Глава 2

1–12. Miracle at a marriage in Cana of Galilee. – 13–25. Christ in Jerusalem. Cleansing the church. John 2:1. On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the Mother of Jesus was there. John 2:2. Jesus and His disciples were also invited to a wedding. It was the third day after the day on which Christ called Philip (John 1:43). Christ had already spent this day in Cana of Galilee, where He came, probably because His Most Pure Mother went there earlier than Him - for a marriage in a familiar family. First, one might think, He came to Nazareth, where he lived with His Mother, and then, not finding Her, he went with his disciples to Cana. Here He and His disciples - probably all five - were also invited to the marriage. But where was Kana? In Galilee, only one known was Cana - a small city located an hour and a half journey northeast of Nazareth. Robinson's assumption that there was also Cana, four hours from Nazareth to the north, does not have any sufficient basis for itself. John 2:3. And because there was a shortage of wine, the Mother of Jesus said to Him: They have no wine. John 2:4. Jesus says to Her: What do I and You have, Woman? My hour has not yet come. John 2:5. His mother said to the servants: whatever He tells you, do it. Marriage celebrations continued among the Jews for up to seven days (Gen. 29:27; Judg. 14:12–15). Therefore, when Christ and his disciples arrived, when several days had already passed in feasting, there was a shortage of wine - the hosts, apparently, were not rich. The Blessed Virgin, having probably already heard from Christ’s disciples about the speeches that John the Baptist made about Her Son, and about the promise of miracles that He gave to His disciples two days ago, considered it possible to turn to Christ pointing out the difficult situation of the owners. She could also have been referring to the fact that Christ’s disciples, by their presence at the feast, violated the hosts’ plans. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that She expected a miracle from Christ (St. John Chrysostom, Blessed Theophylact). Christ responds to this request of the Mother with these words: “What do I and You have, Woman? My hour has not yet come." Apparently, in the first half of the answer there is some reproach to the Blessed Virgin for wanting to induce Him to begin performing miracles. Some see a tone of reproach even in the fact that Christ calls the Blessed Virgin here simply “wife” or woman, and not “mother.” And in fact, from what Christ says further about His “hour”, we can undoubtedly conclude that Christ wanted to say with His question that from now on She must leave her former earthly maternal gaze on Him, by virtue of which She previously considered Herself to have every right to make demands on Christ as a mother to her son. “Earthly kinship, no matter how close it may be, was not of decisive importance in His Divine activity. As at His first appearance in the church, so now, at the first manifestation of His glory, the finger pointing to His hour did not and could not belong to His Mother, but exclusively to His Heavenly Father” (Edersheim). Still, Christ’s question does not contain a reproach in our sense of the word. Here Christ only gives an explanation to His Mother as to what their mutual relations should be from now on. And the word “wife” (γύναι) does not contain anything offensive when applied to the mother, i.e. in a son's address to his mother. We see that Christ called His Mother this way at the time when, looking at Her with love before his death, he pointed to John as Her protector in the future (John 19:26). Finally, in the second half of the answer: “My hour has not yet come,” one cannot in any way see a refusal to the Mother’s request. Christ only says that the hour has not yet come to perform a miracle. From this it is clear that He wanted to fulfill the request of the Mother, but only at the moment indicated to Him by His Heavenly Father. And the Most Holy Virgin Herself understood Christ’s words in exactly this sense, as can be seen from what She told the servants to do everything that He commanded them. John 2:6. There were six stone waterpots, standing according to the custom of Jewish purification, containing two or three measures. John 2:7. Jesus says to them: Fill the vessels with water. And they filled them to the top. John 2:8. And he says to them: Now draw some and bring it to the master of the feast. And they carried it. According to Jewish custom, during meals it was necessary to wash hands and dishes (cf. Matt. 15:2, 23:25). Therefore, water was prepared in large quantities for the wedding meal. With this water, Christ ordered the servants to fill six stone vessels with a capacity of two or three measures (a measure here probably means the usual measure of liquids - a baht, which was equal to approximately four buckets). Such vessels, which could hold up to ten buckets of water, stood, of course, in the yard, and not in the house. Thus, in six vessels there were up to 60 buckets of water, which Christ turned into wine. A miracle was performed on such a scale so that no one would later explain it in a natural way. But why didn't Christ make wine without water? He did this so that “those who drew the water themselves would be witnesses of the miracle, and so that it would not at all seem like a ghost” (St. John Chrysostom). John 2:9. When the steward tasted the water that had become wine - and he did not know where this wine came from, only the servants who drew the water knew - then the steward calls the groom John 2:10. and he says to him: Every person first serves good wine, and when they get drunk, then the worst; and you have saved good wine until now. The master of the feast tasted the wine and found it very good, which he declared to the groom. This evidence confirms that the water in the vessels actually turned into wine. In fact, there could be no self-hypnosis on the part of the manager here, because he obviously did not know what the servants did on the orders of Christ. Moreover, the steward, of course, did not allow himself to indulge in excess in drinking wine and, therefore, was quite capable of determining the actual quality of the wine served to him by the servants. Thus, Christ, commanding that the wine be brought to the steward, thereby wanted to eliminate any reason for anyone to doubt whether there really was wine in the vessels. However, the guests were also sufficiently able to appreciate the wine served to them. What makes one think so is, firstly, the consideration that Christ and the Blessed Virgin would not have stayed in a house where there were drunk people, and, secondly, the fact that the owners were not rich people and did not have too much wine, so there was nothing to “drink” with. The expression of the manager: “when they get drunk” has the meaning that sometimes not very hospitable hosts serve bad wine; this happens when the guests are no longer able to sufficiently appreciate the taste of the wine. But the manager does not say that in the present case the owner had such a consideration and that the guests were drunk. The evangelist cuts off his speech about the conversation between the master of ceremonies and the groom and does not say a word about the impression that the miracle made on all the guests. This miracle was important to him insofar as it served to strengthen the faith of Christ’s disciples. John 2:11. Thus Jesus began miracles in Cana of Galilee and revealed His glory; and His disciples believed in Him. “Thus Jesus began the miracles...” According to the most authoritative codes, this place should be translated as follows: “this (ταύτην) Jesus did as the beginning (ἀρχήν) of signs (τῶν σημείων).” The evangelist views the miracles of Christ as signs certifying His Divine dignity and Messianic calling. In this sense, the Apostle Paul wrote about himself to the Corinthians: “the signs (more precisely, “signs”) of the Apostle (in me) appeared before you in all patience, signs, wonders and mighty works” (2 Cor. 12:12). Although Christ three days ago gave His disciples evidence of His miraculous knowledge (John 1:42-48), but in that case He showed Himself only as a seer, and such had happened before Him. Miracle in Cana was the first of His deeds, about which He Himself said that no one had done such deeds before Him (John 15:24). The meaning of this sign and its importance is indicated in the words: “and He showed His glory.” What kind of glory are we talking about here? No other glory can be understood here except the divine glory of the incarnate Logos, which the apostles contemplated (John 1:14). And in the further words of the evangelist: “and His disciples believed in Him,” the effect of this manifestation of the glory of the incarnate Logos is directly indicated. Christ's disciples gradually came to faith in Him. At first their faith was in its infancy while they were with John the Baptist. Then this faith became greater as they drew closer to Christ (John 1:50), and after the manifestation of His glory at the marriage in Cana, they reached such a degree of faith that the evangelist found it possible to say about them that they “believed” in Christ, i.e. They were convinced that He was the Messiah, and, moreover, the Messiah not only in the limited sense that the Jews expected, but also a being standing above the ordinary messengers of God. Perhaps the evangelist made the remark that the disciples “believed” in view of the impression that, of course, Christ’s presence at the merry wedding feast had on the disciples. Having been brought up in the strict school of John the Baptist, who taught them to fast (Matthew 9:14), they could have become somewhat perplexed about the attitude towards the joys of human life that was shown by their new Teacher, who Himself took part in the feast and brought them here. But now, when Christ miraculously confirmed His right to act differently from John, all doubts of the disciples should have disappeared and their faith strengthened. And the impression of the miracle at Cana made on the disciples should have been especially strong because their former teacher had not performed a single miracle (John 10:41). John 2:12. After this He came to Capernaum, Himself and His Mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and they stayed there for a few days. After the miracle in Cana, Christ went to Capernaum with His Mother, His brothers (about Christ’s brothers, see comments on Matthew 1:25) and disciples. The explanation for why Christ went to Capernaum is the fact that three of Christ’s five disciples lived in this city, namely Peter, Andrew and John (Mark 1:19, 29). They could continue fishing here without ceasing to be in communion with Christ. Perhaps the other two disciples, Philip and Nathanael, found work for themselves here. But what did the coming of the Mother and brothers of Christ to Capernaum mean? The most likely assumption is that the entire family of Jesus Christ decided to leave Nazareth. And indeed, from the Synoptic Gospels it is clear that Capernaum soon became the permanent residence of Christ and His family (Matt. 9:1; Mk. 2:1; Mt. 12:46). In Nazareth, only the sisters of Christ remained, apparently already married (Matthew 13:56). On "Capernaum" see comments on Matthew 4:13. “I came” – more precisely: “I came down.” The road from Cana to Capernaum went downhill. John 2:13. The Passover of the Jews was approaching, and Jesus came to Jerusalem In Capernaum, Christ obviously did not declare anything about Himself: He had to begin His public activity in the capital of Judaism and precisely in the church, according to the prophecy of Malachi: “Behold, I am sending My angel, and he will prepare the way before Me, and suddenly the Lord, whom you seek, and the Angel of the covenant, whom you desire, will come to His church” (Mal. 3:1). On the occasion of the approach of the Passover holiday, Christ went, or, more precisely, ascended (ἀνέβη) to Jerusalem, which every Israeli imagined standing at the highest point of Palestine (cf. Matt. 20:17). This time His disciples were with Him (verse 17), and perhaps His Mother and brothers. John 2:14. and he found that oxen, sheep, and doves were being sold in the church, and money changers were sitting. According to the custom of pilgrims, Christ immediately upon his arrival in Jerusalem visited the church. Here, of course, mainly in the outer courtyard, which served as a place where pagans were allowed to pray, and partly in the temple galleries, He found people who sold sacrificial animals to the pilgrims or were busy exchanging money, since by Easter every Jew was obliged to pay a tax for the temple (didrachma, see Matthew 17:24) and certainly in Hebrew coin, which was offered to the pilgrims by the money changers. The coin that was required to be brought into the church treasury was a half shekel (in our money, 40 kopecks, which corresponds to eight grams of silver). John 2:15. And, making a scourge of ropes, he drove everyone out of the church, including the sheep and oxen; and he scattered the money from the money changers and overturned their tables. This trade and exchange of money disrupted every prayerful mood of those who came to pray. This was especially difficult for those pious pagans who did not have the right to enter the courtyard where the Israelites prayed, and who, thus, had to hear the bleating and lowing of the animals and the cries of the merchants and buyers (the merchants, it should be noted, often asked exorbitant prices for the animals, and the buyers naturally raised a dispute with them). Christ could not tolerate such an insult to the church. He made a whip from the pieces of rope lying around the animals and drove the merchants and their cattle out of the church courtyard. He dealt even more harshly with the money changers, scattering their money and overturning their tables. John 2:16. And he said to those who sold doves: Take this from here, and do not make My Father’s house a house of trade. Christ treated the pigeon sellers more gently, commanding them to remove the cages with birds (ταῦτα - “this”, and not ταύτας - “these” or pigeons). He also honored these sellers with an explanation of why He came to the defense of the church. He said to them: “Do not make My Father’s house a house of trade.” Christ considers Himself obligated to stand up for the honor of His Father’s house, obviously because He considers only Himself to be the true Son of God, the only Son who can rule in the Father’s house. John 2:17. At this, His disciples remembered that it was written: Zeal for Thy house consumes Me. None of the traders or money changers protested against the actions of Christ. Some of them could see a zealot in Him - one of those zealots who, after the death of their leader, Judas the Galilean, remained faithful to his motto: to restore the Kingdom of God with the sword (Acts 5:37; Josephus. “The Jewish War”, II 8, 1). Others probably realized that they had been doing wrong until now by invading the church with their goods and setting up a kind of bazaar here. As for the disciples of Christ, they saw in the act of Christ, in His zeal for the house of God, the fulfillment of the prophetic words of the Psalmist, who, saying that he was consumed by zeal for the house of God, thereby predicted the zeal with which the Messiah would carry out His ministry for the glory of God. But since the 68th Psalm quoted by the Evangelist talks about the suffering that the Psalmist endures for his devotion to Jehovah (Ps. 68:10), then the disciples of Christ, remembering the passage quoted from the psalm, of course, had to think at the same time about the danger that their Teacher was taking, speaking out so boldly against those abuses that the priests obviously patronized. These priests, notes Edersheim, were, of course, not simple priests who came at certain times to serve in the church, but permanent officials from among the priests, leaders of the priesthood living in Jerusalem, and especially from the high priestly family, who were supposed to constantly enjoy benefits. From this trade, the merchants had to pay a certain percentage of their profits to the officials in the church, and the Talmud shows that the market at the church belonged to the sons of the high priest Annas. John 2:18. To this the Jews said: By what sign will you prove to us that you have the power to do this? "Jews", i.e. the leaders of the Jewish people (cf. John 1:19), priests of the highest rank (the so-called “sagans”) immediately began to demand from Christ, whom they probably mistook for a zealot (cf. Matt. 12:4), that He give some kind of sign as proof of His right to act as an exposer of the disorders that reigned in the church. They, of course, could not deny that their position of authority was only temporary, that a “faithful prophet” must appear, before whose coming Simon Maccabee and his descendants took over the rule of the Jewish people (1 Mac. 14:41, 4:46, 9:27). But, of course, this “faithful prophet” had to somehow prove his divine mission. It is in this sense that they propose the question to Christ. May Christ perform a miracle! They did not dare to seize Him, because the people were also indignant at the profanation of the church, which the priests allowed out of self-interest. John 2:19. Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews demanded a miracle from Christ to prove that He had the right to act as an authorized messenger of Jehovah, and Christ expresses his readiness to give them such a miracle or sign. But Christ gives His answer a somewhat mysterious form, so that not only the Jews, but even the disciples did not understand Christ’s speech (cf. verse 22). By saying: “destroy this church,” Christ seemed to have in mind the Jewish church, as indicated by the addition of “this” (τοῦτον). If, while speaking these words, Christ had pointed to His body, then no misunderstanding would have arisen: everyone would have understood that Christ was predicting His violent death. Thus, by “church” (ὁ ναός as opposed to the word τὸ ἱερόν, which means all the premises of the church and the courtyard, cf. verses 14–15) could be understood primarily as a church that was clearly visible to everyone. But, on the other hand, the Jews could not help but see that they could not limit themselves to such an understanding of Christ’s saying. After all, Christ said that they would destroy the church, and yet, of course, they could not even imagine that their hands would rise to destroy a national shrine. And then, Christ immediately portrays Himself as the restorer of this church being destroyed by the Jews, and, obviously, going against the will of the destroyers of the Jews themselves. Again there was some kind of misunderstanding here! But still, if the Jews and disciples of Christ had paid more attention to the words of Christ, they could have understood them, despite all their apparent mystery. At the very least, they should ask what Christ wanted to tell them with this obviously figurative saying; but they deliberately dwell only on the simple literal meaning of His words, trying to show all their unfoundedness. Meanwhile, as it was explained after the resurrection of Christ for the disciples of Christ, Christ really spoke about the church in a double sense: both about this stone temple of Herod, and about His body, which was also the church of God. “You,” as Christ said to the Jews, “will destroy your church by destroying the church of My body. By killing Me as your opponent, you will thereby bring upon yourself the judgment of God and God will hand over your church to your enemies for destruction. Along with the destruction of the church, worship must cease and your Church must end its existence. But I will erect My body in three days, and at the same time I will build a new church, as well as a new worship service, not constrained by the boundaries in which it existed before.” John 2:20. To this the Jews said: This church took forty-six years to build, and will You raise it up in three days? The Jews recognize Christ's words about the miracle that He could perform in three days as downright absurd. With ridicule, they notice to Him that Herod’s church took forty-six years to build - how can Christ restore it if destroyed in three days, i.e., as they probably understood the expression “in three days,” in the shortest possible time (cf. 1 Chronicles 21:12; Luke 13:32)? By “building the church,” the Jews obviously mean the ongoing work in the church on the construction of various church buildings, work that ended only in 63 A.D., therefore, only seven years before its destruction. John 2:21. And He spoke about the church of His body. John 2:22. When He rose from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said these things, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. Christ did not respond to the remark of the Jews; it was clear that they did not want to understand Him, much less accept Him. Christ's disciples also did not turn to Him with questions about the words He said, and Christ Himself in the present case did not need to give them explanations. The purpose for which He appeared in the church was achieved: He declared His intention to begin His great Messianic work and began it with the symbolic act of cleansing the church. It was immediately revealed what kind of relationship the representatives of the Jewish people would have towards Him. Thus He opened His public ministry. John 2:23. And when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover holiday, many, seeing the miracles that He performed, believed in His name. John 2:24. But Jesus Himself did not entrust Himself to them, because He knew everyone John 2:25. and there was no need for anyone to testify about man, for He Himself knew what was in man. Here the evangelist talks about the impression that Jesus Christ made on the masses with His first appearance in Jerusalem. Since the Lord this time performed many signs or wonders (see verse 11) during the eight days of the Passover holiday, and since He repeatedly acted as a teacher, as can be seen, for example, from the words of Nicodemus (John 3:2), and partly from the words of Christ Himself (John 3:11, 19), many believed in Him. If here John mentions only the “signs” that led many Jews to Christ, then by this he testifies that for the majority the signs were indeed the decisive moment in their conversion to Christ. That is why the Apostle Paul said: “The Jews demand miracles” (1 Cor. 1:22). They believed “in His name,” i.e. They saw Him as the Messiah, and wanted to form a community in His name. But the Lord knew all these believers well and did not trust the strength of their faith. He knew, in general, every person He met by virtue of His miraculous insight, the experiences of which He had recently revealed to His disciples (John 1:42–50). Therefore, the number of Christ’s disciples did not increase during these eight days of the holiday. The newest criticism (for example, Tsang, Goltsman) believes that John narrates in the second half of the chapter under consideration the same event that, according to weather forecasters, happened on the last Easter - the Easter of suffering. At the same time, some critics consider the chronological testimony of the weather forecasters to be more correct, doubting the possibility of such an event in the first year of Christ’s public ministry; others give preference to John, believing that the weather forecasters did not place the event in question in the place where it should have been (cf. Matthew 21 et seq., as well as parallel passages). But all the criticism's doubts are unfounded. First of all, there is nothing incredible in the fact that the Lord acted as an exposer of the unrest that reigned in the church, in this center of Judaism, and at the very beginning of His public ministry. He had to boldly appear in the most central place of Judaism, in the Temple of Jerusalem, if he wanted to declare Himself as a messenger of God. And the prophet Malachi, who foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah, said that He would appear precisely in the church (Mal.3:1) and, as can be concluded from the context of the speech (see the following verses in the same chapter of the book of Malachi), here, in the church, He would carry out His judgment on the Jews proud of their righteousness. Then, if even then the Lord had not appeared so openly as the Messiah, even His disciples might have doubted Him, to whom, no doubt, it must have seemed strange that their Teacher, who had already performed a great miracle in Cana at the wedding, suddenly again withdrew from the attention of the people, staying in the silence of Galilee. They say: “But Christ could not immediately declare that He is the Messiah - He did this much later.” To this they add that by speaking as an accuser of priests, Christ immediately put Himself in hostile relations with the priesthood, which could immediately capture Him, thereby putting an end to His activity. But this objection also has no force. Why should the priests have captured Christ if, as they could not help but realize, He demanded only what was legal from the merchants? Moreover, Christ did not bring down His denunciations directly on the priests; He expelled only the merchants, and the priests, of course, could also hypocritically thank Him for caring about the honor of the church 13 . In addition, the priests’ plan against Christ was formed gradually, and they, of course, would not have dared to take any decisive steps against Christ without a thorough discussion of the matter in the Sanhedrin. In general, criticism could not provide any convincing arguments in favor of making convincing the impossibility of repeating the event of the expulsion of the merchants from the church. On the contrary, there are some important differences between the weather forecasters' and John's accounts of this event. Thus, according to John, the Jews asked Christ by what right He cleansed the church, but according to the weather forecasters, the high priests and scribes did not ask such a question, but only reproached Him for accepting praise from children. Then, according to the testimony of the weather forecasters, the Lord’s speech to the desecrators of the church sounds much more severe than His speech in John. There the Lord speaks as a Judge who came to punish the people who made the church a den of thieves, but here He denounces the Jews only for turning the church into a place of trade. If (in fact, the Jews) ask Him by what authority He cleanses the church, then this question is not yet a sign of their open hostility towards Christ... You might be interested in: