Читать книгу The Gospel of St. John - Joseph MacRory - Страница 20

Table of Contents

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 factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae, et erat mater Iesu ibi.	1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.
2. Vocatus est autem et Iesus, et discipuli eius, ad nuptias.	2. And Jesus also was invited, 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.

[pg 049]

3. Et deficiente vino, dicit mater Iesu ad eum: Vinum non habent.

3. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: 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 mihi et tibi est mulier: Nondum venit hora mea.

4. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is it to me and to 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 [pg 050] 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; [pg 051] 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 [pg 052] 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: Quodcumque dixerit vobis, facite.

5. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall 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 hydriae sex positae secundum purificationem Iudaeorum, capientes singulae metretas binas vel ternas.

6. Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, 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 hydrias aqua. Et impleverunt eas usque ad summum.

7. Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

7. To the brim. So that there was no room left to mix [pg 053] wine or anything else with the water; this shows, too, the quantity of wine that was miraculously supplied.

8. Et dicit eis Iesus: Haurite nunc, et ferte architriclino. Et tulerunt.

8. And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now, and carry to the 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 architriclinus aquam vinum factam, et non sciebat unde esset, ministri autem sciebant qui hauserant aquam, vocat sponsum architriclinus.

9. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chief 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 primum bonum vinum ponit: et cum inebriati fuerint, tunc id, quod deterius est: Tu autem servasti bonum vinum usque adhuc.

10. And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drank, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.

10. Most probably the Greek word (μεθυσθῶσιν) rendered in the Vulgate “inebriati fuerint” does not here imply [pg 054] 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 Iesus in Cana Galilaeae: et manifestavit gloriam suam, et crediderunt in eum discipuli eius.

11. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee: and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him.

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 Capharnaum, ipse, et mater eius, et fratres eius; et discipuli eius: et ibi manserunt non multis diebus.

12. After this he went down to Capharnaum, he and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they remained 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 [pg 055] 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 Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus Ierosoloymam:

13. And the pasch of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up 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 vendentes boves, et oves, et columbas, et numularios sedentes.

14. And he found in the temple them that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of 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 [pg 056] 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 flagellum de funiculis, omnes eiecit de templo, oves quoque, et boves, et numulariorum effudit aes, et mensas subvertit.

15. And when he had made as it were a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen, and the money of 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 vendebant, dixit: Auferte ista hinc, et nolite facere domum Patris mei, domum negotiationis.

16. And to them that sold doves he said: Take these things hence, and make not the house of my father a house of 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 discipuli eius, quia scriptum est: Zelus domus tuae comedit me.

17. And his disciples remembered that it was written: The zeal of thy 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 [pg 057] 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, et dixerunt ei: Quod signum ostendis nobis, quia haec facis?

18. The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: What sign dost thou show unto 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 eis: Solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud.

19. Jesus answered, and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise 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., [pg 058] 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: Quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum est templum hoc, et tu in tribus diebus excitabis illud?

20. The Jews then said: Six and forty years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three 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 templo corporis sui.

21. But he spoke of the temple 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 [pg 059] 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 mortuis, recordati sunt discipuli eius, quia hoc dicebat, et crediderunt scripturae, et sermoni quem dixit Iesus.

22. When therefore he was risen again from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture, and 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 Ierosolymis in pascha in die festo, multi crediderunt in nomine eius, videntes signa eius, quae faciebat.

23. Now when he was at Jerusalem at the pasch, upon the festival day, many believed in his name, seeing 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 credebat semetipsum eis, eo quod ipse nosset omnes.

24. But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he 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 ut quis testimonium perhiberet de homine: ipse enim sciebat quid esset in homine.

25. And because he needed not that any should give testimony of man: for he knew what was 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.

[pg 060]