the poor, as the prodigal son
experienced (Luke 15:13-16); Christ ever reserves the good wine to the
last. See this thought beautifully drawn out by Jeremy Taylor in his
_Life of Christ_. Comp. John 4:13, 14.
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee,
and manifested[74] forth his glory: and his disciples
believed[75] on him.
[74] ch 1:14.
[75] 1 John 5:13.
=11. This beginning of miracles.= An incidental and indirect testimony
that the miracles of Christ’s infancy, narrated in the apocryphal
Gospels, are spurious.--_And manifested forth his glory._ Observe _his_
glory; the miracles of the disciples did not manifest forth _their_
glory, but that of their Lord (Acts 3:8; 14:11-15).--=And his
disciples believed in him.= That is, the five that had already begun to
follow him. But _what_ or _how much_ they believed is not indicated.
They began to have that confidence in him which was not consummated
till after his resurrection.
In respect to this miracle, observe, (1) _The simplicity of the
narrative_. John does not directly assert that the water was made wine,
nor that a miracle was performed, nor does he deduce any conclusion
from the event; he simply narrates what he saw and heard--the jars
filled with water, the contents drawn out, the testimony of the
governor of the feast to the excellence of the wine carried to
him; the reader is left to draw his own conclusion. (2) _The utter
failure of all naturalistic explanations_, such as that Christ simply
accelerated the process of nature, or changed the attributes of the
water after the analogy of mineral waters, so as to give it the taste
and appearance of wine, or that the taste and semblance of wine was
due to a state of spiritual exaltation on the part of the company, all
of which views have had defenders even among orthodox critics. See
Lange’s and Meyer’s Commentaries for a statement of these and kindred
interpretations. Meyer well says, respecting them all, “Instead of a
transmutation of water we have a frivolous transmutation of history.”
(3) _The impossibility of deception or fraud._ The jars are those
belonging to the household; they are filled to the brim with water;
it is drawn out by the servants; the judgment respecting the wine is
pronounced by the governor of the feast, who does not know of the
miracle. (4) _The analogy of nature._ “He who made the wine at this
wedding does the same thing every year in the vines. As the water
which the servants put into the water-pots was turned into wine by
the Lord, so that which the clouds pour down is turned into wine by
the same Lord. It excites no wonder in us, because it occurs every
year.”--(_Augustine._) (5) _The moral and spiritual significance of
the miracle._ Contrast Christ’s ready consent to convert water into
wine to add to the festivities of others, with his refusal to convert
stones into bread to supply his own imperative needs (Matt. 4:3, 4);
his conversion of water into wine, the symbol of inspiration and life,
with the first miracle of Moses, who converted water into blood, an
instrument and a symbol of death (Exod. 7:20, 21)--Christ brings life
and power, Moses brings law and condemnation (Rom. 7:8, 9); his
entrance on his ministry by attendance on a marriage festivity, and
his miracle to prolong its festivities, with the asceticism of John
the Baptist (Luke 1:15; Matt. 3:4). Compare his inauguration of the
new covenant by a miracle at a marriage with God’s inauguration of the
old covenant by ordaining and creating the marriage relation (Gen.
1:21-24). Notice in this miracle a type of Christ’s redeeming love,
who converts the water of the law into the wine of the Gospel, and
every soul which hears and obeys his creative command into an
inspiring life-giving spirit (John 5:21; 6:33; 1 Cor. 15:45). Observe
the fundamental lesson, that Christ’s example bids us not to withdraw
from the world, nor abstain from its use, but to use without abusing
it (1 Cor. 7:31), and that the assertion that Christianity bids men
“make this earth as unpleasant to themselves as possible so as to
secure hereafter the joys of heaven,” is a monstrous perversion of the
teaching and example of Jesus Christ. Comp. Matt. 9:9, 10; 11:19; Luke
7:36; 11:37; 14:1; John 12:1, 2.
* * * * *
CHRIST’S EXAMPLE IN THE USE OF WINE. 1. _The facts._ These are that
Christ inaugurated his public ministry by attending a wedding feast,
and there by a miracle creating a large quantity of wine--certainly
all that the guests could use--for the simple purpose of prolonging
the festivities of the occasion; that he was accustomed throughout his
life to attend social gatherings where wine was freely used; that he
used it freely himself, notwithstanding the fact that it subjected him
to the reproaches and the misrepresentations of his enemies (Matt.
11:19; Luke 7:34); that he never directly or indirectly condemns the
use of wine, though he does condemn drunkenness (Matt. 24:49; Luke
12:45); and that he directs its use by his church as a perpetual
memorial of his atoning love, and employs it as a symbol of joy and
fellowship in the world to come (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke
22:18; 1 Cor. 10:16). The force of this example is strengthened by the
reflection that drunkenness was common in the East before Christ’s day
(Esther 1:10; Isa. 5:22; 28:7; Dan. 5:2-4; Hosea 4:11), and in
Palestine and the neighboring countries during Christ’s lifetime, so
that even the church of Christ had need of constant admonition against
it (Matt. 24:49; Luke 15:13; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 11:21; Gal. 5:21; 1
Pet. 4:3); that a Jewish Sect existed, the Essenes (Matt. 3:7, note),
who were total abstainers, with whom Christ never identified himself;
and that he directly contrasts his life and example with that of John
the Baptist (Matt. 11:19), who, as a Nazarite, was pledged against the
use of wine and strong drink (Luke 1:15; Numb. 6:3). Attempts have
been made to show that the wine which Christ made on this occasion and
used on other occasions was not fermented. It is certain that there
were in use in the Greek and Roman world, and presumptively in
Palestine, three kinds of wine--fermented wines, which, however, were
unlike our own fiery wines and contained only a small percentage of
alcohol, and which were usually mixed in the use with water, in the
proportion of two or three parts of water to one of wine; new wine,
made of the juice of the grape, and, like our new cider, not fermented
and not intoxicating; and wines in which, by boiling the unfermented
juice of the grape, or by the addition of certain drugs, the process
of fermentation had been stopped, and the formation of alcohol
prevented. It is claimed that fermented wine was not used at the
Passover, though I can find no other reason for this opinion than the
fact that leavened, _i. e._, fermented bread was prohibited--a
prohibition the sole object of which was to remind the Jews of the
haste of the original passover. Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 11:21 (see
note there) makes it evident that fermented wine was used by the
primitive church in the administration of the Lord’s Supper; and the
Rabbinical rule, requiring water to be mixed with the wine at the
paschal feast (see Lightfoot on Matt. 26:27), lest drunkenness should
disgrace it, makes it equally evident that wine was used in the
original O. T. festival. There is nothing in the language of the N. T.
to indicate any discrimination between fermented and unfermented
wines; Christ himself never directly or indirectly discriminates
between them; neither do any of his apostles; and it is apparently
indicated if not necessarily implied in the account here, and in other
passages, that it was the ordinary fermented wine which Christ
employed; see especially Matt. 11:19, “Behold a glutton and a
wine-bibber,” and Matt. 9:17, “No man having drunk old (_fermented_)
wine, straightway desireth new (_that of the last vintage and
unfermented_), for he saith the old is better.” The language of Mark
14:25, “I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine,” etc., plainly
implies that he had been accustomed to drink it freely and as a
beverage with his followers. I judge then that Christ here made, and
throughout his life ordinarily used, fermented wine; and this is the
nearly unanimous judgment of the best unprejudiced Biblical scholars.
The opposite opinion is of later origin, an after-thought, the product
not of impartial Biblical research, but of the temperance reformation.
(2) _Significance of these facts._ It appears to me clear, in the
light of these facts, that neither Christ’s precept nor his example
can be cited in favor of the doctrine of total abstinence, as a
universal and permanent obligation from all use of wine, even as a
beverage; that it rather indicates that he recognizes the right and
propriety of so using it; and that the doctrine and practice of total
abstinence must be maintained, if at all, not by any specific precept,
nor by the general course of Christ’s life, but from local and perhaps
temporary considerations, and solely on the ground that the Christian
must always be willing to surrender a lawful gratification for the
sake of a higher good, either to himself or to others (Matt. 5:29, 30;
Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 6:12). It is equally clear that neither Christ’s
precepts nor his example justifies the ordinary drinking usages of
American society of to-day, with its bars, its wine-shops, its
beer-gardens, its fiery wines and strong liquors, and all its
attendant evils. The ordinary wine of to-day is a very different
article from that in Christ’s day. The _word_ is the same, the _thing_
is different. And the usages are equally different. It is not my
province here to enter into a general discussion of the temperance
question, or even of the Bible teaching on the subject; but for the
convenience of the student I add, from my _Dictionary of Religious
Knowledge_, a tabular view of the principal Bible passages which bear
on the subject, either for or against the use of wines.
THE BIBLE
COMMENDS WINE: CONDEMNS WINE:
_As an offering to God _As a cause of violence and woe_:
with oil and wheat_: Prov. 4:17; 23:29-32.
Numb. 18:12.
Neh. 10:37-39. _Of self-security and irreligion:_
Isa. 28:7; 56:12.
_As a blessing to man_: Hab. 2:5.
Gen. 27:28-37.
Deut. 7:13. _As a poison_:
Judges 9:13. Deut. 32:33.
Prov. 3:10. Prov. 23:31.
Isa. 65:8. Hosea 7:5.
Joel 3:18.
Ps. 104:15. _As an accompaniment of
Zech. 9:17. wickedness_:
Isa. 5:22.
_As an emblem of spiritual
blessing_: _As an emblem of divine
Isa. 55:1. wrath_:
Sol. Song 7:9. Ps. 60:3; 75:8.
Isa. 51:17.
_As a perpetual memorial Jer. 25:15.
of Christ’s atoning Rev. 14:10; 16:19.
sacrifice_:
Matt. 26:26-29. _By the example of priests
Mark 14:22-25. on entering the tabernacle_:
1 Cor. 10:16. Lev. 10:8-11.
_As a medicine_: _Of Rechabites_:
Prov. 31:6, 7. Jer. 35:6.
1 Tim. 5:23.
_Of Nazarites_:
_By the example of Jesus Numb. 6:2, 3.
Christ_:
John 2:1-11. _Of Daniel_:
Luke 7:34. Dan. 1:8, 12.
* * * * *
Ch. 2: 12-22. CHRIST CASTS THE TRADERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE. AN
ILLUSTRATION OF THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST.--A SYMBOL OF THE WORK OF
CHRIST.--AN EXAMPLE TO THE FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST.
This incident is narrated only by John. It is not to be confounded
with the second casting out narrated by the synoptists. See note on
Matt. 21:12, 13. This occurred at the first Passover in Christ’s
public ministry; that at the last. There is a significance in the
repetition. It indicates both the tendency of a corrupt church to
corruption in spite of cleanings, a truth unhappily abundantly
illustrated in history; and the persistence of Christ’s zeal, a
quality imperfectly reflected in the zeal of his disciples. The
probable date of this event was March, A. D. 28.
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his
mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they
continued there not many days.
=12. Went down to Capernaum.= From Cana, which was the hill country,
to Capernaum, which was on the shore of the sea of Galilee. For
description of Capernaum, see Matt. 4:13. It would be on the natural
though not necessary route from Cana to Jerusalem. This visit is not
to be confounded with Christ’s permanent change of residence from
Nazareth to Capernaum, which resulted from the mob in the former city
(Luke 4:28-31); this did not take place till after the imprisonment of
John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12, 13). The statement that _they continued
not there many days_, distinguished this visit from that permanent
change of residence.--=His mother and his brethren and his disciples.=
His public ministry had not yet fully begun; he had not, therefore,
yet left his mother and brethren to devote himself to his work. That
these were real brethren, not cousins or other relations, I think is
clear, though by many doubted. See note on “Brethren of our Lord,”
Vol. I, p. 187.
13 And the Jews’ passover[76] was at hand, and Jesus[77]
went up to Jerusalem,
[76] Ex. 12:14.
[77] Verse 23; chap. 5:1; 6:4; 11:55.
=13. And the Jews’ Passover was at hand.= For origin of Passover see
Exodus, ch. 12; for some account of its ceremonies see Matt. 26:26-30,
Prel. Note.--=And Jesus went up to Jerusalem.= Observe, that he was
accustomed to attend the Jewish feasts as well as the synagogue
services. The corruption of the church did not cause his withdrawal
from its public services (ch. 10:25).
[Illustration: SUBSTRUCTURES OF THE TEMPLE.]
[Illustration: BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF JERUSALEM.]
[Illustration: _From “Life of Jesus; the Christ,” by Rev. Henry Ward
Beecher._
PLAN AND SECTION OF THE TEMPLE.]
14 And found[78] in the temple those that sold oxen and
sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
[78] Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45.
=14. In the temple.= Historically there were three temples: Solomon’s
(1 Kings, ch. 6, 7; 2 Chron., ch. 3, 4), the temple of Zerubbabel,
constructed at the time of the restoration under Nehemiah (Ezra
3:8-11; 6:3-5), and Herod’s. The latter, named for its builder, Herod
the Great (Matt. 2:1, note), is the one mentioned here and elsewhere
in the N. T. Its site, established with as much certainty as any in
the N. T., was a rock platform in the southeast corner of Jerusalem,
now occupied by the Mohammedan Mosque of Omar. In its erection ten
thousand skilled workmen were employed; among them one thousand
priests especially instructed in the arts of the stonecutter and the
carpenter. The result was a temple whose architectural magnificence is
thought never to have been surpassed in ancient or modern times. It
was less a building than a collection of buildings, and covered an
area of over nineteen acres. The stone was white marble, the roof
cedar, the architecture probably a combination of the Greek and the
Roman. On the east it overlooked the valley of the Cedron, forming an
effective fortification. It also served as a defence on the north,
where adjoined the tower of Antonia, the barracks of the Roman
soldiery. On the south a single gateway, on the west four gateways,
gave exit and entrance. On the east it was connected by a bridge over
the Tyrophœan valley with Mount Zion, the site of Solomon’s and later
of Herod’s palace. The remains of this bridge have been lately
discovered. The annexed ground plan, from Henry Ward Beecher’s “Life
of Christ,” will enable the reader to understand the internal
structure of the temple. The illustration in Vol. I, p. 257, will give
an idea of its external appearance. The reader is there supposed to be
on the Mount of Olives looking down upon the temple from the east;
Mount Zion with its palaces and towers is in the background; the
long-roofed structure on the left, that is, the south, is the royal
cloister or _Stoa basilica_. This is minutely described by Josephus
(Ant. 15:11, 5). It consisted of a nave and two aisles, the side
toward the country being closed by a wall, that toward the temple
proper being open. It was 105 feet in breadth, 600 feet in length; the
centre aisle was 100 feet high, the side aisles 50. The roof of cedar
was supported by 102 Corinthian columns of white marble, the floor was
a magnificent mosaic. Between this cloister and the temple structure
was the open court of the Gentiles. It was open to all, heathen and
Jew alike, and was used for the purpose of social and intellectual
exchange, as well as for religious processional services. Here Christ
(Matt. 21:23), and subsequently his disciples (Luke 24:53; Acts 5:21,
42), taught the people. Inscriptions in Greek and Latin forbade the
heathen from passing beyond this court, under penalty of death. For a
supposed infringement of this law Paul was mobbed (Acts 21:26-30).
Within were the successive courts of the women, of Israel, of the
priests. In this latter was the sacred furniture and utensils, the
table of shewbread, the altar, the laver, etc. In the heart of this
enclosure, investing all with a mysterious sacredness, was the Holy of
Holies, veiled from even priestly gaze by the curtain, which was
subsequently rent in twain at the time of Christ’s death (Matt.
27:57). This Holy of Holies, 90 × 30 feet, is seen in the illustration
of the temple as restored, in the centre of the building; it
constituted the most prominent feature. It was in the outer court of
the Gentiles that the sheep and cattle and money-changers had
gathered. The scattered Israelites were unable to bring in person the
sacrifices for the altar. The Mosaic law permitted them to sell their
first-fruits, and with the money purchase their gifts at Jerusalem
(Deut. 14:24-26). They were also required to pay for the support of
the temple service a half-shekel (Exod. 3:11-16; Matt. 17:24-27,
notes). This must be paid in Jewish money, for Gentile coin would
pollute the sacred coffers. Thus, gradually, the feast-days became
great market-days, as they still are among the nomadic tribes of the
Mohammedan religion. The priesthood, sharing in the profits, suffered
the traffickers gradually to intrude into and occupy the outer court
of the temple. Thus, not only were the religious services of the Jews
disturbed by the bleating of sheep, the lowing of cattle, the cooing
of doves, the clangor of the money-changers, and the hum of a busy
market, but the Gentiles were absolutely driven from all participation
in the religious benefits of the temple. To their exclusion Christ
referred in the second expulsion (Mark 11:15-19, note). The priests
winked not only at the sacrilege, but also at the double defrauding of
God and man which accompanied it (Mal. 1:7, 8). The court of the
Gentiles was worse than a market-place; it was a den of thieves. Thus
Christ’s act was not only a vehement protest against the sacrilege
which suffers business to encroach on the house and worship of God,
but also a rebuke of the bigotry which is indifferent to the
religious wants and worship of men not of our race, faith, or
companionship.--=Those that sold cattle, sheep, and doves.= For
sacrifices under the Levitical law; sheep, rams, lambs, goats, kids,
bulls, cows, calves, doves, and sparrows were offered for this
purpose. All sacrifices were required to be offered by the priesthood
and in the temple. On the great feast-days, when the population of
Jerusalem was increased to a million or more, the traffic must have
been both large and profitable.--=And the changers of money.=
Money-changers had in Greece and Rome their stalls or tables in the
streets and market-places for the purpose of exchanging the coin of
one nation for another. They are still to be found in Jerusalem,
seated by their little glass cases, in which are saucers of brass
filled with coins of silver and gold, of every size and value.
[Illustration: THE EXPULSION OF THE TRADERS.
“_He drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and
poured out the changer’s money, and overthrew the tables._”]
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove
them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the
oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and
overthrew the tables;
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things
hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.
=15, 16. And when he had made a scourge of rushes.= The original
indicates that the scourge was made of the rushes which were used to
bed the cattle. Christ picked these up from the floor and wove them
together into a whip. Of course this fragile lash would not do much
real execution. It was used as one might use a switch to alarm and so
drive out the animals. The original shows very clearly that it was
used for this purpose alone, and not to threaten the men with physical
chastisement.--=He drove all out of the temple, both the sheep and the
cattle.= This is the correct rendering; our English version is
ambiguous and so misleading.--=And poured out the changers’ money.=
Poured it out upon the floor. This prevented their resisting, for it
occupied their energies to pick up and save the coin.--=And said unto
them that sold doves.= It is noteworthy that he drove out the sheep
and cattle, which the owners could reclaim in the streets, but did not
set the doves free, which would thus have been lost to their owners. A
true Christian indignation never blinds to the true rights even of the
most flagrant wrong-doers.--=Make not my Father’s house a house of
merchandise.= Compare Christ’s language at the second expulsion, Mark
11:17, note.
[Illustration: EASTERN MONEY-CHANGER.]
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written,[79]
The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
[79] Psalm 69:9.
=17. And his disciples remembered=, etc. At the time, not afterward;
if this had been meant it would have been expressed, as in ver. 22. It
is not here stated that the utterance in Ps. 69:9 was a prophecy which
Christ fulfilled; simply that his course recalled the language there.
The fact indicates the vigor and intensity of Christ’s zeal in the
manner and spirit of his action, as well as in the act itself.
This and the subsequent purification of the temple during the Passion
week, indicate in Christ a vigor and intensity of character, and a
power of indignation, which modern thought rarely attributes to him.
They interpret the suggestive description of Christ’s personal
appearance given by John in Rev. 1:13-16, the only hint of his
personal appearance afforded by the New Testament. We can imagine that
in this expulsion his eyes were as flames of fire, his feet firm in
their tread like feet of brass, his voice as the sound of the ocean,
his words as a two-edged sword. This indignation was aroused by (_a_)
the sacrilegious covetousness which made God’s house a house of
merchandise; (_b_) the fraud which converted it into a den of thieves;
(_c_) the selfishness of the bigotry which excluded the heathen from
the only court reserved for them. It should inspire in his disciples a
like spirit of indignation (_a_) against the sacrilegious covetousness
which converts the house of God into a mart of merchandise, whether by
the sale of indulgences, masses, and prayers to others, or by
employing it not for the praise of God but for the social and
pecuniary profit of the pretended worshipper; (_b_) against the
bigotry which permits us to look with indifference upon the exclusion
of the poor, the outcast, the despised from the privileges of God’s
house. It is a type of (_a_) the cleansing which Christ comes to do
for every soul, which is a temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16), and out of
which all unclean things must be driven by the power of God, before it
is fit for God’s indwelling; (_b_) the final cleansing when he will
come to cast out all things that defile and work abomination (Rev.
21:27). Observe that in Revelation the world is represented as
dreading “the wrath of _the Lamb_.” Christ’s example here does not
justify the use of physical force by the church to cleanse it from
corruption; for Christ did not employ physical force. His whip was not
a weapon; the power before which the traders fled was the moral power
of Christ, strengthened by the concurring judgment of their own
consciences and the moral sense of the mass of the people (Mark 11:15,
note).
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign[80]
showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
[80] ch. 6:30; Matt. 12:38, etc.
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy[81] this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
[81] Matt. 26:61; 27:40.
=18, 19. What sign showest thou unto us?= What evidence of authority
to expel from the temple practices allowed by the priesthood. They
questioned not the right of an inspired prophet to act thus, but the
authority of Jesus as a prophet. The moral power before which all
quailed was the greatest of signs; but to that they were indifferent.
“They required signs to be proved by signs.”--(_Bengel._) No other
authority for any reformation is ever required than the power
and grace to achieve it. The same question was repeated at the
second cleansing, but it elicited a very different answer (Matt.
21:23).--=Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.=
In interpreting this passage observe that (1) John himself explicitly
declares Christ’s meaning, “He spake of the temple of his body” (ver.
21); (2) that not only the Jews, who might have willfully perverted
Christ, misunderstood his meaning, but his own followers did not, till
after his death, understand him (ver. 22); hence (3) the hypothesis
that he pointed to himself when he said, “Destroy this temple,” is not
only unnecessary but improbable. The words are a prophecy, but are
purposely left enigmatical, to be interpreted by the event. The temple
is itself a type of man, who is intended to be the temple of God, in
which he will dwell; and therefore a type perfectly fulfilled only in
Christ, in whom alone the Spirit of God dwelt without measure, and
with no periods of partial or complete exclusion. The Jews in
crucifying Christ destroyed the divine reality of which the building
was only a symbol or prophecy; moreover they inaugurated that terrible
drama of passion which ended in the literal destruction of the temple
itself. For description of this destruction see Matt. ch. 24, Prel.
Note. Some objections to this passage have been suggested. (1) _The
crucifixion of Christ and his resurrection taking place three years
later cannot be a sign of his authority here._ Ans. In fact Christ
does not comply with the Pharisees’ demand for a sign but refuses it,
as in the analogous passage in Matt. 12:34-40, where he also by a
metaphor refers to his resurrection. (2) _The prophecy would not be
and in fact was not understood._ Ans. It was not intended to be
understood then, but to afford a basis for the faith of the disciples
when subsequent history had interpreted it. It was an enigma more
likely to be remembered because enigmatical. “Many such sayings he
uttered which were not intelligible to his immediate hearers, but
which were to be so to those who should come after. And wherefore doth
he do this? In order that when the accomplishment of his predictions
should have come to pass, he might be seen to have foreknown from the
beginning what was to follow.”--(_Chrysostom._) (3) _The language is
imperative and thus involves a command by Christ to crucify him._ Ans.
The imperative, _Destroy this temple_, is not equivalent to the
future, You will destroy this temple; nor is it permissive merely, You
may destroy this temple; nor yet is it a command, You must destroy
this temple. It is a challenge. Destroy this temple, and I will raise
it up. “It springs from painfully excited feelings, as he looks with
heart-searching gaze upon that implacable opposition which was already
beginning to show itself, and which would not be satisfied till it had
put him to death.”--(_Meyer._) (4) _The language, I will raise it up,
imputes to Christ the power of the resurrection which is uniformly
attributed to the Father._ Ans. This objection is founded on a
misapprehension. The N. T. recognizes no such distinction between the
Father and the Son as this objection implies, and Christ uses language
elsewhere, as distinctly implying his own act in the resurrection as
that used here (ch. 10:18; 11:25; comp. 5:39, 40, 44). The
interpretation proposed by some writers, that Christ here speaks of
the decay of the Jewish religion in its temple, and the building up of
a new spiritual theocracy, will not be accepted by those who believe
that John’s explicit declaration of Christ’s meaning is inspired and
authoritative. Observe how the Jews intentionally misrepresented
Christ’s saying; they accused him of threatening to destroy the temple
(Matt. 26:61, note), when he had really prophesied that they would
destroy it.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple
in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple[82] of his body.
[82] Ephes. 2:21, 22; Col. 2:9; Heb. 8:2.
=20. Forty and six years was this temple in building.= The argument is
a natural one, and seemed conclusive. The temple was commenced by Herod
twenty years previous to the birth of Christ, and had been forty-six
years in construction up to this time. It was not finally completed,
however, till A. D. 64, under Herod Agrippa II; so that it was really
over eighty years in building. The workmen were at this time still
engaged upon it, and the language of the people refers to the work up
to this time.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples
remembered that he[83] had said this unto them: and they
believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
[83] Luke 24:8.
=22. When therefore he was risen from the dead.= Not merely after but
at the time of his resurrection and in the light of that fact, the
disciples interpreted both what he had said and what the O. T.
contained on this subject.--=They believed the Scripture.= Not the N.
T., no part of which was written at the time of the resurrection; and
the “Scripture” is here distinguished from the words which Jesus had
spoken. The O. T. contained prophecies of the resurrection which are
enigmatical, and probably were but imperfectly comprehended by even
the most devout Jews, but which were interpreted by the event (Ps.
16:4 with Acts 3:15; Ps. 17:15; 73:23, 24; Isaiah 26:19; Hosea 6:2).
For evidence that Christ, and subsequently the apostles, recognized in
the O. T. prophecies of the resurrection, see Luke 24:26, 27; John
20:9; 1 Cor. 15:4.
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the
feast _day_, many believed in his name when they saw the
miracles which he did.
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because
he[84] knew all _men_,
[84] ch. 16:30; 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9; 29:17;
Jer. 17:9, 10; Matt. 9:4; Acts 1:24; Rev. 2:23.
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for
he knew what was in man.
=23-25. Many trusted in his name, seeing the signs which he wrought,
but Christ did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all men
and needed not=, etc. Compare with the English version the translation
here given which approximates more nearly to the original; and observe
respecting this that (1) the term miracle has acquired in modern
theology a technical meaning it does not possess in the N. T. Christ
may have wrought miracles at this time not recorded by the Evangelist
(ch. 21, 25), but the belief of the Jewish disciples may have rested
on such signs of his moral power as the expulsion of the traders from
the temple; (2) their trust in his name was not necessarily a true
spiritual acceptance of him as a personal Saviour from sin; the
reverse is implied by the statement that they trusted him _because
they saw his miracles_; and still more by the declaration respecting
himself that he did not entrust himself to them; (3) this declaration
would scarcely need interpretation were it not for a common
misinterpretation. It does not imply that he held back from them his
doctrine, or refused to work miracles for their benefit, but simply
that he did not and could not enter into that close and unreserved
personal intercourse with them which characterized his Galilean life
and companionships. He knew them too well to do this; knew that when
the spiritual and universal nature of his kingdom of love was revealed
unto them, they would reject and crucify him. The statement that he
knew what was _in man_, indicates a divine and supernatural reading of
the secrets of the human heart, of which the N. T. affords many and
striking illustrations (Matt. 9:4; Mark 2:8; Luke 7:39, 40). The
declaration that he knew _all men_, indicates that this interior
knowledge of the heart was not occasional and exceptional, but
universal. Melancthon sees in the example of our Lord here an
admonition of caution in opening our hearts unreservedly to strangers,
even though they may seem to receive our word with kindness. Be
friendly to all, be intimate with few.