1‐11. *Christ at the marriage feast in Cana changes water into
wine.*
12. *He goes down to Capharnaum.*
13‐17. *At the approach of the Pasch He goes up to Jerusalem, and
there drives the buyers and sellers out of the Temple.*
18‐22. *Challenged by the Jews for a sign of His authority, He
predicts His own Resurrection, as the disciples called to mind
after He had risen.*
23‐25. *On the occasion of this first Pasch of His public life
many believe in Him because of His miracles.*
1. Et die tertia nuptiae 1. And the third day there was
factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae, a marriage in Cana of Galilee:
et erat mater Iesu ibi. and the mother of Jesus was
there.
2. Vocatus est autem et Iesus, 2. And Jesus also was invited,
et discipuli eius, ad nuptias. and his disciples, to the
marriage.
1. The Evangelist having narrated how our Lord was witnessed to by the
Baptist, and joined by His first disciples, now proceeds to tell how He
bore testimony of Himself by His miracles.
*The third day.* Naturally the third from the point of time last referred
to, in verse 43.
The marriage feast was celebrated for a week among the Jews, and this
custom had come down from very ancient times, as we learn from the book of
Judges, xiv. 12.
*Cana of Galilee* was situated most probably in the tribe of Zabulon near
Capharnaum. There was another Cana in the tribe of Aser, near Sidon (see
Jos. xix. 28).
2. *And Jesus also was invited*; that is to say, He also, _as well as_ the
Blessed Virgin, was invited. Mald. holds that καὶ (et) is explanatory: on
that account, that is to say, because she _was_ there as a friend of the
family, Jesus was _invited_.
3. Et deficiente vino, dicit 3. And the wine failing, the
mater Iesu ad eum: Vinum non mother of Jesus saith to him:
habent. They have no wine.
3. *And the wine failing* (Gr. having failed). Either all the wine was
already drunk, or, at least, there was no more to be drawn; the last was
on the table. When we take into account what Mary says to the servants (v.
5), it is plain that her object in telling Jesus that the wine had run
short, was not that He and His disciples might retire (Bengel), nor that
He might exhort the company to patience (Calvin), nor that He might buy
wine (Kuin.), but that He might work a miracle. “The Mother of the Lord
having heard of the testimony of the Baptist, and seeing the disciples
gathered round her Son, the circumstances of whose miraculous birth she
treasured in her heart (Luke ii. 19, 51) must have looked now at length
for the manifestation of His power, and thought that an occasion only was
wanting. Yet even so she leaves all to His will” (Westc., in _Speaker’s
Comm._).
4. Et dicit ei Iesus: Quid 4. And Jesus saith to her:
mihi et tibi est mulier: Woman, what is it to me and to
Nondum venit hora mea. thee? My hour is not yet come.
4. *Woman, what is it to me and to thee?* The Vulgate has. “Quid mihi et
tibi _est_, mulier?” But the verb is not in the Greek text (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ
σοί γύναι?), which would therefore be better translated: “What to Me and
to thee, woman?” The Revised Version of the Church of England renders:
“Woman, what have I to do with thee?”
Most Protestant writers have held that these words of our Lord contain a
reproof of His mother. Among Catholics many have held that the words
contain _the semblance_ of reproof; to teach us, not Mary, that we are not
to be influenced by motives of flesh and blood in the service of God.
Others have held (and this is the general opinion of modern Catholic
commentators) that the words do not contain even the appearance of
reproof.
(1) It is now generally acknowledged even by Protestant commentators that
the term γύναι is not reproachful or disrespectful. According to Alford
there is no reproach in the term, but rather respect; and Trench says: “So
far from any harshness, the compellation has something solemn in it”
(_Miracles_, p. 100). Liddell and Scott’s _Lexicon_, says: “It is often
used as a term of respect or affection, mistress, lady.” Yet Calvin
impiously asserts that our Lord does not deign to call Mary His Mother:
“Deinde cur simplici repulsa non contentus eam in vulgarem mulierum
ordinem cogit, nec jam matris nomine dignatur?” “Why doubt of the heavenly
origin of a reformation wrought by such reasoning as this?” (McCarthy).
Father Coleridge thinks that Mary is addressed here by the title γύναι
because that is “what we may call her official and theological title ...
for she is the ‘woman’ of whom our Lord was born; she is the ‘woman’ of
whom God spake to our first parents when He made them the promise of a
Redeemer after the fall; she is the ‘woman’ to whom the whole range of
types look forward, who was to conceive and compass a man (Jer. xxxi. 22);
she is the ‘woman,’ the second Eve, as our Lord is the Man, and the Son of
Man, the second Adam.”(32) But whatever may be thought of this view,
enough has been said to show that the term γύναι does not imply reproof or
disrespect.
(2) Neither does the phrase “What to Me and to thee?” (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί?).
We find exactly the same phrase in Judg. xi. 12; 3 Kings xvii. 18; 4 Kings
iii. 13; 2 Paral. xxxv. 21; Mark v. 7; Luke viii. 28.(33)
(A). After a candid examination of these texts, it must, we think, appear
that the meaning of the phrase is _not_: What does this concern you and
Me? for in some, if not all, of the passages cited the phrase cannot have
that meaning. Besides, is it likely Jesus would say that the wants of the
poor, who were His hosts, and perhaps His relatives, and their shame
consequent upon those wants, did not concern Him?
(B). Neither is the meaning: What have I to do with you, or, what have I
in common with you? (as author of a miracle such as you suggest); it must
proceed from My Divine nature, while only My human nature has been derived
from you (so Augus., Tolet., Patriz.). For—
(_a_) This is not the meaning of the phrase in the parallel passages.
(_b_) Christ gives a different reason: _My hour is not yet come._
(_c_) His person hypostatically united to His human nature, had that
nature in common with her, and it is of His person (_mihi_), not of His
Divine nature merely that He speaks.
(C). What the precise meaning of the phrase is, it is difficult to
determine with certainty. In all the passages where it occurs, it seems to
indicate some divergence between the thoughts or wishes of the persons so
brought together. Most probably it is here a _remonstrance_; because the
suggestion that Christ should work a miracle is _inconvenient or
inopportune_, inasmuch as it brings moral pressure to bear upon Him to
make Him begin His miracles before the time at which, prescinding from
this suggestion, His public miracles were to begin. Something similar are
the words of God to Moses: “_Let Me alone_, that My wrath may be kindled
against them, and that I may destroy them” (Exod. xxxii. 10). On that
occasion God, after remonstrating, granted the prayer of Moses, just as on
this occasion, after remonstrating, He yielded to the suggestion of His
Mother. So St. Cyril of Alex., St. Amb., Corl, &c.
Whether the above be the correct meaning of the phrase or not, one thing
is clear, against Calvin, Alf., Trench, &c., that the words cannot contain
a rebuke—not a _real_ rebuke; because there was no fault on Mary’s part,
not even venial (Council of Trent, sess. vi., can. 23). St. Aug., whose
authority Protestants must respect, whatever they may think of that of the
Council of Trent, says: “De Sancta Maria Virgine, propter honorem Christi,
nullam prorsus quando de peccato agitur volo habere quaestionem” (_De
Natura et Gratia_, ch. xxxvi.). Moreover, if the Blessed Virgin were
guilty of any fault, it would be either because of the thing suggested, or
of some circumstance of time, place, motive, &c. Now, our Lord granted
what she suggested; the object was therefore, good. The circumstances were
the very same when the miracle was wrought as when it was suggested. As to
her motive, it may have been good—charity for the poor. Why, then, ascribe
a bad motive, such as vanity, without convincing proof? That the
suggestion was acceded to, goes to show that it was made in circumstances
in which it was not displeasing to God.(34)
Neither is there in the words a _feigned_ rebuke, that is, feigned for our
instruction, to show us that we are not to regard flesh and blood in doing
the work of God (Mald., Tolet., &c.); for Christ actually did what was
suggested; and, besides, it is Catholic teaching that Christ in heaven
grants many requests to His Mother, _because_ she is His Mother.
In vain, then, have Protestants tried to find, in these words of our Lord,
anything derogatory to the dignity of His Blessed Mother. To every
interpretation which would give such a sense to His words, we may answer,
with St. Justin, Martyr: “Non verbo matrem objurgavit qui facto
honoravit.” “He reproved not His mother by what He said who honoured her
by what He did.”
*My hour is not yet come.* In our interpretation it is easy to explain
these words. His hour is not the hour of His death, nor the time when the
want of wine would be fully felt, but the time at which, according to the
ordinary providence of God, and prescinding from His Mother’s suggestion,
His public miracles were to begin.
5. Dicit mater eius ministris: 5. His mother saith to the
Quodcumque dixerit vobis, waiters: Whatsoever he shall
facite. say to you, do ye.
5. *Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.* These are not the words of one
whose suggestion had been reproved and rejected.
6. Erant autem ibi lapideae 6. Now there were set there
hydriae sex positae secundum six waterpots of stone,
purificationem Iudaeorum, according to the manner of the
capientes singulae metretas purifying of the Jews,
binas vel ternas. containing two or three
measures a‐piece.
6. For the custom of the Jews in the matter of ablutions, see Matt. xv. 2;
Mark vii. 2‐5. The μετρητής was a Greek liquid measure, containing about
nine gallons, or, to be accurate, eight gallons 7.4 pints. There were six
jars, or water‐pots, each containing two or three measures. If each jar
contained two measures, the whole quantity of wine miraculously provided
would be = 6 × 2 × 9 = 108 gallons. If each contained three measures, the
whole would be = 6 × 3 × 9 = 162 gallons. The quantity of wine
miraculously produced was therefore very great, being at least about 108
gallons. It is absurd, however, to seek in this miracle of our Divine Lord
any excuse for intemperance. As well might God be accused of conniving at
intemperance, because He fills the grape each year with the moisture of
earth and heaven, and then transmutes this into the nobler juices which He
knows man will convert into wine. He gives in every case, that we may use,
not that we may abuse. If the quantity of wine miraculously provided on
this occasion was large, we ought to remember that the marriage feast
lasted for a week; that there were probably many guests present, whose
number was considerably increased by the invitation, at the last moment,
of Christ and His disciples on their arrival from Judea; that others would
probably be attracted now by the fame of this miracle, and the desire to
see Him who had wrought it; and, finally, that the quantity of the wine
made the miracle more striking.
7. Dicit eis Iesus. Implete 7. Jesus saith to them: Fill
hydrias aqua. Et impleverunt the waterpots with water. And
eas usque ad summum. they filled them up to the
brim.
7. *To the brim.* So that there was no room left to mix wine or anything
else with the water; this shows, too, the quantity of wine that was
miraculously supplied.
8. Et dicit eis Iesus: Haurite 8. And Jesus saith to them:
nunc, et ferte architriclino. Draw out now, and carry to the
Et tulerunt. chief steward of the feast.
And they carried it.
8. *Chief steward* (Gr. ἀρχός, chief, or ruler, and τρίκλινος, a dining‐
room, with three couches, and more generally, a dining‐room). The
president of the feast, according to some, was _one of the guests_
selected by the host, or by the unanimous consent of the guests; according
to others, he was not a guest, but the _chief servant_. In the first view
he corresponds with the συμποσιάρχης of the Greeks, and the “magister
convivii,” or “arbiter bibendi,” of the Romans; and this we take to be
correct, for his familiarity with the bridegroom (v. 10) bespeaks the
friend rather than the servant.
9. Ut autem gustavit 9. And when the chief steward
architriclinus aquam vinum had tasted the water made
factam, et non sciebat unde wine, and knew not whence it
esset, ministri autem sciebant was, but the waiters knew who
qui hauserant aquam, vocat had drawn the water; the chief
sponsum architriclinus. steward calleth the
bridegroom.
9. St. John mentions that the president of the feast knew not whence the
wine was, nor how it had been produced, in order to show that his
testimony in its favour was not the result of previous collusion with
Jesus. *Who had drawn the water.* ἠντληκότες is the form for the
pluperfect, as well as for the perfect participle, and is rightly rendered
“had drawn.” We consider it more likely that the reference is to their
drawing the water from the well in order to fill the water‐pots. But if
the reference be to drawing the wine from the pots (in v. 8 the same Greek
verb is used in reference to that action), then the wine is called water
because it had been water so recently, just as the serpent is called a rod
in Exod. vii. 12. because it had been a rod immediately before. It is most
likely that the conversion took place in the water‐pots, and not on the
way from them to the table.
10. Et dicit ei: Omnis homo 10. And saith to him: Every
primum bonum vinum ponit: et man at first setteth forth
cum inebriati fuerint, tunc good wine, and when men have
id, quod deterius est: Tu well drank, then that which is
autem servasti bonum vinum worse. But thou hast kept the
usque adhuc. good wine until now.
10. Most probably the Greek word (μεθυσθῶσιν) rendered in the Vulgate
“inebriati fuerint” does not here imply drunkenness, but only drinking
freely. “In classical use it generally, but not always, implies
intoxication. In the Hellenistic writers, however, as Josephus, Philo, and
the LXX., it very often denotes drinking freely, and the hilarity
consequent, which is probably the sense here” (Bloomf.). In any case,
whatever meaning we give the word here, the president of the feast merely
speaks of what was the common practice, without saying that the guests at
this particular feast had indulged to the same extent.
11. Hoc fecit initium signorum 11. This beginning of miracles
Iesus in Cana Galilaeae: et did Jesus in Cana of Galilee:
manifestavit gloriam suam, et and manifested his glory, and
crediderunt in eum discipuli his disciples believed in him.
eius.
11. This was Christ’s first miracle, or better perhaps, it was His first
_public_ miracle, the first _sign_, or proof given in public of His Divine
power. It is worthy of note that our Lord honoured marriage on this
occasion not only by His presence, but also by His first public miracle.
The effect of the miracle is carefully noted by our Evangelist whose main
object, as we saw, is to prove Christ’s Divinity. And He manifested His
glory, δόξα (see i. 14); and the faith of the disciples was _confirmed_.
The fact that they were disciples, shows that they had some faith already.
12. Post hoc descendit 12. After this he went down to
Capharnaum, ipse, et mater Capharnaum, he and his mother,
eius, et fratres eius; et and his brethren, and his
discipuli eius: et ibi disciples: and they remained
manserunt non multis diebus. there not many days.
12. *Capharnaum*, the largest town of Galilee, was situated, on the
western shore of the sea of Galilee (Matt. iv. 13, John vi. 24), and the
journey to it from Cana is rightly described as a descent. During His
public life our Lord seems to have dwelt chiefly in this town, which is
therefore sometimes spoken of as His own city (see Matt. ix. 1, and
compare with Mark ii. 1). It was long thought to be impossible to identify
the site of Capharnaum, but it seems now to be practically certain that
the site is that of the modern Tell Hûm, about two and a half miles south‐
west of the point where the Jordan enters the sea of Galilee. Capharnaum
means the village (נפר) of Nahum. _Tell_ is the Arabic for a hillock
covered with ruins, and it is reasonably conjectured that Hûm is a
contraction for Nahum, the first syllable, as sometimes happens in such
cases, being dropped. Thus Tell Hûm would mean the ruin‐clad hillock of
Nahum. A summary of the various reasons for identifying the two places is
given by Pére Didon, in his able work: _Jesus Christ_, vol. ii., Appendix
F. The *brethren* of the Lord here referred to were His cousins, but
according to the Scriptural usage any near relations are called brethren.
Thus Abraham and Lot are “brethren” (Gen. xiii. 8), though Abraham was in
reality Lot’s uncle (Gen. xi. 27). See also remarks on vii. 3.
13. Et prope erat pascha 13. And the pasch of the Jews
Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus was at hand, and Jesus went up
Ierosoloymam: to Jerusalem.
13. *And* (= for) *the Pasch*, &c. This was the first Pasch of our Lord’s
public life. The Evangelist calls it the Pasch of the Jews, because he is
writing for the inhabitants of Asia Minor, most of whom were Greeks. The
Pasch (Heb. _pesach_, פסח), beginning at evening on the 14th, and ending
at evening on the 21st of Nisan,(35) was the greatest festival of the
Jews. The word “pasch” means the passing over (from _pasach_, פסח, to pass
or leap over), and the name was given to this festival as commemorating
the passing over of the houses of the Israelites when the destroying angel
slew the first‐born in the land of Egypt (see Exod xii. 11, 12).
*And Jesus went up to Jerusalem.* At the three principal feasts: Pasch,
Pentecost, and Tabernacles, all the male adults were bound to go up to the
temple at Jerusalem.
14. Et invenit in templo 14. And he found in the temple
vendentes boves, et oves, et them that sold oxen and sheep
columbas, et numularios and doves, and the changers of
sedentes. money sitting.
14. The animals here mentioned were sold to be sacrificed. The money‐
changers were there to change foreign money into Jewish. It was probably
in the Court of the Gentiles that Christ found them. *In the temple* (ἐν
ἱερώ, _i.e._, in sacro loco). The ἱερόν must be carefully distinguished
from the ναός (v. 20). The former included the temple proper, and also its
courts, porches, and porticoes; in a word, all its _sacred_ precincts; the
latter was the temple proper, the house of God, the place where He _dwelt_
(ναίω = to dwell). We know that around the temple as rebuilt by Herod the
Great, there were three courts: the outer, or that of the Gentiles; the
inner, or that of the Israelites; and between them, on the eastern side,
the Court of the women. In the inner court, or that of the Israelites,
there was a portion next the temple proper set apart for the priests.
15. Et cum fecisset quasi 15. And when he had made as it
flagellum de funiculis, omnes were a scourge of little
eiecit de templo, oves quoque, cords, he drove them all out
et boves, et numulariorum of the temple, the sheep also
effudit aes, et mensas and the oxen, and the money of
subvertit. the changers he poured out,
and the tables he overthrew.
15. *He drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen.*
These words of our version mean that He drove out not only the animals,
but also the sellers, and this is distinctly stated by S. Aug., and
several other Fathers. The sense of the Greek is ambiguous: *He drove all
out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen.*
16. Et his qui columbas 16. And to them that sold
vendebant, dixit: Auferte ista doves he said: Take these
hinc, et nolite facere domum things hence, and make not the
Patris mei, domum house of my father a house of
negotiationis. traffic.
16. Christ deals more leniently with those who sold the doves, perhaps
because these were the offerings of the poor.
*A house of traffic.* Our Lord does not on this occasion say the traffic
was unjust, but implies that it was sacrilegious, as being carried on in a
holy place. On another occasion, three years afterwards, Christ again
drove traders from the temple, who He says had made it “a den of thieves,”
adding the sin of injustice to that of sacrilege (Matt. xxi. 13). Note how
He calls God His Father. See v. 18.
17. Recordati sunt vero 17. And his disciples
discipuli eius, quia scriptum remembered that it was
est: Zelus domus tuae comedit written: _The zeal of thy
me. house hath eaten me up._
17. Our Evangelist, mindful of his scope in writing this Gospel, draws
attention to the fulfilment of this prophecy of the Psalmist, inasmuch as
this tends to prove that Jesus was the Messias and the true God.
καταφάγεται (_will eat_ me up) is the true reading here, though the Psalm
has the prophetic past.
18. Responderunt ergo Iudaei, 18. The Jews therefore
et dixerunt ei: Quod signum answered, and said to him:
ostendis nobis, quia haec What sign dost thou show unto
facis? us, seeing thou dost these
things?
18. The Jews challenge (_answered_, meaning here, as frequently, _went on
to speak_) Christ for a proof of that authority which He appeared to claim
for Himself in driving them from the temple, and also in calling God His
Father (see v. 17‐18). The incident itself, with so many men tamely
submitting to His action, was, as Origen points out, one of the most
wonderful signs He could have shown them. But they hoped, as St. Chryst.
remarks, to put Him in a dilemma by obliging Him either to work a miracle
on the spot, or else cease to interfere with them.
19. Respondit Iesus, et dixit 19. Jesus answered, and said
eis: Solvite templum hoc, et to them: Destroy this temple,
in tribus diebus excitabo and in three days I will raise
illud. it up.
19. Instead of working a miracle He merely refers darkly to a future sign
that was still some years off, as He does on a similar occasion, when
dealing with other unbelievers, Matt. xii. 38‐40. “He, however,” says St.
Chrys., “who even anticipated men’s wishes, and gave signs when He was not
asked, would not have rejected here a positive request, had He not seen a
crafty design in it.”
Standing as He was beside Herod’s temple, probably in the Court of the
Gentiles or immediately outside it, His words, *Destroy this temple, and
in three days I will raise it up*, were understood by the Jews (v. 20),
and apparently by His disciples (v. 22), in reference to Herod’s temple.
Various views have been put forward to show that His words were not
necessarily misleading.
(1) It is said that He may have pointed with His finger to His body while
He said: Destroy this temple. But the fact that He was actually
misunderstood by all seems to exclude this hypothesis.
(2) It is held by many that He spoke both of Herod’s temple and of His
body. So, apparently, Origen; and Cardinal Wiseman says explicitly:
“Finally did our Lord speak altogether of His resurrection so as to
exclude all allusion to rebuilding the temple which stood before Him? I
must confess that ... I cannot read the passage without being convinced
that He spoke of both” (_Lect. on the Euch._, p. 135, No. 4). We, however,
cannot bring ourselves to adopt this view against what seems to be the
clear sense according to the interpretation of the inspired Evangelist,
who tells us, (v. 21), _But He spoke of the temple of His body_.
(3) There is the common answer, that He spoke ambiguously and allowed them
to be deceived, because they were unworthy of plainer speech. They were
not, however, necessarily deceived, for ναός (a temple) was used
frequently in reference to the human body (see, _e.g._, 1 Cor. iii. 16,
17; vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16), and our Lord’s language might have given them
some reason for suspecting that it was of His body He spoke. For the two
verbs, which he used λύσατε and ἐγερῶ though they could be understood in
reference to the temple of stone, applied more appropriately to His body;
the former signifying the breaking up or _loosing_ of the union between
His soul and body; the latter, the raising of the body to life, as so
often in St. Paul. See, _e.g._, 1 Cor. xv. 4, 12, 14, &c.
*Destroy this temple*, is not, of course, a command to put Him to death,
but a permission like what He said to Judas: _That which thou dost, do
quickly_ (John xiii. 27). It was usual with the Prophets to announce their
predictions in the form of a command; as, for instance, Isaias (xlvii. 1):
“Come down, sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon.”
20. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei: 20. The Jews then said: Six
Quadraginta et sex annis and forty years was this
aedificatum est templum hoc, temple in building, and wilt
et tu in tribus diebus thou raise it up in three
excitabis illud? days?
20. The rebuilding of the temple by Herod the Great is said by Josephus,
in Antiq. xv. 11, 1, to have been begun in the eighteenth year of his
reign; in B. Jud. i. 21, 1, in the fifteenth; the difference arising from
the fact that in one case Josephus counts from the death of Antigonus, in
the other from Herod’s appointment by the Romans. (See Antiq. xvii. 8, 1.)
Reckoning from the latter, we have twenty years till the birth of Christ,
and thirty years since that event, making fifty, from which, however, four
must be subtracted, because our era is four years too late. This gives
forty‐six years. The mere building of the temple took only nine years and
a half, but during the remainder of the time it was decorated. These
decorations were still going on, and were not completed till 64 A.D., so
that the Greek verb ought to get its proper sense: _has been_ in building.
21. Ille autem dicebat de 21. But he spoke of the temple
templo corporis sui. of his body.
21. The inspired Evangelist here tells us that it was of His body Christ
spoke. He adds the explanation to show, perhaps, how utterly devoid of all
foundation in fact was the distorted testimony of the false witnesses, who
on the night before His death charged our Lord with having threatened to
destroy the temple _made with hands_ (Matt. xxvi. 61; Mark xiv. 58).
22. Cum ergo resurrexisset a 22. When therefore he was
mortuis, recordati sunt risen again from the dead, his
discipuli eius, quia hoc disciples remembered that he
dicebat, et crediderunt had said this, and they
scripturae, et sermoni quem believed the scripture, and
dixit Iesus. the word that Jesus had said.
22. When Christ had risen His disciples understood the Scriptures, or
rather they believed that they (see, _e.g._, Psalms iii. 6; xv. 10), and
Christ’s present words, referred to His resurrection.
23. Cum autem esset 23. Now when he was at
Ierosolymis in pascha in die Jerusalem at the pasch, upon
festo, multi crediderunt in the festival day, many
nomine eius, videntes signa believed in his name, seeing
eius, quae faciebat. his signs which he did.
23. *Upon the festival day.* Rather during the festal time, which, at the
Pasch, lasted a week, many believed in His name, that is to say, in Him,
seeing the miracles which he wrought, and which were _proofs_ of His
divine power.
24. Ipse autem Iesus non 24. But Jesus did not trust
credebat semetipsum eis, eo himself unto them, for that he
quod ipse nosset omnes. knew all men.
24. *Unto them*; _i.e._, all the Jews, or perhaps those very persons who
believed in Him; because, as searcher of hearts (verse 25), He foresaw
that they would not remain faithful followers.
25. Et quia opus ei non erat 25. And because he needed not
ut quis testimonium perhiberet that any should give testimony
de homine: ipse enim sciebat of man: for he knew what was
quid esset in homine. in man.
25. He knew this, not by any external indications, but because He is the
searcher of hearts. This is noted as another proof of Christ’s Divinity,
because this knowledge of the secrets of the hearts of all men belongs to
God alone. See 3 Kings viii. 39; 1 Paral. xxviii. 9; Job xlii. 2; Ps. vii.
10; Acts xv. 8. Some of the saints in special cases were able to read the
hearts of certain individuals, but no one save God knows the hearts of
all.