46 Verse 1.― “The third day.” Cf. with the remarks in exposition here the last paragraph but one of comment on chapter 20. The prevalence of the number three in this Gospel is noteworthy. Besides the three days here, we have the Lord going thrice into Galilee, thrice to Judaea; there are generally supposed to be three Passovers actually mentioned (but see on verse 1), and three other festivals; the discourse on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles is divisible into three parts; Judas is thrice designated traitor; the Lord undergoes three judicial trials, and Pilate thrice tries to save Him from crucifixion; the Evangelist records three of the sayings from the cross; and the book may be divided into three parts (Holtzmann, “Introduction,” p. 438 f.). But “triads” are to be found also in the Gospel of Matthew. The number seven, in like manner (as in chapters 8-10), finds illustration in the fourth Gospel “the seven signs”; “these things have I spoken unto you” occurs seven times; there is sevenfold witness; “I am” has seven predicates if Resurrection and Life be taken as one, and likewise Way, Truth, Life (Abbott., E. B., § 52, col. 1,799). There is, however, nothing peculiar or unduly “artificial” in this, in the light of numerical arrangement running through other parts of the Bible. See an excellent pamphlet by R. Govett on “The Septenary Arrangement of Scripture.”
47 “Cana of Galilee.” There was also a Cana in the tribe of Asher (Josephus, “Antiquities,” 15:5, 1; cf. Josh. 19:2828And Hebron, and Rehob, and Hammon, and Kanah, even unto great Zidon; (Joshua 19:28)). Comparing 1:43, we may suppose that the Lord reached Cana from Persian territory in one day’s journey, its position on maps admitting of this.
48 “The mother of Jesus.” Our Lord’s humanity was not heavenly in the Gnostic sense; He did really take of His mother’s substance. This Evangelist never mentions her name, although he gives that of His father (chapter 21); all the others name her. It is one of the indications of John the Apostle’s authorship. The name Mary was borne also by (α) the wife of Cleophas (Alphæus), (see note on 19:25); (β) the Magdalene; (γ) a sister of Lazarus.
49 Verse 4.― “What is there (in common) to Me and thee?” Blass remarks that this was “frequent in colloquial Greek of the time, quite in the meaning of our Let me alone” (“Philology of the Gospels,” p. 238).
51 Verse 8 f.―Edersheim notes the absence of “friends of the bridegroom” in the custom of Galilee (“Life of Jesus the Messiah,” p. 155). Another indication of exact knowledge on the part of the writer.
52 Verse 11.―Trench has happily recalled the first miracle of Moses (Exod. 7:2020And Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood. (Exodus 7:20)), a turning of water into blood as a ministration of death, in contrast with this ministration of life (“Miracles,” p. 121 f.). It is significant that nearly all Christ’s works of power reported in the canonical Gospels are those of benevolence. For the manifestation of Christ’s glory, cf. Isa. 40:55And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. (Isaiah 40:5), and the version of the LXX. there with the Greek here; also note 99. σημεῖα, “signs.” This word is regularly used by the Evangelist in his comments; whilst the Lord is recorded as always using ἔργα, “works.” A strenuous endeavor has been made by writers of the negative tendency to set the fourth Gospel in an unfavorable light as compared with the Synoptists on the question of miracles. A difference has been set up, as by Harnack (see note 27 on Mark), between the way in which the Lord Himself regarded His works of power and the estimate of the writer of this Gospel. And so, as a recent British writer would have it, in the Synoptic records you have (1) belief, (2) miracles, with that order reversed in the fourth Gospel, the Evangelist’s own point of view being distinguished from the Master’s (Scott, p. 268). Cf. 14:11. How, then, are we to explain in the Synoptics the evidential value attached to His works, as in Matt. 11:44Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: (Matthew 11:4)? Is not Luke 11:2929And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. (Luke 11:29) in exact agreement with the usual Johannine representation of miracles as performed to confirm the real, or raise the superficial, faith of those already disciples, as in the present passage? Again, how can “critics” explain the testimony of Christ’s word being presented in John 829And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. (John 8:29). and that of His works being postponed to chapter 9? According to the analysis in fashion, the arrangement of chapters in the fourth Gospel results from the Evangelist’s arbitrary fancy. Although rearrangement of other parts of this Gospel has been proposed. the traditional order of those two chapters seems to remain unquestioned.
That in the Gospel “according to John” there are superficially apparent contradictions is recognized, but it is the critical interpretations of these which are at fault. Some, taken from H. Holtzmann’s “Introduction,” will be examined in these notes.
On the general question of miracles, see J. N. Darby, “Collected Writings,” vol. xxxii., pp. 272 ff.; Green, iii., pp. 254 f.; Sir R. Anderson, “Silence of God,” chapter 3; Nash, p. 141; Turton, chapter 18; Bishop Gore, Sixth Lecture on “The New Theology,” etc.; and Von Gerdtell, “Burning Questions,” etc., Nos. 2, 3 (published by Kielmann, Stuttgart). The last named writer, like the lamented Count Andreas v. Bernstorff, having had both a juristic and a theological education, has preferred to remain a “layman,” in order to “get the ear” of young men who, in Germany as in Britain, care not to listen to “pastors,” either orthodox or heterodox, and, to use Count Bernstorff’s words to the present writer, distrust the “professional mind.” See, further, note 99.
53 Verse 13 ff.―It may be desirable here to consider the question of the length and the scene of our Lord’s ministry as contemplated by the Synoptists and John respectively. Eusebius records an ancient observation that the Synoptists seem to tell us of only one Passover―i.e., of but one year’s ministry ―whilst the fourth Gospel speaks of several Passovers, at least three (cf. 6:4, 12:1). Some, as W. Kelly (see note on 5:1), find four Passovers in this Gospel. Again, the earlier Gospels take us almost entirely to Galilee (and Peraea), but John’s mainly to Judæa (cf. 5:1, 7:14, 10:22, 12:12). A great deal is made by “the critical school” of each of these admitted facts. It has been suggested by Blass (Expository Times, July, 1907) that, whilst the Church had its headquarters at Jerusalem, it was an account of the Galilean and of the Peræan ministry that Christians of Judaea in particular would require, the incidents of the Lord’s work in Judaea being sufficiently familiar there; but that, precisely when the Christian communities of Judaea were dispersed by political events, the need would arise of a record of the Judean ministry, which John was able to supply. And, again, Briggs’ recent book, “Fresh Light,” has earned the title adopted by the writer. He gives good ground for supposing that John’s special fitness for his task came of his having companied with the Lord during the whole of an early Judean ministry. Not only so, but that there was an early Galilean ministry of a less pronounced public character than that introduced by Matt. 4:1212Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; (Matthew 4:12) and Mark 1:1414Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, (Mark 1:14). We shall recur to this in notes on the third Gospel, which seems to confirm Briggs’ view. But Luthardt, Lightfoot, and others, had previously shown that Matt. 23:3737O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:37) (as Luke 13:3434O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34)) had already indicated by the ποσάκις (“how often”) that the Lord’s visits to Judaea were more frequent than might appear from the Synoptic records. Jülicher as to this caustically remarks: “To reconstruct several visits of Jesus to Jerusalem out of the Synoptists solely on account of the one prophetic utterance is childish” (p. 419). The “obvious intention” of the Synoptists supposed by him is very questionably obvious. A tuquoque might well be employed against such writers with regard to the use made of Luke 4: 19 to establish a single year’s ministry: nowhere do the Synoptists say that the ministry lasted only one year. Blass rightly observes: “It is John who first clears up the passage” (common to Matt. 2334Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: (Matthew 23:34). and Luke 1334O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! (Luke 13:34).) “and justifies it.” There is no inconsistency, such as A. Réville sets up (2:20), between the Synoptists’ account and John’s representing that JESUS and the Baptist were at work for some time simultaneously. Moreover, as far as the Galilean ministry is concerned, John distinctly recognizes it, whatever H. Holtzmann may say about such visits being “merely episodes” (John 2:1-12, 4:43-54, 6:1-7, 10). Loisy (p. 64) asks: “How could Jesus have preached at Jerusalem several years, declaring Himself Messiah, without being arrested?” The words underlined do but savor of romance. At first no idea of a “permanent miracle,” such as Loisy attributes to the Evangelist, is needed; the attitude of the “Jews” for some time was one of skeptical inquiry, of unwillingness to believe, rather than hostility. The incident in the Temple (chapter 2.) will be discussed below. It is not until we reach chapter 8 that the “Jews’” threatening demeanor towards the Lord personally becomes acute. Even so, between the first (8:59) and second attempt to stone Him (10:31), we still find them asking Him, “How long lost Thou keep us in suspense?” (10:24). If He was to be arrested, it would be by the servants of the high priest, but they served for protection, evidently sympathizing with and giving effect to the feelings of many in the Judæan crowds, who had their spokesman in the Sanhedrin itself (7:40-52).
The second distinctly named Passover comes at 6:4, the third at 11:55, which speaks, in any case, of the last. According to this, the length of the whole ministry would be about two years (Irenæus, ii., 22-3). So Delitzsch’s article, “Passover,” in Riehm’s Handbook. Briggs, however, is of opinion that the scheme of the fourth Gospel in this respect coincides with that of the Synoptists, and that there were no other distinct Passovers than the one spoken of in the present passage and that mentioned in 11:55 (p. 54). Cf. Milligan’s view.
54 Verse 13.― “The Jews’ Passover.” Critics use this as an indication that the writer was a Gentile. It seems, however, to mean no more than either that, as it is the first time the festival is mentioned by John, he so describes it for the information of his first readers―Gentiles―in Asia Minor, or that it is used in distinction from the Christian Passover, which we know formed subject of controversy between East and West after his death. And yet, pace the neo-critics, Matthew (28:15), too, makes use of the word (c f. Luke 23:5151(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. (Luke 23:51)).
55 Verse 14 ff.―See note 117 on Mark 11:1515And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; (Mark 11:15), parallel with Matt. 21:1212And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, (Matthew 21:12) f. and Luke 19:4545And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought; (Luke 19:45) f., and W. Kelly’s “Lectures on Matthew.” Wendt says: “Such an act can only once be morally justified.” Yet he recognizes the differences in verses 16, 18-20 from the Synoptic accounts of the occasion with which the other Evangelists are concerned. Thus, comparing verse 18 with Matt. 20:2323And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Matthew 20:23) ff., anyone may see that while the leaders there also demand the authority of JESUS, He refers to the baptism of John, not, as here, to death and resurrection, as supplying it. Surprise has been expressed (cf. note 53) that there was no resistance offered, as to which, without resorting to the supposition that the Lord’s supernatural manner overawed the traffickers, Carr says that it may be sufficiently explained by “the popular dislike to these bazaars, which were suppressed not long afterwards.” So great was the odium which the family of Arenas, in whose interest they were held, really earned. To this the Talmud witnesses. Horton (“Teaching of Jesus,” p. 215) well compares Mark 1:2727And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. (Mark 1:27) for “that air of authority observable from the outset” of the Lord’s career.
56 Verse 16.― “My Father.” This contradicts the Gnostics’ idea that the God (Creator) of the Old Testament was not “the Father” spoken of by our Lord. Observe that in the cleansing of the Temple described by the Synoptists, instead of “My Father’s house,” we find “your house,” because then the Jews had fully rejected Christ. For this designation of His opponents, here especially the leaders, cf. 7:15, 35, 8:22, 13:33, etc.
57 Verse 20.―The restoration of Zerubbabel’s temple was completed only A.D. 64. Reckoning the forty-six years from Herod’s commencement of the work B.C. 20 (Josephus, “B. J.,” 1:21), we reach the year 26 of the new era i.e., the first of the Lord’s ministry. For the force of the aorist οἰκοδομήθη here, Field aptly compares Ezra v. 16. The A.V., to which Mr. J. N, Darby’s version adheres, is singularly close: the temple was not yet finished. Schmiedel, for once, supports Lightfoot on John’s precision. For the use made of the Lord’s words against Him judicially, see Mark 14:5858We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. (Mark 14:58).
58 Verse 21.―The minister of the Hampstead Congregational Church, Dr. Horton (following Reuss, Wendt, etc.), alleges against the Evangelist misinterpretation of the Master’s mind (“Teaching of Jesus,” p. 164). As to such wanton treatment of this Gospel, the late Dr. Friedrich Blass, a happy representative of learned German laymen, “has sententiously remarked that it becomes us moderns to query whether any can now know better than a contemporary.” See also note on 12:32 f.
58a Verse 22.― “The Scripture” seems to be Ps. 16:10.
59 Verse 23 f. ―As to πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, see note 17 above. It is a long cry from a miracle wrought to confirm those already believers (see verse 14) to another designed to impress sceptics. Ostensible discipleship, acceptance of instruction, is independent of living faith (6:60, 64; Matt. 28:1919Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19); Mark 16:1616He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)). The present passage shows that such faith may be superficial (cf. 7:31, 8:31 [proof of discipleship must be given], 10:38), which takes its character from the Lord’s leaving them without excuse (11:45 f.). In the last, real fidelity to Him is in question. See also 6:68 and 17:21, 23, where, for disciples and the world alike, moral transcend physical impressions.
60 Verse 25―This should be considered in connection with the Lord’s choice of Judas anal probable difficulties raised at the time this Gospel was written by unbelievers questioning His deity. Cf. Mark 2:88And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? (Mark 2:8), where the same faultless insight is attributed already to the “historical Jesus.”
Such as believe without confession of Christ appear again in 12:42 f. They had not yet learnt what discipleship was. Nicodemus, in the next chapter, was one of the better examples in that day.