John 2 - Arthur Peake's Commentary on the Bible

The Marriage at Cana. On the third day the promise to Nathanael of greater things to follow is fulfilled. Modern exploration has suggested three sites for Cana, all of them near Nazareth, and to the N. or NE. of that place (p. 29). In Mark 6:3 only the sisters are mentioned by the people of Nazareth as being with us. Zahn suggests that they had married and settled there, the family having moved to Cana. We mayat least notice the independence of the Synoptic narrative which the mention of the place shows. The mother of Jesus calls His attention to the failure of wine at a wedding feast to which He and His disciples had been invited. Jesus answers, in terms in which there is no trace of rebuke or disrespect [82] (cf. John 19:26), that the time has not come for Him to interfere. He has not yet received the Father's intimation, for which He always waits. His mother, clearly a friend of the house, bids the servants do His bidding. Six large stone jars were standing, to be used in purification. Between them they would hold more than 100 gallons. These He bids the servants fill and draw from them, or (if with Westcott we press the usual meaning of the Gr. word used) from the well, and give to the ruler of the feast, i.e. to the chief servant (cf. mg.) who is in charge of the supply of food and drink. He expresses his surprise in homely language, which suggests popular tradition rather than the didactic aims of the evangelist. [The sign summarises the Galilean ministry with its brightness and cheerfulness; cf. Mark 2:19-22. A. J. G.] After this the family and the disciples make a short visit to Capernaum. [Possibly John 3:22-30 originally stood between John 2:12 and John 2:13. A. J. G.]

[82] [ Cf. Nestle In ET, ix. 562, and Burkitt In JThS, xiii. 594. A. J. G.]

The Cleansing of the Temple. The Passover of the Jews as an author writing for Christians naturally describes it without special significance or bias, was near. Jesus, following the custom of the religious party in His nation, goes up with His disciples (John 2:17; John 2:22) to keep the feast (cf. Exodus 23:15). He finds the Temple desecrated by an illicit traffic in animals for the sacrifices, and sacred shekels of the heavy Phœ nician standard (pp. 116f.), in which alone the Temple tax could be paid. The expulsion is described with a fullness and correctness of detail (notice especially the driving out of the cattle and (?) their attendants, the overturning of the moneychangers-' tables, and the telling the bird-sellers to take away their cages) greater than we find in the Synoptic accounts, Mt. coming nearest. The words of the command in John 2:16, as compared with the quotation from Jeremiah 7:11 in Mark 11:17, favour the originality of the Johannine account. In the light of later events the disciples saw in the incident a fulfilment of Psalms 69:9. In the remonstrance which follows, it is possible that the author sees a fulfilment of Psalms 69:9 b. The Jews, the religious party as represented by their leaders, demand His authority to act in this manner (cf. Mark 11:28). The language of John 18:6 seems to reflect Mark 8:11 [but the attitude of Jesus to the request is different, John 2:19; Mark 8:12. A. J. G.]. As spoken to the men of His time the Lord's answer can only mean, Go on with your evil practices here, which must lead to the final desecration and destruction of the place as the Temple of God; and when you have completed your fatal work, I will raise shortly a new - Temple,-' in the hearts of true disciples of the kingdom, where God can dwell (cf. Jeremiah 7:3-14). It was inevitable that later Christian reflection should see in the words a reference to His crucifixion, for which the Jews were responsible, and His resurrection. The Scripture is probably Psalms 69:9 (rather than Psalms 16:10), which received its final fulfilment on Calvary. The forty-six years may refer, not to Herod's alterations (p. 609), begun in 20 B.C. and not finished till A.D. 63 (Josephus, Ant. xx. 9), but to Zerubbabel's Temple, supposed to have been begun in the first year of Cyrus 559, and completed in the ninth year of Darius, 513 (see Classical Review, 1894, pp. 89ff.). If the words which were misrepresented at the trial (Mark 14:58) were spoken as here recorded, the incident of the false witnesses is naturally explained, especially if a period of two years or more had intervened.

The Results of the First Visit to Jerusalem. The result of the Lord's visit to Jerusalem at the Passover and His work there was that many believed on his name, i.e. they were convinced that He was the Messiah and were ready to follow Him as such, of course interpreting the title according to their own expectations and aspirations. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, refuses to trust Himself to them. Their views are incompatible with His. Before He can be the Messiah of His people, He must teach them the true character of the Messianic kingdom. If this is authentic history, it may go some way towards explaining the difference between this gospel and the Synoptists in respect of the attitude of Jesus, His disciples, and the people, with regard to the question of His Messiahship.