Craig S. Keener

Источник

True Purification. 2:1–25

AT A WEDDING, JESUS sets aside the purificatory purpose of waterpots that embody traditional religious practices (for comment on Johns water motif, see also comment on 1:25–26, 31; 3:5). At the Gospels first Passover festival, Gods lamb then purifies the temple itself, starting the path of conflict with Judean leaders that leads to the passion of the Gospel's final Passover.

Relationship versus Ritual Purification (2:1–11)

Signs-faith is less valuable than faith that merely responds to the Spirit's witness (20:29); it is nevertheless a better place to begin than no faith at all (14:11). In 2:1–11, disciples who have already begun to believe Jesus (in 1:35–51) come to a new level of faith through Jesus» first sign. Outsiders to the establishment again receive deeper insight (2:9) than those closest to the heart of the social order. Perhaps most significantly, Jesus, who acts with divine authority, does not hesitate to suspend ritual law (again symbolized by water; cf. 1:33; 2:6; 3:5) in favor of a friend's honor. The Jesus of this narrative prefigures the Jesus of the following narrative, who will act in judgment against the social and religious order represented by the temple. The following interpretive dialogue will reinforce the point that it is Jesus» gift of the Spirit, rather than ritual or heritage, that brings life (3:3–6). Thus this narrative also introduces Jesus» «hour» (2:4), beginning the conflict with the Judean religious and political establishment that in John must inevitably lead to the cross.4354

1. Preliminary Questions

Scholars have offered various proposals about this passagés role in the structure of 2:1–4:54, paralleling the two explicit Cana miracles as a deliberate inclusio. Although details vary, the intervening section moves from a Jewish to a non-Jewish (Samaritan) setting, with extensive christological discourse between.4355

Some fail to identify a historical core to the account, hence doubt its basic historicity.4356 Without privileging particular presuppositions about miracles, however, and given John's consistent rewriting, and hence obscuring, of his sources, evidence for the historicity of the event could be argued in either direction. Royal banquets appear frequently in later Jewish parables,4357 but one could use the observation about abundant banquet stories to argue for historical veracity as well as against it; the stories are frequent because banquets were frequent, and the Synoptic tradition indicates that the historical Jesus frequently attended banquets.4358 The account is strictly Johannine in style but, though missing in Synoptic tradition, seems characteristic of Jesus4359 and not objectionable on Christian presuppositions.4360 John probably applies prior tradition here as in those cases where we can test his dependence on tradition; yet, as with his other narratives, he clearly reworks this one into his own unique framework and idiom as wel1.

Some scholars read this pericope as a portrait of the obsolescence of Judaism or Jewish ritua1.4361 Others, pointing to the new application of the pots and purifying of the temple, argue that this chapter supports a renewal within Judaism, rather than its repudiation.4362 Still others see both tendencies, suggesting both Judaism's fulfillment and its destruction.4363 Onés particular perspective will depend on whether one concludes, on reading the whole Gospel, that the Johannine community still considered itself part of Judaism. As argued in our introduction (ch. 5), the Johannine community probably retained its attachment to Judaism; one may thus read this passage as arguing that Jesus has brought an eschatological renewal to Judaism, which the Jerusalem (and perhaps Yavneh) hierarchy have rejected.

The water motif throughout the Fourth Gospel consistently represents Jesus and the Spirit superseding Jewish traditions (often by fulfilling rather than negating them). Although there is no explicit mention of the Spirit in this chapter,4364 parallels from the water motif in 3and 7:37–39 suggest that the old purification has become less important only because Jesus is ready to make the new purification of the Spirit available.4365 A careful first-time reader of this passage might have already caught that cue from 1:33.4366

Some see the figure of wine here as an allusion to the messianic banquet (cf. Isa 25:6–9; Rev 19:9);4367 rabbinic literature4368 and possibly4369 the Dead Sea Scrolls4370 speak of an eschatological banquet for the righteous.4371 Supernatural abundance of wine would mark the future era.4372 This image and some other clues could suit a sacramental reading of this text if something pointed clearly in this direction,4373 but banquets were common, and little in the passage supports a sacramental reading with sufficient clarity to make the case.4374 More importantly, wine does not always symbolize the future banquet. In late rabbinic texts, for instance, it seems more often to symbolize the Torah.4375 Further, although early Christianity in general (e.g., Matt 22:2; perhaps Luke 12:36) and the Johannine community in particular (cf. Rev 19:7) did employ the image of a wedding banquet for eschatological blessing, it also can function as a simple metaphor for joy (cf. perhaps John 3:29). In the context of this story, wine may simply represent what is necessary for a wedding feast, and, in contrast to a discourse expounding the bread sign in John 6, no discourse in the Gospel interprets the wine symbolically. Although a first-time reader would therefore probaly not catch any symbolism unless she were looking for it, one who approached the nuptial comparison of 3in light of the eschatological banquet tradition might see a connection between Jesus» provision at another's wedding and the eschatological abundance of his own. In any case a symbolic reading of the wine may be possible but is not explicitly marked. The primary significance of wine in this story seems to lie mainly in the changing of water into wine, hence both Jesus» benevolence and his lack of attachment to religious tradition.

The specific milieu and thus intent of the miracle is also in question. Although similar imagery occurs in the Jesus tradition (Mark 2:18–22),4376 and especially Jesus» attitude to ward ritual purification (Mark 7:1–23), wine miracles were often associated with Dionysiac fertility in the Hellenistic world,4377 and many have thus read John 2:1–11 against a Dionysiac background.4378 Koester is right that Dionysus legends «probably tell us little about how the story of the first Cana miracle originated, but they do help us understand how the story could communicate the significance of Jesus to Greeks as well as Jews.»4379 Conversely, whatever their own source, Jewish texts also can report wine miracles,4380 though these were rare,4381 and it is possible that there are benevolent echoes of Moses» first sign in Exodus in Jesus» first sign in John.4382 For our purposes, however, the source of the tradition or subsequent influences on it are far less important than the issue it addresses in its Johannine context, namely, Jewish ritual purification (2:6).4383

2. The Setting of the Sign (2:l-3a)

Before examining the sign itself, we must survey its setting. The features of the sign's setting appear significant to John's narrative: the location, the day, and the wedding celebration.

2A. Cana (2:1)

The mention of Cana frames this pericope, bracketing it (2:1, 11).4384 Scholars have favored especially two sites, Kefar-Kenna and Khirbet-Qanah, as the ancient site of John's Cana; more evidence supports the claim for the latter. Despite recent traditions supporting Kefar-Kenna, older sources support Khirbet-Qanah.4385 Further, the etymology,4386

Roman-Byzantine pottery,4387 and Josephus's description of the locality4388 also tend to support Khirbet-Qanah. Either site would represent a reasonable walk from Nazareth and explain why Jesus» family would have known the family of the groom. Kefar-Kenna is three and a half miles northeast of Nazareth and Khirbet-Qanah nine miles north of Nazareth.4389 The mention of Cana probably functions as historical reminiscence–perhaps Nathanael's (who may also represent the connection with the groom's family, since he was from there, 21:2)–and as a literary cue prefiguring the sign of 4:46–54 (presumably from the same source). In its latter function «Cana of Galilee» (2:1; 4:46) addresses the contrast implied between Galileés positive reception of Jesus (2:2; 4:47, 54; cf. 2:12; 4:43–45) and his rejection in Judea (cf. 2:13–25; 5:16).

2B. The Third Day (2:1)

One feature that may reinforce the idea of an assault on the old forms of ritual purification in this text is the way John has tied the first Cana narrative to Jesus» prophetic act in the temple. John has moved the temple cleansing up to the beginning of Jesus» ministry (overshadowing the entire ministry with the tradition of the passion week), and has apparently tied the two major pericopes of ch. 2 together with a literary inclusio around the key phrase «three days» (2:1,19).

The «third day» of John 2has puzzled many commentators. The reference cannot be to the particular day of the wedding on which Jesus and his disciples arrived,4390 since it is the wedding that is said to be on the third day. Further, if extant rabbinic passages reflect standard Palestinian customs in the first century C.E. (which is uncertain but likely in this case),4391 our text also cannot mean the third day of the week: virgins were married on the fourth day, and widows on the fifth.4392

Nor does it build on the count of days in ch. 1. If one starts with «the next day» of 1:29, the «third day» is actually the sixth day. Some have viewed the «six days» as simply historical reminiscence,4393 others as a means of paralleling the wedding with the lamb announcement,4394 others, in several different forms, as the six or seven days of a new creation4395 or as a parallel with the revelation at Sinai (Exod 24:16).4396 But had John wished us to count up the six or seven days, he might have indicated as much by giving us a more accurate count instead of calling the final day the «third.» That it is the third day of or after something is not in dispute; the question is why it should be called the third day.

One ingenious solution is a parallel with the third day in the Pentecost-Sinai tradition,4397 but despite the detailed comparisons, this solution would have been little more evident to the ancient reader than to the modern one. If John intended the wine to symbolize the gift of Torah here, some clearer clues in the narrative would have helped. Indeed, even the antiquity of the Pentecost-Sinai connection itself remains in question,4398 and John nowhere links his own pneumatology with firstfruits or Pentecost.4399 Granted, if a specific biblical allusion is intended, God coming on Sinai on the third day makes sense (Exod 19:11,16); but even more likely in the Johannine context (see below) would be an allusion to the biblical tradition of resurrection on the third day (Hos 6:2). It is difficult to associate the «third day» with such a narrow background as Sinai when the expression in so common in Scripture.4400 When dealing with short periods of time, a «third day» was common.4401

Most likely John simply refers to the «third day» (i.e., two days) after the events he had just narrated, thus allowing some time for Jesus to travel;4402 indeed, it was a frequent biblical idiom for «the day after tomorrow» or «before yesterday» (e.g., Exod 19:11, 15, 16; 1Sam 20:12).4403 This does not mean that John lacks a specific reason for mentioning the «third day» and placing it at the very outset of the first statement of this pericope. If John also intends some theological significance, the most likely additional connection is with the tradition of Jesus» resurrection on the third day,4404 a connection the reader may make when she or he reaches 2:19–20, particularly if the reader had paused over the «third day» in 2:1. («Three» and «third» occur nowhere else with days in the entire Gospe1.) The purpose of this probable inclusio is to bind the two paragraphs together, so that they interpret one another; the sign of 2:1–11 thus points to the ultimate sign of the resurrection (2:18–19), and Jesus» assault on the institution of the temple must be read in the setting aside of the ceremonial pots in 2:1–11.

John 2:1–11 also implies the cost Jesus must pay for his assault on Jewish institutions, even though we believe that he intends this assault as the act of a reformer within Judaism. This cost is clear in Jesus response that this sign will move him toward the hour of his death (2:4).

2C. Wedding Customs (2:2–3)

John's audience probably shared most of his social world and thus would share some common assumptions about this wedding which he did not need to state. Greeks had long regarded marriage feasts as a necessary part of a legitimate marriage; such a feast could be used in court to prove that a legal marriage (rather than merely cohabitation) had taken place.4405 Somewhat in contrast to often less formal rites of passage inaugurating most Roman marriages,4406 Jewish people emphasized joyous celebration at wedding feasts,4407 hence music would be important there as in other banquet settings.4408 Bridal processions, like funeral processions,4409 were so important that later rabbis even felt they warranted interruption of scholarship.4410 As one mourned with the bereaved at a funeral, one celebrated with the groom (or bride) at a wedding.4411 Most rabbis concurred that the importance of joy at a wedding banquet even excluded the groomsman and his wedding party from festal obligations like those of the Feast of Sukkoth;4412 most Tannaim opined that they were free from ritual obligations like tefillin, although they still must recite the Shema.4413 (Whether some early sages might have permitted a wedding to take precedence over the pots» ritual purity, as Jesus does here, is harder to say.)4414 Later rabbis emphasized God's patronage of Adam and Evés wedding as a model for the wedding's importance.4415

According to the custom, wedding celebrations ideally lasted seven days,4416 and many associates of the bride and groom would remain for the full period, abstaining from work to share the joy of the new family.4417 Blessings were repeated for those who arrived later in the seven days.4418 A wealthy person might throw a public banquet for a whole city at a wedding;4419 those of less wealth would still invite as many persons as they could.4420 One fictitious invitation to a birthday banquet, reflecting a desire for a successful banquet and displays of friendship, invites not only the friend but his wife, children, hired man, and, if he wishes, his dog.4421 It was considered socially appropriate to accept an invitation to a banquet even if one did not like the host.4422 Thus the reader of 2should not assume that Jesus» family and disciples were invited because they were particularly close friends of the groom's family.4423 Nazareth and Cana were walking distance but not particularly close, and though interaction is possible (or even a marriage involving a bride from outside Cana), probably Jesus» family were at most acquaintances, and Jesus» disciples were even less likely known directly to the groom. By contrast, it was natural for a scholar to be invited to a wedding;4424 even if Jesus had not yet worked signs (2:11), it may have been known that he already had some followers (2:2; cf. 1:35–51). (The disciples probably came because disciples followed teachers, though it may have been understood that they were welcome; sometimes hosts invited teachers and their companions with them.4425 Although John's audience probably knew something of Jesus» original band of disciples from tradition, John's account itself has so far made explicit only the five introduced in 1:35–51.)

Wine was not merely unfermented «grape juice,» as some popular modern North American apologists for abstinence have contended. Before hermetic sealing and refrigeration, it was difficult to prevent some fermentation, and impossible to do so over long periods of time.4426 Nor was wine drunk only to purify the water, as some have also claimed; much spring water in the Mediterranean is palatable and many Greeks and Romans viewed it as medicinally helpfu1.4427 At the same time, the alcoholic content of wine was not artificially increased through distillation,4428 and people in the ancient Mediterranean world always mixed water with the wine served with meals, often two to four parts water per every part wine;4429 undiluted wine was considered dangerous.4430 To be sure, sometimes men competed in «heroic» drinking parties, sometimes with disastrous results.4431 To get drunk at parties, mixers could dilute the wine less4432 or add various herbal toxins.4433 Because Judaism viewed drunkenness so unfavorably,4434 those responsible for Jewish festivities as public as weddings must have worked to minimize such behavior.4435 (Greek and Roman tradition could also point out negative moral effects of drunkenness,4436 particularly loss of control,4437 which sometimes even led to military defeat.)4438 That the banquet supervisor here seems aware that at least a degree of excess (μεθυσθώσιν)4439 occurs in the early stages of most weddings (2:10) may suggest that typical Galilean weddings were not as conservative as some later Judean teachers might have preferred. Hopefully few were as explicit as the promise in a fictitious Greek invitation to a birthday banquet: we will drink until we are drunk.4440

Wine was a standard part of daily life in the ancient Mediterranean world,4441 and Palestine was no exception.4442 Seven or more Galilean cities and villages were heavily engaged in wine production, which constituted one of Galileés primary industries.4443 Jewish texts assumed the importance (and necessity) of wine for festive occasions, including in the blessing for Sabbath meals4444 and at weddings.4445 Perhaps like many Greeks they felt that wine was helpful for dancing (Euripides Cyc1. 124, 156), and dancing was integral to celebrations,4446 including weddings.4447 Some later rabbinic texts even regarded as specially meritorious those who went out of their way to import wine in remote areas so they could perform kiddush and habdalah.4448

3. The Faith of Jesus Mother (2:3b-5)

Although Jesus makes clear that his mother cannot command Jesus» favor simply by virtue of her relation to him (cf. his brothers in 7:3–4),4449 her faith becomes the catalyst for his action. Her requests are oblique enough to demonstrate respect for her son as an adult male, but also insistent enough to demonstrate unrelenting faith that he will do what she has asked.

3A. Jesus» Mother (2:3, 5)

Whereas the other gospels name Jesus» mother, John does not. It is unlikely that John simply seeks to avoid confusion with another Mary (11:1–2, 19–20, 28, 31–32, 45; 12:3), since he does mention others, including Mary Magdalene, who could not be Mary of Bethany (19:25; 20:1,11,16,18; cf. 11:1); he also mentions other namesakes (14:22). Perhaps John simply follows a pattern attested frequently in ancient texts: writers often call an important character only «the mother of so-and-so.»4450 But whereas one might suppose that the names of some other women (4:7) or men (4:46; 5:5; 9:1) were not transmitted in the tradition, few Christians could be unaware of the name of Jesus» mother once Mark (and more so Matthew and Luke) was in circulation; John may be independent, but that would not make him unaware of information that must have circulated widely in the early church. As in the case of the beloved disciple, however, many of Johns anonymous characters may help the reader identify with them, functioning as positive models for discipleship.4451

In the Greco-Roman world, the principle of reciprocity governed wedding invitations and all social obligations.4452 Indeed, Malina and Rohrbaugh point out that «a wedding gift was considered a loan (unless the gift was wine) and was recoverable in a court of law (m. Baba Batra 9.4)."4453 Derrett has thus suggested that Jesus» mother's words, «They have no wine,» be read as an accusation: having brought his disciples but inadequate gifts to defray the expense of the wedding,4454 Jesus and his followers are partly at fault for the wine running out. Although the syntax of 2should not be pressed to argue that only Jesus was invited and his disciples simply joined him,4455 Derrett's contention is possible. Disciples normally reclined by their «fathers,» their sages;4456 it would not be implausible that Jesus and his disciples, though welcome, had strained some of the resources of the groom's family.4457 Yet while plausible, this reading is also not absolutely certain.4458

What is more certain is that the groom was facing a potential social stigma that could make him the talk of his guests for years to come. Wine was indispensable to any properly hosted public celebration,4459 and wedding guests sometimes drank late into the night.4460 In older Greek tradition, hosts normally did not mix more wine than their guests could drink up; this may suggest that wine was mixed with water during the feast according to estimated consumption.4461 Nevertheless, in Jewish culture it was customary to have food left over at weddings, that is, never even to come close to running out,4462 and proper hospitality toward wedding guests4463 was so crucial that t. B. Qam. 7includes among thieves «He who presses his fellow to come as his guest but does not intend to receive him properly.»4464

Jesus» mother, whom Derrett thinks would have been in a position in the house to have known about the shortage of wine,4465 confronts Jesus with the situation. Women were ordinarily separated from men at such feasts (insofar as possible), though the bride traditionally remained visible.4466 One could argue that a typical Galilean groom's parents» home would not be large enough to segregate genders, but this house seems atypical to begin with (cf. «servants» in 2:5, 9; six pots in 2:6).4467 The celebration might occur in a courtyard surrounded by homes, in which case the women and food preparation could have been concentrated in one home. At any rate, women sometimes had access to privileged information not spoken in the company of men,4468 and (perhaps most relevant here) women were typically in charge of food preparation. Simply stating the need, as she does, is an adequately explicit request; as in 2:5, she acts on the presumption that Jesus will grant her request (cf. comment on 11:3). This is comparable to reports of the chutzpah of faith in other women and men in the Hebrew Bible4469 and in the Gospel tradition;4470 the bold faith of grieving Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, in John 11:32, particularly moves Jesus (11:33).

Such boldness was still appreciated in rabbinic tradition, for example in the case of the woman whose husband sadly divorced her for barrenness, but told her that she could take the most precious object in his house back to her father s house. Thereupon she got him drunk and had him carried back to her father's house, and explained that he was the most precious object she could have. «When R. Simeon ben Yohai heard what the wife had done, he prayed in the couples behalf, and they were remembered with children.»4471

But what I would nickname «holy chutzpah» is perhaps most often found among those teachers Vermes has called «charismatic» sages, such as Honi the Circle-Drawer4472 and Hanina ben Dosa, who caused discomfort to some of their colleagues whose insistence on the supreme authority of halakic interpretation seemed challenged by their signs.4473 Jesus» mother's expression of faith here may be seen by the Fourth Evangelist as characteristic of the sort of charismatic elements in Judaism that stood as a challenge to the institutional authority characterized by the waterpots set aside for ritual purification.

Although others also exercised «holy chutzpah,» the boldness of Jesus» mother makes sense, both on account of her genetic relationship with Jesus and also, perhaps, on account of her gender. In public settings, including courts, although women normally depended on guardians to represent them,4474 they often could get away with asking requests men dared not ask, both in Jewish4475 and in broader Greco-Roman culture.4476 This was especially true of onés mother: later writers recounted that one of Alexander's friends justly criticized Alexander's mother; he replied that a single tear of his mother's erased ten thousand complaints!4477 Arguments about subsequent Mariology aside, Jesus» mother here provides a positive model of faith, even if 2shows that her faith, though positive, is uninformed from within the story world.

3B. Jesus» Answer (2:4)

Jesus» answer in v. 4 is a rebuff, but like the rebuff of 4:48, is more a complaint than an assertion that he will not act. Γύναι (2:4; 19:26) was usually respectful and not an unusual greeting to a woman (4:21; 20:13,15; cf. 8:10; Matt 15:28; Luke 13:12; 22:57; 1Cor 7:16),4478 but it is not natural for onés mother.4479 Further, it appears brusque because the reader does not normally expect it for a woman one knows (it does appear for Mary, but Jesus then calls her by name, 20:15–16).4480 One might be more apt to address onés mother with a title like κυρία,4481 also a respectful title for a woman of rank.4482

Consequently, some have sought to find symbolic import in the address,4483 seeing the woman as a representative of Israel,4484 a new Eve as the mother of the new Israel,4485 and/or the church.4486 Yet apart from excess weight on this term (often interpreted in light of Rev 12:1–2, though it appears twenty other times in the Gospel) and similar allegorization of 19:26, we lack adequate clues to confirm this allegorizing. (She may well function as a representative of the church as a model disciple, but only in the same way that other disciples in the narrative do.) This is especially the case if we are tempted to view the mother's intercession as prefiguring a later role as mediatrix; we do not turn other suppliants in John's stories into mediators, and would not do so here apart from the influence of much later traditions.4487

More likely, in view of the prominent role assigned to honoring onés parents in Judaism4488 (and indeed the ancient Mediterranean in general),4489 Jesus is establishing a degree of distance between himself and his mother,4490 as did the Jesus of the Synoptic tradition.4491 She approached him not as her son but as a miracle worker; he replies not as her son but as her Lord. This response certainly parallels 7:6–8, where he does what was asked of him only later; this demonstrates his dependence on the divine timing4492 (perhaps also 4:4); but in this case, given his mother's apparent faith (v. 5), the text is not solely reproof. The sequence of request (2:3/4:47), action withheld (2:4/4:48), and request reasserted (2:5/4:49) parallels 4:47–49,4493 which makes Jesus» mother a model of faith and discipleship like some other women in the Gospel,4494 although her faith is not yet informed by understanding of the cross.4495 Perhaps Jesus creates an obstacle partly to challenge her to greater faith, as in 4:48–50; 6:5–6; and elsewhere in the Jesus tradition (e.g., Mark 7:27; the possible question in Matt 8:7); but there is also a matter of the meaning and cost of his compliance.4496 Jesus is still placing distance between himself and his mother. As Augustine suggested, she had to learn that her relationship to Jesus as disciple was more important than her relationship to him as mother.4497

The rebuff element is increased in Jesus» next words, however. In both OT and Gospel tradition (e.g., Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34),4498 as well as Greco-Roman idiom,4499 a phrase like «What is there between us?» would imply distancing or hostility. Most commentators recognize the distancing,4500 although the reasons given vary: Jesus may have been removing himself from the sphere of her parental authority,4501 protesting signs-faith,4502 and so forth. But the primary reason for the rebuff must be that his mother does not understand4503 what this sign will cost Jesus: it starts him on the road to his hour, the cross. Thus John speaks of the «beginning» of Jesus» signs (2:11), referring to the «beginning» of a public ministry (6:64; 8:25; 15:27; 16:4) destined to culminate in his final «hour.»4504 Some commentators find this pattern (a request; Jesus» reluctance but eventual compliance; conflict with the Judeans) repeated throughout the Gospe1.4505 His signs challenged faith and brought responses of either faith or unbelief throughout the Gospel; by rejecting the outward sign of purification, paving the way for his prophetic act against the temple, he began the course that would lead to signs on the Sabbath and finally the raising of Lazarus, whose life would lead to Jesus» death (ch. 11). Of the twelve hours for work in the day (11:9), Jesus instructed disciples in the tenth hour (1:39), brought true worship to a Samaritan woman in the sixth hour (4:6), and brought healing in the seventh hour (4:52).4506 But the cross awaited his final «hour.»

Although some commentators have read the statement about the hour as a question, supposing that Jesus was suggesting that his hour had actually come,4507 the text probably indicates that the hour is still in the future.4508 The «hour» is the hour of the cross, the time of Jesus» impending death (7:30; 8:20; 12:23–27), as scholars usually recognize.4509 It is noteworthy that Jesus will again in this Gospel address his mother as γύναι: when, from the cross, he finally will care for her earthly needs (19:26). Jesus could ultimately care for her needs only in his «hour,» when he would care for her physically but especially as savior. His role as her savior had to take precedence over his role as son, which might have tempted him to avoid the cross to care for her physical needs himself.

The idea of the hour that is «coming» takes on various contours of John's predominantly realized eschatology throughout the Gospel:

2:4 not yet come4510

4:21 universal worship, coming

4:23 Spirit and true worship, coming and already is

5:25 resurrection of the dead, coming and already is

5:28 those in the tombs (literal dead) raised, coming

7«time» (= hour) of his revelation (cf. 7:4; 1 John 2:28)

7:8 «time,» revelation, disclosing himself at the feast

7:30 death, not yet come

8:20 death, not yet come

(11:9 irrelevant; 12:7: «day» of burial)

12:23,27 glorification/death

13:1 death

16 disciples» hour: their suffering/death

16:21 death (messianic travail)

16:25 (probably) after resurrection (v. 26: «that day»: eschatological language for present age)

16:32 Jesus» death and their fear, coming and already come

17:1 glorification of Son

The Jesus tradition preserved in the Synoptics sometimes employs «hour» with eschatological significance (Mark 13:32; Matt 24:44, 50; 25:13; Luke 12:39–40, 46),4511 although it is not a technical term; its usage is by no means exclusively (or even primarily) eschatologica1. While it may be going too far to say that this passage argues that Jesus» death will bring in the wine of the messianic banquet,4512 Jesus» hour of glorification is meant to usher in the eschatological reality which the church is to experience, and, as we shall see later, that eschatological reality is experienced through the Spirit. But a more obvious source for «hour» in John is the passion tradition, where his hour probably refers to the cross (Mark 14:35).

John's image here is characteristically Johannine but certainly intelligible. Speaking of onés predestined «time» or «hour» of death was not unusual in Jewish texts,4513 and had long been part of the ancient Mediterranean literary tradition.4514 Greco-Roman literature is full of ironic stories of those who sought to escape Fatés decree and experienced it in the very process of endeavoring to evade it.4515 Helpfully for literature and theodicy but terrifyingly for many suppliants, even the gods could not contradict Fate, though they might at least hope to delay it.4516 One might fail to heed sound warnings because a deity had purposed onés death.4517 In late antiquity people sought various means to circumvent this cosmic fatalism.4518 Others recognized the agony of living under death's shadow: «To know the hour [tempus, time] of doom is continual death» (Publilius Syrus 530).4519 Jewish literature spoke in similar terms; thus the «days» drew near for Moses and David to die (Deut 31:14; 1 Kgs 2:1, both mt and LXX). This notice of Jesus» impending death points the reader toward the plot's goa1. Although ancient writers could value suspense, foreshadowing was sometimes more important, and they sometimes simply declared in advance who would die in an adventure4520 or how a problem in the plot would be resolved.4521 In fact, Aristotle objects to the inappropriate use of deus ex machina, divine rescue at the end, or other denouements not already anticipated by the plot itself (Aristotle Poet. 15.10, 1454ab).

Whatever John's other sources, the most important is, as we have suggested, undoubtedly the passion tradition (Mark 14:35, 41; Matt 26:45; Luke 22:53). While Jesus» divine mission analogously overshadows his whole life here (cf. Acts 2:23), the Jewish and biblical tradition of Gods purposes implied here was much less arbitrary than the Greek conception of Fate.

In this passage, Jesus» mother continues with the «holy chutzpah» demonstrated in 2:3; in 2she bids the servants to do whatever Jesus says, thus both recognizing Jesus» authority and demonstrating her expectation that he is going to do something to change the situation. (The closest parallel is Pharaoh's words to to Egyptians concerning Joseph in Gen. 41:55: ο έάν εϊπη ύμΐν, ποιήσατε. This parallel underlining the importance of obeying Jesus might be intentional, since it is from a text–Genesis LXX–frequently read by early Christians. Jesus, like Joseph, will provide abundance in a time of need.)4522 By allowing "whatever Jesus says,» she recognizes that Jesus may answer her request in unexpected ways; she resembles Jesus» first followers who «took the initiative in following Jesus (1:37)» but «allowed Jesus to set the agenda» (1:38).4523 But she also is confident that he will grant her request. One might argue that Jesus is finally compelled to obey his mother because the law he fulfills and embodies enjoins honor of parents;4524 but this cannot be the whole story, for he must start toward the cross sooner or later. In this passage, despite her shortcomings, Jesus» mother ultimately also functions as a model of faith.4525 Faith is thus a prior component of this sign as well as its result (2:11).

4. Mercy before Ritual (2:6)

John underlines the purpose of the waterpots: they had been set aside for ritual purification (2:6; cf. 3:25),4526 and John's narrative suggests that this may have been related to the nearness of Passover (2:13; cf. 11:55).4527 Some might find an allusion to Torah in λίθινος,4528 but that the waterpots were made of stone undoubtedly simply reflects the preference for stoneware that was due to its invulnerability to Levitical impurity.4529 A more critical issue here is that the waterpots, associated with ritual purity, come to be used for a new purpose. In John's symbolic world, even his language here will suggest replacement of some sort: Jesus» baptism is greater than traditional purification (3:25–26), one may prize purity while seeking Jesus» death (18:28), and when she discovers Jesus» living water the Samaritan woman later leaves her «waterpot» behind (4:28). In the milieu of John and his audience, the purity of water also excludes other elements mixed in with it, and wine is specifically mentioned as a substance that must not be mixed with the water if it is to be valid for purifications.4530

Strict Pharisees would have regarded transforming the content of waterpots set aside for ritual purposes (2:6) as disrespect toward the tradition of ritual purity, as casting off the law.4531 Jesus, by contrast, valued the honor of his friend more highly. Weddings required significant preparation,4532 and a person of means would usually spend as much as possible on a son's wedding banquet;4533 common knowledge of such facts would make running out of wine all the more shamefu1.4534 Although a life was not at stake, Jesus valued human need more highly than contemporary scruples concerning ritual requirements. This comports well with the regular picture of the Synoptic tradition where he touches the unclean (Mark 1:41; 5:30–34, 41), relativizes handwashing (Mark 7:1–15), and compares purity-conscious pietists unfavorably with an outsider concerned for human need (Luke 10:31–37). This is also the Matthean Jesus who desired mercy more than sacrifice (Matt 9:13; 12:7).

The very use of waterpots for purification was undoubtedly questionable in many pious circles, perhaps suggesting that Jesus» host was less than scrupulous by Pharisaic standards (although alternative explanations for this report are also possible). Mikvaot, pools for ritual immersion, were widespread. Even aristocratic homes in upper-city Jerusalem decorated with Greek mosaics normally included one or more ritual baths.4535 But the most scrupulous would not have used waterpots to store water for ritual baths.

One crucial rabbinic requirement of the ritual water was that it be «living» water, that is, either rainwater or flowing water from another fresh source. Rabbinic texts reject drawn water in excess of a very small quantity (the portion being debated by different rabbis).4536 Of course, clean water could purify some of the rest,4537 and where absolute halakic purity was impossible, drawn water could be purified by contact (through a connecting conduit) with ritually pure water in an adjacent container.4538 The partial exceptions to the rabbinic rule could be due to less strictness at some distance from Jerusalem,4539 especially in dry areas like Egypt,4540 Masada, or Qumran.4541

Although John's point is clear enough, his mention of waterpots for purification requires explanation on a historical leve1. Since drawn water was not normally used, and Cana, at its probable site, received much more rainwater than Masada or other such sites, it is difficult to understand how John could have conceived of purificatory water found in pots or drawn from a wel1. (Many scholars have made much of the term «draw» in 2:8, but unless John employs that term symbolically the source in 2is not likely a well; context takes precedence over usual word usage. The source of water for 2is the pots of 2:7.)4542 Several solutions are possible:

(1) John is unaware of the details of Palestinian halakah, and his narrative is simply implausible at this point;

(2) He intends handwashing rather than a full mikveh (the former being a well-known Pharisaic and Diaspora practice);

(3) The real site of Cana is much dryer than the sites currently regarded as most probable;

(4) John and his readers are both sufficiently familiar with ritual purification as we know it from our texts, and he wishes them to suppose the feast's host to be less than strict in his observance of the purification ritual;

(5) Some strict pietists and most Jews outside Jerusalem did not insist on the use of «living water,» and the host would be seen as non-religious only by Pharisees and those who subscribed to their halakic prescriptions.

While the first explanation is plausible, it is weakened by suggestions that John does indeed know the ritual, for example, his use of the amount of water in the six waterpots, for a total of over 150 liters4543 or 120–150 gallons,4544 which is more than enough4545 for an immersion poo1.4546 (It might be more to the point of the narrative, however, that it is also more than enough wine for a large banquet, emphasizing the enormity of the miracle, as in 6:10; 21:11.)4547 (Ignoring their volume and counting only their number, Augustine found in the six jars six eras of history based on the six days of creation!4548 Allegorizing the six waterpots in Philonic style4549 like this misses the point. John, however, does provide an implicit contrast between the merely abundant «measure» of 2and the unlimited provision of the Spirit in 3:34.) He also seems well aware of Judean customs elsewhere (e.g., 7:37–39). .

Various evidence could support the second explanation. Excavations have uncovered hand-basins in synagogue grounds, and Tannaitic sources speak of the hands being purified by water poured on them from a container.4550 A Diaspora audience might also recognize this background,4551 which reflects a broader Mediterranean custom.4552 There is support for Jesus» setting aside of this ritual in the Gospel tradition (Mark 7:2–4), and some commentators have naturally discerned this idea here.4553 Against such an identification of the ritual is the size of the pots–which would make pouring difficult–and the amount of water they contain, as noted above, which would be far more than necessary for the washing of hands.4554

The third explanation is possible but has no evidence on which to base a case. Although some dispute continues concerning the site of Cana (as noted above, it probably represents the modern Khirbet-Qanah), the evidence for any particular site does not favor a site in a desert area.4555

The fourth explanation has in its favor the theological nuancing it would add to the narrative: Jesus favors a semi-religious host s social standing above ritual purification, just as he later condemns the temple and Nicodemus, but is better received by a Samaritan woman and a Galilean βασιλικός. Against it is the possibility that Johns readers in Asia might not have been as familiar with the custom, especially if some of them were Gentiles; but this objection is considerably weakened by the cumulative strength of John's use of traditions more obscure than this, which he seems to expect his most informed readers to recognize (e.g., on John 7:37–39, below).

With regard to the final explanation, Sanders has provided a strong case that most Palestinian Jews did not share the Pharisaic-rabbinic views of drawn water.4556 This suggests that the use of these pots for purification was at least not unusual, and at most offensive only to the strict Pharisees and their allies, whom John apparently delights to offend anyway. Whether or not John's readers would have caught an expression of antagonism to Pharisaism here is in this case a moot point; most Diaspora Jews were probably unaware of the tradition (though again, as we have noted, John seems to presuppose a highly informed core audience).

Regardless of which explanation one chooses, however, the explicit statement of John is that these waterpots were set apart for the ceremony of ritual purification, and that Jesus replaced water that was pure, at least by the host's standards, with what could not be pure for washing by anyonés standards. Preventing a social affront to his host or the dissatisfaction of the guests (cf. ch. 6) was more critical to the Johannine Jesus than the affront offered to the tradition of purification by water.

5. Those Who Recognize the Miracle (2:7–10)

John's mention of the size of the waterpots suggests that the abundant quantity of wine would provide far more than enough for the remainder of the feast. In view of this abundance, Jesus» instruction to «fill» the waterpots may invite comparison with various Johannine language for fulness elsewhere, not only with food (6:12, 13, 26) but with joy (3:29; 15:11; 16:24; 17:13) and with grace and truth (1:14,16).4557 Thus the sign may reveal Jesus» ability to provide amply spiritually (10:10) as well as materially. That the servants filled the pots «to the brim» (έως άνω) reinforces the likelihood of this comparison, both in view of the vertical dualism of the Gospel (cf. άνω in 8)4558 and in view of the Gospel's quickly impending depiction of Jesus as the one who «gives the Spirit without measure» (3:34, έκ μέτρου).4559 Readers or hearers might not readily catch such allusions on their first reading or hearing, but John's frequent exploitation of narrative symbolism, often followed by discursive interpretation, seems intended to lead the audience forward on this path. When in 3Nicodemus cites the signs of 2:1–25, Jesus draws attention to «water» in 3:5, which on our interpretation symbolizes a baptism in the Spirit.

Within John's story world, Jesus» miracle at Cana does not remain totally private (cf. 2:9). Nevertheless, the relatively private character of the miracle (the plural σημεία in 3does not include it; see 2:23; 4:45) contrasts starkly with the public «sign» demanded by the temple establishment in 2:18. Not everyone in the story is aware that a miracle has taken place; the high-status ruler of the banquet experiences the miracle, but does not realize what he has experienced (2:7).

The title for the banquet-ruler here is άρχιτρίκλινος, meaning «ruler of the table,»4560 or more likely, «of the dining room.»4561Although some have argued that the banquet-ruler here is another servant,4562 his role seems too close to the free, high-status rulers of banquets in Greek custom.4563 At Greek banquets the free, invited guests often selected their own overseer to preside over the entertainment and determine the degree to which wine would be diluted.4564 On some occasions the host would appoint the ruler of the banquet (συμποσίαρχος);4565 on others the guests would choose their own ruler4566 or the ruler would be chosen by lot.4567 According to custom, such a symposiarch must recognize how drinking will affect each person and regulate the banquet accordingly.4568 Greek-speaking Jews also recognized that the chief or ruler (ηγούμενος) of a feast would be among the guests and would be honored afterward if he did his job appropriately (Sir 32:1–2). Pharisees insisted that ritually pure supervisors of banquets also ensure the ritual purity of the wine served,4569 though, for reasons mentioned above, we doubt that those present at this banquet observed Pharisaic strictness. In any case, this banquet-ruler, as befits his position, has been watching the guests» drinking. He recognizes that guests tended to drink in excess toward the beginning of the feast and once their senses are dulled (cf. Esth 1:10), they can be served the cheaper wine.4570

The contrast between those who recognize the miracle and those who do not is also significant. Although it does not always connote ignorance in a negative sense (cf. 1:48), John often uses πόθεν to underline the ignorance of interlocutors or outsiders unable to comprehend Jesus» works from above (3:8; 4:11; 6:5; 7:27–28; 8:14; 9:29–30; 19:9). Jesus» mother would not have been of high status in ancient society, but her uncompromising faith provokes the miracle (2:3, 5). John mentions the knowledge of the servants in 2partly to avoid the implausible inference that those who drew the water remained unaware that a miracle had occurred.4571 At the same time, his statement heightens the contrast between their knowledge and the lack of knowledge on the part of those with greater status, suggesting that the Johannine version of the Messianic Secret has class and status implications, a suggestion reinforced by a contrast between Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, or by the arrogance of the educated elite against the more open-minded masses in 7:46–52.4572 (They may have been slaves, but the term διάκονος need not imply this, in contrast to δούλος in, e.g., 4:51; 18:10, 18, 26; but even if they were free caterers or relatives, their role here is not one of high status.) Johns heroes elsewhere may suggest that Johannine Christians, no matter how numerous they were, felt marginalized by an educated elite with greater social power (cf. esp. 9:24–34). They, too, received revelations unavailable to the larger world (14:17, 21–23). One should not press the status issue beyond its appropriate polemical function in the Johannine narrative, however: whatever else he may be understood to imply, John explictly emphasizes the faith of only the disciples here (2:11).

6. Manifesting His Glory (2:11)

By explicitly noting this sign as Jesus» «first» (2:11; see above), John makes what he says about it paradigmatic for Jesus» signs in genera1. The prologue declares that Jesus reveals the Father's glory to his followers as God revealed his glory to Moses on the mountain, a glory «full of grace and truth» (1:14–18). If this sign reveals Jesus» character by allowing him to show his concern for a bride and groom, it also points to Jesus» ultimate glorification starting in the cross (12:23–25). By devaluing the ritual purpose of the pots, Jesus has inaugurated a clash of values expressed more publicly in the following pericope (2:13–21), a clash of values that must inevitably lead to his «hour» (2:4; cf. 2:19).4573

Public opinion was important at weddings, and one who ran out of wine would be shamed, probably for years to come. Jesus rescues his host's honor by providing wine, and so increased his own δόξα or honor, though in a hidden way not manifested to the public.4574 But the statement about Jesus revealing his glory probably points more obviously to the biblical revelation of divine glory, as elsewhere in this Gospel (e.g., 12:41).

John brackets all Jesus» signs with an emphasis on glory by an explicit connection with glory in the first and last signs identified by that title (2:11; 11:40).4575 John here may echo Exod 16:7, where Israel sees God's «glory» by his signs for them in the wilderness, namely, by providing food for their desires despite their unbelief.4576 The LXX most explicitly connects signs with glory in Num 14:22, also in the life of Moses.4577 Yet Jesus does not stand for Moses in this comparison, but for the God who revealed his glory to Israel while Moses led Israe1.4578 Later in his Gospel John provides the hermeneutical key for references to seeing Jesus» glory: in 12Jesus is the Lord whom Isaiah saw in his vision (Isa 6:1–5).

That Jesus «manifests» his glory is also significant in a Johannine context (cf. 1:31; 14:21–22; 16:14–15; 17:6; 21:1, 14). Often the term φανερόω (1:31; 3:21; 7:4; 9:3; 17:6; 21:1,14) refers to Jesus» «works» revealing character and identity, whether of people (3:21) or God (9:3), and especially to revealing Jesus» character and identity (1:31; 7:4; 21:1,14) or Jesus revealing the Father (17:6).4579 The roughly equivalent term δείκνυμι applies to demonstrating the reality of Jesus» resurrection (20:20; cf. δεικνύω in 2:18) and especially to revealing the Father's character (5:20; 10:32; 14:8–9).

By «believing,» the disciples respond to Jesus» sign in a manner paradigmatic for disciples (though the highest form of discipleship supersedes mere signs-faith, 20:29–31). Amazement is a typical response in ancient miracle accounts, including those of the Synoptics.4580 John, however, emphasizes the association between miracles and faith, also present in the Synoptics and elsewhere in Greco-Roman antiquity.4581 John frequently mentions signs (2:11,18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2,14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:4,41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 20:30), sometimes in connection with seeing and believing (2:11, 23; 4:48; 6:30; 7:31; 11:15,45,47; 12:37).4582 When Israel saw how God destroyed the Egyptians, they «believed» both the Lord and his servant Moses (Exod 14:31); this text probably also informs John's Christology of one greater than Moses (John 14:1).

As mentioned above (see comment on 2:9), the passage may also suggest implications for discipleship in John's situation outside the narrative world. If the Judean elite and local synagogue authorities represent the Fourth Gospel's primary opposition (see introduction, ch. 5), it may not be surprising that, apart from the disciples, only the servants knew the source of the wine (2:9). Only those without power genuinely recognized the value of the signs attesting Jesus.4583

The Old and New Temples (2:12–22)

By setting aside the ritual purpose for which the waterpots were designated (2:6), Jesus began a road of conflict that would lead to his final «hour» of death (2:4). The next pericope expounds those implications for the passion more fully: Jesus» body must be destroyed before his resurrection, a sign and an event that will supersede the old temple order.4584 Both Scripture and Jesus» teaching (2:17, 22) confirmed this truth before it happened (13:19; 14:29); the Spirit would later cause the believers to understand Jesus» warning in retrospect (14:29).4585 Unlike the Synoptic accounts of Jesus» act in the temple, John emphasizes the contrasting responses of Jesus» opponents and disciples.4586 Jesus» dialogue with Nicodemus will articulate even more explicitly this theme of new life replacing the old ways.

1. Transition (2:12)

Technically, 2is a transitional paragraph between 2:1–11 and 2:13–22. It allows a geographical4587 and chronological transition and provides necessary historical information about Jesus of Nazareth's residence in Capernaum, explaining why tradition strongly identified him with both communities (cf. Matt 4:13). An origin in Capernaum, like one in Nazareth (1:46), would not be the invention of the early church. Although Capernaum was relatively large by village standards, with an estimated thousand or more inhabitants,4588 the urban Jerusalemite Josephus regards Capernaum as a «village,» no better known than any of the other many sites in the area (Life 403).

The later presence of minim in Capernaum4589 also suggests a local Christian community that would have kept the tradition alive. Yet John makes Capernaum less central than it is in the Synoptics. Bethsaida replaces Capernaum in 1:44; Cana becomes the place of faith and a miracle in 2and 4:46. Nothing we know about Capernaum in general explains its relative diminution of role in the Fourth Gospel vis-à-vis the Synoptics. Although Capernaum (in Aramaic, «village of Nahum») included a fishing industry, its economy depended heavily on agriculture, as in most other Galilean villages.4590 Capernaum was also about as religious as other Galilean villages.4591 Whether John emphasizes other Galilean villages because of competing Galilean traditions in his own day or because he depends on an early, authentic line of Jesus tradition independent of the Synoptics, heclearly functions as a repository of specifically Galilean tradition; neither Bethsaida nor Cana would hold much significance to most Diaspora Jews except for transplanted Galileans. One may compare John's citation of some disciples (such as Thomas and Judas not Iscariot, and to a lesser degree Philip) who have barely a voice in the Synoptic tradition (though later pseudepigraphic works were eager to give them voice with or without tradition).

Whether his mother and brothers were staying with him is unclear; the narrator does not inform us whether they, too, had settled in Capernaum. Indeed, apart from other tradition knowledge of which John may assume, available to us from the Synoptics, we might not know that Jesus owned a home there (Matt 4:13; cf. Mark 1:21; 2:1; 9:33). Wfaat seems most significant is that, as in 2:2, Jesus» disciples remain with him in a family setting. Given the significance of «remain» in 1:38–39, it is reasonable to suspect that their continuance with Jesus here indicates the intimate, familial relationship Jesus has with his followers who persevere (cf. 8:31, 35; 14:23; 15:4); they have become members of his extended household (cf. 20:17; Mark 3:34–35).4592

2. Purifying the Temple (2:13–15)

Unless Jesus cleansed the temple twice, which is unlikely,4593 it is impossible to harmonize John's chronology for cleansing the temple with that of the Synoptics, as some early interpreters recognized.4594 One might suggest that John depends on a separate tradition or that Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, dischronologized the cleansing due to his emphasis on the passion. But more likely John adapts the more familiar chronology of the passion tradition to make an important point. (As noted in the introduction, ch. 1, ancient readers did not expect ancient biographies to adhere to chronological sequence.)

The mention of Passover is critical here, framing the unit (2:13, 23);4595 this context significantly informs Jesus» words about his death in this pericope (2:19).4596 Together with the final Passover (13:1; 18:28,39; 19:14), this Passover (2:13) frames Jesus» ministry in the Fourth Gospe1. Interpreters have traditionally insisted that the repeated Passovers of the Fourth Gospel provide a chronological outline of Jesus» public ministry,4597 but they miss the symbolic significance John finds in the Passover.4598 Not only we who have read the Synoptics and their Markan passion outline, but presumably all early Christians who celebrated the Lord's Supper, were familiar with the paschal associations of the events of the Passion Narrative (1Cor 5:7; 11:23–25). More than likely, they also knew of the temple cleansing in this context.4599 It is historically implausible that Jesus would challenge the temple system by overturning tables yet continue in public ministry for two or three years afterward, sometimes even visiting Jerusalem (although in Johns story world, Jesus does face considerable hostility there: 7:30–52; 8:59; 10:20–21, 31–39; 11:46–57). More than likely, John alludes to common knowledge about the place of the temple cleansing in the tradition, and opens Jesus» ministry with it for theological reasons. Now Jesus» entire ministry is the Passion Week, overshadowed by his impending «hour» (see comment on 2:4).4600

None of this is to deny that Jesus probably visited Jerusalem on numerous occasions.4601 Gospel portrayals of Jesus as a Galilean pilgrim fit our expectations for most Galileans; although travel to Jerusalem required a three-day journey,4602 many Galileans must have traveled frequently to festivals.4603 Normally they traveled in groups,4604 so in the logic of the narrative as it stands Jesus» family and disciples may well have traveled together (2:12–13; cf. 7:10).

Because this is one of the passages which allows and invites examination from the standpoint of other extant traditions, we examine below some features of historical tradition which John develops. In the Johannine context, however, John's point is striking. Jesus sets aside a purification ritual «of the Jews» in 2:6; here he disrupts a public festival «of the Jews» (2:13).4605 The link between the two passages portends his «hour» (2:4), the destruction of his body (2:19–21); the cross overshadows the Gospel from this point forward, and (given his placement of Jesus disrupting the temple) in the looser theological sense in which John likely intends it, John's Passion Narrative coincides with the whole of his public ministry. (Other links between 2:1–11 and 2:13–23 include the third day [2:1, 19] and Jesus «showing» a sign [2:18–19] which «manifests» his glory [2:11].)4606

The Jerusalem temple is for Jesus a place of conflict in this Gospe1. Jesus here assaults the dignity of the temple (2:14–15), later finds in the temple one who will betray him (5:14), and encounters in the temple those who wish to kill him (8:59). Granted, he teaches in the temple (7:14; 18:20), but his teaching involves conflict with the Judean religious establishment (7:28; 8:20; 10:23; cf. 11:56), and while in the temple Jesus declares himself the foundation stone of a new temple (7:37–39). While it is undoubtedly true that much of John's audience was too young to have visited the temple in Jerusalem and would perhaps picture it in terms of local temples in Asia,4607 there is no question that the role of the temple would have remained a central issue of contention for Jewish Christians in the final decade of the first century C.E. Certainly most Jews had always valued the temple, including Diaspora Jews.4608 Nevertheless, a minority of Jews before 70, mainly sectarian, opposed the temple or felt threatened by the establishment that controlled it.4609 After 70 such sentiments undoubtedly appeared vindicated, and those groups able to reorganize themselves may have continued to use the Jerusalem temple as a symbol for the hostility of the Judean religious establishment, those leaders who had had sufficient resources to gain a broader hearing in the wider Judean community. John's enmity focuses on the Jerusalem authorities; Jerusalem's crowds are impressed with Jesus» public signs (2:23), but most (cf. 3:2) of the establishment is not (2:18).

2A. Historical Probability

Sanders regards Jesus» controversy with the temple establishment as an «almost indisputable» historical fact.4610 One could argue that later Christians composed the narrative to fit Jesus» prophecy of judgment against the temple4611 or the reverse, but various lines of evidence support the authenticity of the central account. Mark and John may provide independent attestation of Jesus» act in the temple. Later Jewish Christians, committed to the temple (Acts 2:46) and to identifying with their culture in Jerusalem (Acts 21:20–26), as well as later Gentile Christians concerned about charges that they posed a threat to the political status quo, would hardly have invented the account of Jesus» violent protest in the temple.4612 Because such an act would have deliberately provoked the authorities to seek Jesus» death,4613 we should also see the act in the temple as a pivotal event in Jesus» mission.4614

Some doubt that Jesus could have overturned tables without incurring intervention from the guards in the Fortress Antonia. This skepticism would ring true had Jesus led a full-scale riot, but given the enormity of the outer court and the loudness of the crowds thronging it, a small-scale act by a single person need not have drawn the attention of the Roman guards, at least not in time for intervention.4615 John, like the Synoptics, probably draws on genuine historical tradition here.

2B. The Merchants

It is hard to say how tightly regulated the merchants and moneychangers within the temple courts may have been. According to later tradition, monyechangers counted coins on stools and used «a pin, presumably to separate the coins without handling them.»4616 We do not know if this accurately reflects first-century custom or the later rabbinic idea1.

Sanders argues that most trade took place in shops along a street adjoining the temple, rather than in the sacred precincts themselves.4617 Most likely, however, the shops outside the temple precincts served the tourist industry, whereas the outer court included authorized dealers at festival times.4618 Possibly various merchants may have sold diverse products; most ancient Mediterranean merchants dealt in single products, such as fruits or oils, although a few general markets also existed.4619 Very few scholars doubt that birds and moneychangers were in the outer court of the temple, where they would save pilgrims considerable time in procuring and offering sacrifices.4620 The cattle and sheep, a specifically Johannine feature, are another matter.

2C. History and Special Johannine Features

Of the four gospels, only John mentions the oxen and sheep, as well as birds, in the temple (2:14–15).4621 Sanders doubts that cattle would have been held in the temple proper; getting them up the stairs would be difficult and risk defiling them with injuries, considerable straw would have to be brought to feed them most of the day, and cattle offerings were primarily communal rather than individual offerings.4622 Yet even here John's account is not inherently improbable. Not many cattle were needed for sacrifices, but some were,4623 especially during the festivals; moreover the cattle had to be brought into the temple somehow. Sanders cites Philós view that the temple was quiet,4624 but in view of the crowds thronging the temple courts, we may dismiss as patently impossible propaganda Philós assertion that they were quiet. Sanders further suggests that the urine and excrement of bovines would have defiled the outer court, but he could have made the same argument for birds, which even later rabbis who emphasized the templés ritual purity allowed were present (p. Tacan. 4:5, §13). Here again he cites Philo,4625 but here again Philós assertion seems to be propaganda, the sort that also characterizes the Letter of Aristeas's caricaturization of Jerusalem or (to a lesser extent) Aelius Aristides» praise of Rome. If animals were slaughtered inside the temple, there was no way to guarantee that they would not excrete before their slaughter. The narrow street beside the temple was not large enough to hold sufficient sacrificial animals, certainly not lambs for Passover, and still admit any flow of passersby! John may be more given to theologizing narrative than the Synoptics are, but he is surely more dependable on this point than Philo.

Only John mentions the whip. Later tradition is probably correct (the Sicarii notwithstanding) that weapons were forbidden for visitors to the temple; but whips used for animals would not be included among them,4626 expecially not one created for the occasion (2:15), and no security guards would be searching (and perhaps informing on) the vast multitude of pilgrims in any case. That Jesus must address the sellers, who are still present in 2:16, suggests that he has not struck them with the whip.4627

3. Why Jesus Challenged the Temple (2:16)

A day after Jesus overturned tables and created a disturbance in the temple, it is likely that the previous activities had resumed. Without a significant enough band of followers to overpower the temple guard and Roman garrison and to permanently hold the Fortress Antonia, Jesus could not have expected it to turn out otherwise. It is therefore probable that Jesus intended his act in the temple symbolically in some sense.4628 Throughout the ancient Mediterranean people recognized the value of symbolic actions,4629 Jeremiah's smashing of a pot in the temple precincts being a notable case in point (Jer 19:10–14).4630 The meaning of the symbol, however, has engendered considerable debate. Some proposals have generated little support among current scholarship, for instance that the Gospels use the temple cleansing to symbolize the replacement of the cultic system of the temple with Jesus» new sacrifice for sins.4631 Others, however, merit further discussion.

3A. Economic Exploitation?

Some have proposed that Jesus challenged economic exploitation in the temple, but the evidence for this is questionable. Jerusalem was the center of a prosperous trade and tourist industry;4632 while the local aristocracy may not have profited directly from mercantile activity in the temple (see below), they were at the top of a steep economic pyramid (artisans may have been at its bottom) that profited from Jerusalem's economic strength, especially from a tourist industry encouraged and accommodated by the temple establishment. Profiting from a system that profited everyone is not, however, economic exploitation per se.4633

Abrahams argues that, according to tradition, moneychangers worked in the outer court for about one week and received no profit.4634 In fact the text he cites refers particularly to activities surrounding the half-shekel tax due some time before Passover.4635 One should not be surprised, of course, if similar accommodations surrounded the major pilgrimage festivals. Abrahams admits that in practice some may have abused this system, and that Jesus may have justly reacted against the abuses; but he doubts that the abuses permeated the system.4636 If the tradition is dependable, the commercial use of the court of the Gentiles, turning it into something of a Hellenistic agora, began only shortly before the time of Jesus, which may have invited criticism from a number of pietists.4637

Some propose that the issue was not the use of animals and sacrifices, but paying money in the temple.4638 But it is difficult to see how the sacrificial system could have been conducted without selling, money, and moneychangers.4639 Because it was assumed that only the most impious robbers would rob sacred sites, hence incurring the wrath of deities,4640 temples were frequently used as banks to hold deposits.4641 Jerusalem's temple, like others, functioned as a bank in this sense.4642 Despite other professions in lists of unscrupulous means of profit, moneychangers provoked little complaint, and were often persons of high moral reputation and prominence.4643 Given varying city currencies, moneychangers were also necessary, even in the towns of Galilee.4644 Certainly in the temple, where pilgrims arrived with a wide variety of currency but needed to purchase sacrifices to obey the law, moneychangers were necessary.4645 Presumably John's audience would be aware of these factors.

Perhaps most importantly, there is little evidence that Jerusalem's aristocracy profited directly from the commercial activity in the temple, whether from selling or money-changing. That polemical texts which often complain about the priestly aristocracy are silent about them profiting from sales in the temple makes it unlikely that they did so.4646 Granted, according to tradition some patrician sages profited from the sale of ritually pure merchandise in the temple.4647 Further, even if they were involved in trade, our texts cannot reveal the motives of those involved in such trade; second-century sages warned against those who dealt with sacred merchandise such as Torah scrolls for profit rather than for God's honor.4648 But this does not constitute evidence that economic exploitation was at the center of the activity in the temple or of Jesus» protest there.

3B. Defending the Worship of Gentiles?

Gentiles were welcome alongside Israelites in the Solomonic temple (1 Kgs 8:41–43). Even in the Second Temple period, Gentiles were welcome in the temple. Josephus even appeals to the oneness of God to argue that there should be only one temple (Ag. Ap. 2.193). But due to increased sensitivity to purity considerations, Gentiles (like the animals with excrement discussed above) were excluded from courts nearer the holiest place (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.103).4649 Thus the commercial activity in the outer court, by treating it as less sacred than the courts of women and Israel which were also part of Solomon s outer court, risked marginalizing the worship of the Gentiles.

Some interpreters carry this suggestion too far,4650 but it probably contains a degree of truth in its more nuanced form; the merchants did not prevent Gentiles from praying, but the temples structure expressed an ideology of separation «which excluded gentiles generally,» and which Jesus rejected.4651 Thus it is possible that the separation of Gentiles constituted at least one source of Jesus» protest;4652 it is likely that at least Mark understood Jesus» action in this manner (Mark 11:17). Yet while the saying in Mark is compelling, it is otherwise unlikely that defense of Gentiles was Jesus» sole reason for challenging the temple; and it is certain that this is not the reason emphasized in the Fourth Gospe1.

3C. Judgment on the Temple

Most likely, Jesus» act in the temple challenged the Jerusalem aristocracy that controlled the temple system, hence related in some way to Jesus» prophecy of the templés impending destruction. Thus the Markan Jesus, while overturning the tables, cites Jeremiah 7concerning the templés destruction (Mark 11:17).4653

A few scholars doubt that Jesus predicted the templés destruction, attributing that «fiction» to Mark.4654 In so doing, however, they miss the tradition's multiple attestation, including John 2:19, a charge the later church felt comfortable attributing only to false witnesses (Mark 14:58; Acts 6:14), and likely Jesus tradition in 2 Thess 2:4.4655 Others before 70 C.E. also predicted the templés destruction,4656 and there is no reason to doubt that Jesus did so.4657 Later Jewish teachers, while praising the temple, acknowledged its inadequacy to withhold judgment if Jerusalem was engaging in sin.4658

Some who prophesied against the temple did so because they opposed the aristocratic priesthood who ran it.4659 Because the Romans used public religious offices in Rome, including priesthoods, as political tools,4660 it is not surprising that they exercised political discretion in choosing high priests in Jerusalem, an activity which undoubtedly tainted the high priests in the eyes of purists.4661 Some thus see Jesus» act as a prophetic symbol of ritual cleansing, reacting against the moral defilement there.4662 In its most extreme form, this view portrays Jesus as following Pharisaic purity rules to their logical conclusion;4663 in its more reasonable forms, it portrays Jesus as zealous for the templés cleansing, an agenda that he could easily have borrowed from biblical renewal movements (e.g., Mai 3:1–4). Others concede contemporary denunciations of the temple hierarchy's uncleanness but note that the Gospels do not emphasize this point;4664 they argue that a concern for purity in the traditional Jewish sense would focus on ritual concerns.4665 They believe that Jesus» action symbolized something more dramatic than the templés purification–namely its destruction.4666 The proposals of purification and prophecy of judgment are not mutually exclusive; Jesus could have believed that immoral leadership in some sense defiled the temple, thus inviting judgment.

Sanders argues that Jesus believed that God would directly intervene to establish his kingdom, and that Jesus was preparing for a kingdom «in which a temple, whether new or cleansed, would be usefu1.»4667 Sanders's proposal may well be correct; such an image would fit many contemporary ideas about the eschatological temple (whether supernaturally reconstructed or humanly restored). This hope naturally stirred more prominantly after 70 C.E.4668 but is abundantly attested before that period,4669 especially in the Qumran Scrolls.4670 The restoration of the vessels, the ark,4671 and perhaps its manna4672 also imply a renewed, eschatological temple of some sort.4673 Many of Jesus» contemporaries emphasized a new or renewed temple, however, precisely because of the impurity of the priesthood.4674 Purification and replacement are not mutually exclusive options.

Such information favors the Synoptic tradition, but it need not imply that John's interpretation of the temple saying has strayed far from Jesus» meaning. While Jesus undoubtedly spoke of the destruction of the temple and probably spoke of an eschatological one, the Jesus tradition does not provide clear indication that Jesus» eschatological temple was purely physica1. Jesus» contemporaries, including those that expected an eschatological temple, could also depict the temple in spiritual terms.4675 One would expect such spiritualized imagery in Philo,4676 but more noteworthy is its appearance in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the true temple often stands for the community.4677 The use of Ps 118 in the festal Hallel suggests the authenticity of its citation in the Synoptic tradition (Mark 12:10–11; cf. 11:9–10; 14:26),4678 which in turn suggests that Jesus himself did intend a new temple but with himself as the cornerstone.4679 If so, his diverse followers rightly understood that temple spiritually (1Cor 3:16; Eph 2:20–22; 1Pet 2:5; cf. Luke 19:40, 44; Rom 9:32–33).4680 Dodd thinks that John 2presupposes the Pauline equivalence of Christ's «body» (Rom 12:4–6; 1Cor 12:12; cf. 1 Clem. 37.5) and the church/temple.4681 But the body metaphor for a state4682 or other community4683 was already widespread and of itself not necessarily connected with temple imagery. Probably this text refers to Jesus» physical body, a concept broadened only secondarily to the church through the broadening of the temple image in 14:23.

But before Jesus could become the chief cornerstone, he had to be rejected by the builders–the establishment who ran the temple (Mark 12:10–12). Opposition to the temple would generate hostility from most of mainstream Judaism,4684 and it might well invite martyrdom from the authorities.4685

4. Foreshadowing His Death and Resurrection (2:17–22)

John brackets the interpretive theological addendum to the event (2:17–22) with an inclusio: the disciples «remembered» Scripture and later Jesus» teaching alongside Scripture (2:17,22). By going to the Father in death and resurrection, Jesus would «prepare» the way for his disciples to join him (14:3); consequently his death and resurrection become the foundation for a new temple in Johannine theology. «House» and «temple» language in the Fourth Gospel invites comparison between the old and new temples. Herod's temple was the site of Jesus» presence ( 10:23), teaching (7:14,28; 8:20; 18:20), healing (5:14), and rejection (8:59; 11:56). But the Son would remain in the Father's «house» (8:35), and would prepare «rooms» for his followers to dwell with him there (14:2, 23); essentially Jesus would prove to be the new temple (2:14–21), the locus of God's presence with his people (Rev 21:22).

Explanatory teaching typically accompanied prophetic actions in the biblical tradition, so Jesus probably uttered a proclamation while protesting the activities in the temple, and it is very possible that this proclamation included Scripture.4686 Unlike Mark, however, John does not cite Isa 56and Jer 7:11. Some have suggested that John draws from Zech 14:21;4687 the links between the two texts, however, are inadequately convincing to support any specific verbal allusion. Further, John 2if pressed fully may ground Jesus» hostility in a somewhat different offense than Mark's account; here those who profane the Father's house do so with merchandise, whereas in Mark they profane it by treating it as a place of refuge for sin rather than a witness to the nations. Nevertheless, John repeats the basic substance of the tradition behind the Markan proclamation: those ruling the temple have profaned it, and Jesus is challenging their authority. In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus himself will become the new temple (2:19–21), consistent with the Markan cornerstone tradition.4688

Jewish tradition emphasized zeal for God's law and God's temple, a zeal that could sometimes be expressed violently (Num 25:11). Thus the «zealous ones» could slay anyone who stole a vessel from the temple.4689 One can make a case that this tradition of Jesus» «zeal» derives from an earlier period in which Jewish Christians could share the term with those who sometimes defined «zeal» in terms of Phinehas's act of vengeance in Num 25:114690–perhaps a period before the term had been co-opted by the revolutionary group calling themselves «zealots» in the war with Rome. Like many of the revolutionaries (or on some reconstructions, peasant brigands), Jesus challenged the established political order. But, especially in the wake of 70 C.E., Jewish Christians would be more apt to notice the difference between Jesus» «zeal» and that of the zealots. Further, though zeal could be expressed in violent patriotism,4691 in no period is «zeal» for God limited to revolutionary sentiment. It applies especially to devotion to God's law.4692 Jesus demonstrates zeal for his Father's honor throughout the Gospel (e.g., 5:43; 8:29,49; 17:4).

The psalmist's zeal for God's house (Ps 69:9, 68LXX) led to his suffering, and thus provides a model for Jesus» zea1.4693 As this zeal «consumed» the psalmist, so Jesus would be «consumed"–bring life to others by his death (6:51–53). Johannine Christians would remember that their Lord opposed not their Jewish heritage itself, but those he considered its illegal guardians. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is zealous for his Father's will and ultimately dies in obedience to it (10:17–18; 14:31). This comports with the historical tradition, implied also in the Synoptics, that Jesus not merely predicted his death4694 but deliberately provoked it; no one could act against the temple as Jesus did and not expect severe retaliation from the authorities. The temple authorities, whose positions were known to depend on keeping peace between the Romans and the people, were permitted to punish violations of the sanctity of the temple–and only this offense–with death.4695 Though overturning tables did not technically profane the inner courts, it was a challenge to the rulers» power that might invite them to find adequate charges for Jesus» execution. (Modern Western critics» skepticism that ancient rulers would often act decisively in response to such challenges stems from our frequent inability to understand the power structures of Mediterranean antiquity; we assume our own traditions based on generations of democratic ideals.)

Apparently unaware of Jesus» previous sign known to Johns audience (2:1–11), the authorities now demand a sign (2:18; cf. again 6:30).4696 In the logic of his contemporaries,4697 if Jesus acts on Gods authority, he should be able to demonstrate it supernaturally. (John likely borrows this demand for a sign from authentic Jesus tradition, as appears in Mark 8:11, which was already applied to the resurrection, perhaps as early as the Q tradition in Luke 11and Matt 16:1–4.)4698 Paradoxically, however, those without power (2:9) and the more open-minded among those in power (3:2) already know of Jesus» attesting signs. Likewise, some characters in the context need only very small signs to believe (1:48–49; 4:18–19,29), in contrast to these sign-demanding Judeans.4699

By inviting them to «destroy» the temple of his body (2:19), that is, kill him (cf. 8:28),4700 Jesus stands in the prophetic tradition of an ironic imperative (e.g., Matt 23:32).4701 Yet without special illumination, his hearers were doomed to interpret the riddle wrongly, as Jesus» opponents throughout the Fourth Gospel habitually misunderstand him, requiring the evangelist to offer inspired interpretation.4702 Jesus» words could be understood as referring to the natural temple, which is how the «false witnesses» of Mark's tradition seem to have understood them (Mark 15:29; cf. Acts 6:14).4703 One could speak of building the second temple as «raising» it up (εγείρειν, Sib. Or. 3.290).4704 John's εγείρω thus functions as another Johannine double entendre, misunderstood by interlocutors in the story world while clear to the informed audience.4705

«In three days» is equivalent to «on the third day»; part of a day was counted a whole.4706 In some traditions of uncertain date the soul hovered near the corpse for «three days» after death;4707 one might also think of resurrection or resuscitation in Hos 6:2; Jonah 1:17. But «three days» has so many possible referents4708 that, apart from a retrospective understanding, his opponents within the story world could not catch an allusion to his resurrection. To Johns audience, however, the allusion is clear, intensifying their distaste for the ignorance of Jesus» opponents who lack the critical revelatory knowledge that John s audience possesses.4709

The claim that Jesus would rebuild the temple himself may allude to some messianic hopes,4710 but the attestation for this portrait of a single builder of a new temple is much rarer than attestation for that role for God himself.4711 Jesus» opponents could have heard this claim, like some of his later ones in the Gospel (5:18; 8:58–59; 10:33), as implicitly blasphemous and offensive to their law.4712 At this point, however, they simply misunderstand him (2:20; cf. 3:4). Jesus himself is the foundation of the new temple (cf. comment on 7:37–39), the place for worship (cf. 4:23–24) and revelations (1:51).4713 And with the irony characteristic of this Gospel, their misinterpretation of Jesus proves partly correct: by killing Jesus they would also invite the destruction of Herod's temple (see 11:48).

Whereas Jesus acts in «zeal» for the temple (2:17), his hearers in the story world must assume the opposite. Whereas some sectarian groups felt that the temple was defiled and invited judgment, most Jewish people probably aligned with the perspective of those in power, namely, that the temple was virtually impregnable.4714

Other wise teachers and prophets also were said to offer true sayings that could be understood only in retrospect; thus the ancient reader would recognize Jesus as at least a great teacher or prophet here.4715 At the same time, John means more than this in the context of his whole Gospel: the disciples themselves would not understand Jesus» words apart from the retrospective illumination of the Paraclete (2:22; 14:26).4716 More than likely, their experience remains paradigmatic for the Johannine Christians, who also required further instruction, hence the Fourth Gospe1.4717 The disciples remember both Scripture and Jesus» words (2:22); that both are on the same level, as God's word, fits Johannine theology (3:34; 5:47; 6:63, 68; 8:47; 14:10, 24; 17:8).4718 But as central as Scripture was in understanding Jesus» identity (1:45,49), it was not sufficient apart from the retroactive testimony of Jesus» resurrection (12:16; 20:9; cf. Luke 24:8). John's audience will learn that this retroactive illumination of the disciples derived from the Holy Spirit (14:26).

Untrustworthy Believers (2:23–25)

This brief pericope is transitional, connecting those who respond to Jesus» signs in 2:1–22 with the incomplete faith of Nicodemus in 3:1–10. In 2the disciples responded to Jesus» sign with faith, but 2:23–24 makes clear that signs-faith, unless it progresses to discipleship, is inadequate.4719 Jesus literally did not «believe»4720 those who believed in him.4721 (This wordplay may reflect a rhetorical technique similar to what some rhetorical theorists called diaphora.)4722 Jesus» response was based on his knowledge of their character (2:24–25), which in turn would affect their actions (cf. 3:20–21).4723 By claiming Jesus» knowledge of human character, John again affirms Jesus» deity.

Jewish literature frequently warns against misplaced trust,4724 sometimes, in Hellenistic aristocratic fashion, against trusting the masses.4725 Jewish texts also emphasize God's omniscience, hence that he would not misplace his trust; because he knew Ishmael, God did not choose him, calling Israel instead;4726 likewise God created Abraham because he foreknew what would come from him.4727

It was widely affirmed that God knew all things, including all human hearts. Of course, God was not the sole repository of divine knowledge in ancient traditions. Most acknowledged that sorcerers could derive supernatural knowledge from their spirit-guides;4728 some attributed such abilities to particular philosophers.4729 More to the point, prophets knew some matters supernaturally, including details about some peoplés thoughts;4730 Jesus acts accordingly in the Synoptic tradition (e.g., Mark 2:8; 5:30).4731 Similarly, in some traditions the Messiah would execute judgment in the end time according to supernatural insight.4732 Later Jewish speculation suggested that God lent this ability to Enoch,4733 who became the omniscient Metatron.4734

But no mortal was omniscient about creation or the human heart,4735 as John's audience also must have recognized (1 John 3:20). Ancient Judaism and some Gentiles recognized that only God saw and knew everything,4736 including human thoughts and deeds.4737 God «who knows» or «searches» the heart (Ps 7:9; Jer 17:10) became a familiar title for him in later texts.4738 Long before the first century, Jewish people called God the επίσκοπος (and synonyms), the one who oversees all things,4739 especially concerning human hearts.4740 That God sees yet remains unseen seems to have become a popular saying.4741 In the context of John's Christology elsewhere in the Gospel, he again affirms Jesus» deity here. Jesus» knowledge of human hearts has already appeared in the narrative (1:42, 48) and will continue to appear (5:42; 6:15, 61, 64; 16:19, 30; cf. Rev 2:2).

* * *

4354

For the intensification of conflict, see, e.g., Smith, John (1999), 80–82; this fits the basic plotline of the Synoptics as well (cf., e.g., Kingsbury, «Plot»), though the opponents are now more exclusively Pharisaic.

4355

Cf. Nicholson, Death, 78; Moloney, «Cana»; Brown, John, lxxxxv. The chiastic analysis of the seven signs in Girard, «Composition,» recalculates the signs and stretches the alleged parallels.

4356

Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:934–50.

4357

See, e.g., Johnston, Parables, 593–94.

4358

Esp. Matt 11:19/Luke 7:34; see also Mark 2:15; 14:18; Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1; John 12:2; 13:12.

4359

Against some, this story is far more restrained than fanciful accounts such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Smith, John [1999], 83). Although it is unlikely that John created the sign from Jesus» parable in Mark 2:18–22 (against Dodd, Lindars) or that the parable derives from the sign (against Smalley), this sign is consistent with that parable and may have been an acted parable illustrating the verbal parable recorded in Mark 2:18–22; see Blomberg, «Miracles as Parables,» 334. Stauffer, Jesus, 66, finds in such occasions as this one the grounds for the «drunkard» charge of Matt. 11:19.

4360

So Davis, «Cana.»

4361

Ellis, Genius, 43; Epp, «Wisdom,» 145; Toussaint, «Significance,» 50; Collins, «Cana.»

4362

Bryan, «Halle1.» Cf. Thiering, Hypothesis, 57, despite her eccentric view of a polemic against the Teacher at Qumran here.

4363

Allen, «Church,» 89.

4364

Though cf. Schulze-Kadelbach, «Pneumatologie,» who sees the gift of the Spirit in the transformation sign.

4365

See Keener, «Pneumatology,» 65–69, for the Spirit of purification in Judaism; for the application to 2:1–11, see pp. 130–53.

4366

The reading of Geyser («Semeion,» 20–21), however, is too narrow when he suggests that 2:1–11 is anti-Baptistic (see esp. 3:25–26); the text specifically addresses other Jewish purification rites here and elsewhere in the Gospe1.

4367

Worden, «Feast,» 101; Hanhart, «Structure,» 39; Jeremias, Parables, 118; Michaels, John, 31; cf. Culpepper, Anatomy, 193; Olsson, Structure, 19.

4368

        "Abot 3:16–17; 4:16; b. Ber. 34b; Sanh. 98b; Gen. Rab. 62:2; Exod. Rab. 45:6; 50:5; Lev. Rab. 13:3; Num. Rab. 13:2; Ruth Rab. 5:6; Pesiq. Rab. 41:5,48:3; cf. Marmorstein, Merits, 46, 59,120,135; Bonsirven, Judaism, 244.

4369

The matter is disputed; cf. Smith, «Begetting,» 224. It is understandable that the eschatological triumph would include meals patterned after the meals of the community; this does not need to imply, however, that the regular meals of the community were patterned after the far more rarely mentioned eschatological banquet.

4370

E.g., Priest, «Messiah»; see lQSa (= lQ28a) 2.11–12,19–21.

4371

Jesus» meals in the Synoptic tradition may foreshadow the messianic banquet, as many scholars think (cf., e.g., Becker, «Frohbotschaft»); the Last Supper certainly does (cf. 1Cor 11:26; Mark 14:25).

4372

Joel 3:18; Hos 2:22; Amos 9:13–14; 1 En. 10:19; 2 Bar. 29:5; Sib. Or. 3.622; Papias frg.; Gen. Rab. 51:8; Tg. Qoh. 9:7. In Sib. Or. 3.622 (probably second century B.C.E.) good wine is one of the blessings of the new age, but along with honey, milk, and (623) wheat; see Jeremias, Theology, 106, for other eschatological references. In addition to OT passages about eschatological abundance, Greek beliefs about an everlasting banquet in the Elysian fields may have influenced this idea; cf. Koester, Introduction, 1:161.

4373

Brown, Essays, 99–100, thinks the allusion to Jesus» death (2:4) may hint the Lord's Supper in the passage. Water and wine (the blood of grapes, Gen 49:11; Deut 32:14) could point to 19:34; but then, why does water become wine (one cannot suppose baptism becoming the Eucharist)?

4374

Kysar, Evangelist, 250.

4375

        Sipre Deuteronomy as cited in Patte, Hermeneutic, 26; Ecc1. Rab. 2:3, §1; Song Rab. 6:10, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:5; Pesiq. Rab. 51(though none of these references except Sipre Deuteronomy is Tannaitic). For wine symbolism in antiquity, see Goodenough, Symbols, 12:107–22. Ridderbos, John, 111–12, notes that alleged Sinai allusions in this passage based on the Targumim are dubious.

4376

Blomberg, «Miracles as Parables,» 334, suggests that this was an acted parable with roots in historical tradition (though more scholars think the parable generated the miracle story–Dodd, Lindars–or the reverse–Smalley; citations from ibid.).

4377

Otto, Dionysus, 97–98; Grant, Gods, 65; Broneer, «Corinth,» 86; Boring et a1., Commentary, 248. For acidic waters (wrongly) thought intoxicating, cf. Valerius Maximus 1.8.ext. 18.

4378

Smith, Magician, 25,120; Theissen, Stories, 277; Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 102–3; Grant, Gods, 96; Bultmann, Tradition, 238; idem, John, 118; Martin, Religions, 95 (following Bultmann); Jeremias, Theology, 88; cf. Broer, «Einmal»; contrast Blackburn, «ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,» 192; Blomberg, «Miracles as Parables,» 335; Batey, Imagery, 51–52; Hoskyns, Gospel, 191–92; Derrett, Law, 243–44; Ridderbos, John, 110–11; cf. Lee, Thought, 17; Smith, John (1999), 86–87.

4379

Koester, Symbolism, 81. On the prominence of Dionysus in Ephesus, see Tilborg, Ephesus, 95–98.

4380

        B. Ber. 5b; cf. Haenchen, John, 1:174, who rightly rejects Billerbeck's parallel from Num. Rab. 16 (merchants showing poorer goods first). Bowman, Gospel, 208, connects this miracle with the Jewish prayers for fertility leading up to the feast. In some Jewish stories God still miraculously created food to help his servants (e.g., b. Tacan. 24b-25a in Boring et a1., Commentary, 98).

4381

Cf. b. Šabb. 53b, where an Amora argues that while miracles often happen, the miracle of creation of food is rare.

4382

See Glasson, Moses, 26; Smith, «Typology,» 334–35; cf. Exod 7:19; Jub. 48:5; Rev 8:8; Job's festal wine turned to blood in Tg. Job 2:11; a Stoic mentions a similar portent in Cicero Div. 1.43.98; cf. Virgil Aen. 4.453–463; Valerius Maximus 1.6.ext.l; Liv. Pro. 4.20 (ed.Schermann, §27); cf. esp. the contrast in Josephus Ant. 3.17, 38. John's transformation of Exodus's blood into wine need not imply a sacramental reading, but it may provide a clue that John at least could accept the interchange of blood and wine on a symbolic leve1.

4383

If the relatively isolated Philonic connection between ecstatic inspiration and intoxication (cf. Keener, Spirit, 24–25; Philo Creation 69–71; Drunkenness 146) may be read in here (cf. Acts 2:13; Eph 5:18), the Spirit of prophecy may also lie in the background; but there is no explicit indication that such is in view in our text.

4384

Braun, Jean, 16.

4385

See Brown, John, 1:98; Derrett, Law, 235 n. 2; Mackowski, «Qanah,» 282–83; Riesner, «Fragen.»

4386

Mackowski, «Qanah,» 283; Brown, John, 1:98.

4387

Mackowski, «Qanah,» 282. Although Roman and Byzantine pottery also appear at Kefar-Kenna, these do not seem to include remains from the first Roman period (Loffreda, «Scavi»).

4388

Brown, John, 1:98.

4389

Ibid.

4390

Weddings were normally seven days; cf. Tob 11:19; Jos. Asen. 21(OTP 2:236)/21(Greek); Sipra Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.7; b. Ketub. 8b; p. Meg. 4:4, §3; Ketub. 1:1, §6 (one pericope attributing the tradition to Moses!); probably Judg 14:17; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 28(a seven-day feast for the king's son, to parallel Sukkoth); Lam. Rab. 1:7, §34. The fourteen days of Tob 8:19–20 was apparendy exceptional, a celebration due to Sarás deliverance. Cf. analogously seven days of mourning for the dead (Sir 22:12).

4391

In Greco-Roman custom (suggesting the custom's pervasiveness), there could also be auspicious days for marriage (Hesiod Op. 782–784; Apuleius Metam. 2.12; cf. Plutarch R.Q. 86, Mor. 284F; Virgil Georg. 1.276–286; Ovid Fasti 3.393–394; 6.221–224; for widows and virgins, Ovid Fasti 2.557–560); and in Roman society widows married on a different day of the week than virgins (Plutarch R.Q. 105, Mor. 289A). On inauspicious days in general, see Aulus Gellius 5.17; Ovid Fasti 1.8, 45–48; Plutarch Alc. 34.1; Cam. 19.1; Dionysius Epideictic 3.266–267; Iamblichus V.P. 28.152; b. Pesah. 112b; Šabb. 129b.

4392

M. Ketub. 1:1; b. Ketub. 2a; p. Ketub. 1:1, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:2; thus Brown, John, 1:98, counts backward to make 1before the Sabbath, etc. Manns, «Jour,» cites several rabbinic texts to the effect that the marriage day was changed to the third day; but this was a temporary exception and no doubt irrelevant here. (Although Josephus was a priest, Josephus Life 414 probably reflects the preference for virgins; cf. among Greeks Hesiod Op. 699.)

4393

Michaels, John, 11. Olsson, Structure, 23, suggests that this means the third day after the preceding sequence of days in ch. 1, which is a plausible way to read the text.

4394

Kirby, Ephesians, 152–53.

4395

Bruns, Art, 25; Carson, John, 168 (suggesting a Sabbath image; but Jewish readers would not envision a wedding then!); Hambly, «Creation,» 70–71; Barosse, «Days,» esp. 508–14; the last two with profoundly imaginative allegorical exegesis.

4396

Glasson, Moses, 71; this has much more to commend it than the previous suggestion.

4397

Grassi, «Wedding.» Manns, «Traditions,» cites a Jewish tradition linking the gift of Torah with Israel's death and resurrection. Moloney, Belief, 58, finds an allusion to four days of preparation preceding the final three days before the revelation on Sinai (using Mek. on Exod 19:1–10). Contrast van der Waal, «Gospel,» 34, who finds Pesach connections instead.

4398

Pentecost was linked with covenant renewal this early (Jub. 6:17; L.A.B. 11[on Exod 19:1]; cf. Flusser, Judaism, 48; Dunn, Baptism, 48), but the giving of Torah is less certain (Safrai, «Temple,» 893; cf. Noack, «Pentecost,» 89; Sleeper, «Pentecost,» 390; Cocchini, «Evoluzione»; Charnov, «Shavuot»; contrast Weinfeld, «Pentecost»). Although the link remains possible, some commentators on Acts 2 have not taken sufficient account of the rabbinic tradition's dating (cf. Exod. Rab. 31:16; Dupont, Salvation, 35; Zehnle, Discourse, 62; Dunn, Baptism; Harrelson, Cult, 25; Le Déaut, «Shavúot»; for a balanced appraisal, see Isaacs, Spirit, 130–31).

4399

If anything, the primary link, as in 7:37–39, is with Sukkoth and an emphasis on the Spirit «dwelling» among believers.

4400

In Gen. Rab. 56:1, the third day may refer to resurrection (Hos 6:2), the revelation (Exod 19:16), Jonah (Jonah 2:1), the time of return from exile (Ezra 8:32), or Abraham's merit (Gen 22:4) (third-century Palestinian Amora, R. Levi).

4402

Also Carson, John, 167, though he simultaneously draws new creation parallels (p. 168).

4403

Elsewhere, e.g., Ovid Fasti 2.475.

4404

E.g., Brodie, Gospel, 131. Culpepper, Anatomy, 193, looks for eucharistic overtones here.

4405

Isaeus Estate of Pyrrhus 79; Estate of Ciron 9, 20. On wedding customs, see Keener, «Marriage,» 685–86; wedding feasts, e.g., in Xenophon Eph. 1.8; 3.5; Philostratus Hrk. 54.8; Matt 22:2; Rev 19:9.

4406

ÓRourke, «Law,» 181. But even in Roman weddings the mother decked the bride out, and the bride separated her toys for childhood deities (Friedländer, Life, 1:234); such frugality as Lucan C.W. 2.352–353 recounts is exceptiona1. Roman weddings were also joyous celebrations (Appian R.H. 3.4.7).

4407

E.g., Jer 33:11; John 3:29; Rev 19:7; Mark 2:19; b. Ber. 6b; p. Péah 1:1, §15; especially emphasized in contexts contrasting it with its social antithesis, mourning, especially for a death (1Macc 1:27; 9:39–41; 3Macc 4:6; Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; Joel 2:16; Rev 18:23; Josephus War 6.301; Lev. Rab. 20:3; Ecc1. Rab. 2:2, §4). Unfortunately, some Amoraim apparently got too merry at weddings (b. Ber. 30b-31a).

4408

Cf. Matt 11/ Luke 7:32; for banquets in general, see Sir 35:3–4; cf. Homer Od. 1.153–155, 325–326; 4.17–19; 9.3–6; 17.270–271; Xenophon Symp. 2.1, 11–12; Plutarch Γ.Τ. 1.1.5, Mor. 614F-615A.

4409

Cf. Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.205.

4410

        "Abot R. Nat. 4 A; 8, §22 B; cf. also b. Ketub. 17a, in Safrai, «Home,» 758, and Urbach, Sages, 1:608.

4411

        P. Ketub. 1:1, §6.

4412

E.g., b. Sukkah 25b; p. Sukkah 2:5, §1.

4413

        T. Ber. 2:10.

4414

Even Romans would honor one who placed the demands of religious rituals above affection for onés family, though this may be because of their emphasis on duty to the state (Valerius Maximus 1.1.10; cf. Deut 13:6–10).

4415

E.g., "Abot R. Nat. 8, §23 B; b. B. Bat. 75a; Gen. Rab. 8:13; 18:1; Ecc1. Rab. 8:1, §2.

4416

E.g., t. Ber. 2:10; 4Q545 line 6; Brown, John, 1:97–98, cites Judg 14:12; Tob 11:19. Feasting during the night of the wedding itself may have been the most significant; cf. Eickelman, Middle East, 174, on traditional Middle Eastern weddings (Catullus 61.112, 192–193, insists that Roman weddings must be consummated on the first day).

4417

Safrai, «Home,» 760, citing especially t. Ber. 2:10, which emphasizes the participation of the shoshbinin (see on John 3:29) and the participating guests, the «sons of the wedding-canopy» (bene chuppah). Thus Haenchen, John, 1:174, is mistaken in denying that anyone would know the wine was different on the assumption that all guests were coming and going.

4418

Safrai, «Home,» 760, citing b. Ketub. 7b-8a. The bride would spend her first Passover (John 2:13), however, with her parents (Safrai, «Home,» 760, citing m. Pesah. 8:1; cf. m. Ketub. 7:4).

4419

E.g., Chariton 3.2.10; Menander Rhetor 2.6, 404.17 (perhaps hyperbolically); cf. Matt 22:3–10; Luke 14:21; Diodorus Siculus 16.91.4; 16.92.1; stele in Sherk, Empire, 33.

4420

E.g., the splendid and costly wedding of Josephus Ant. 13.18–21 (marred by a massacre); Phaedrus 1.6.1. For wedding invitations, see, e.g., P.Oxy. 1487; cf. similarly invitations to other banquets, P.Oxy. 112; 1214; 1485; 2147. An ideal banquet setting might prefer nine or less people (Aulus Gellius 13.11.2–3), but this was irrelevant for weddings.

4421

Alciphron Farmers 15 (Eustachys to Pithacnion), 3.18, par. 1.

4422

E.g., Phaedrus 4.26.17–19; nonattendance was offensive (cf. Xenophon Symp. 1.7; Callimachus Hymns 6, to Demeter; Cicero Fam. 16.9.3; other sources in Keener, Matthew, 519–20).

4423

Since both Jesus and his mother were invited, Calvin, John, 1(on John 2:1) thinks they were probably near relatives.

4424

E.g., b. Ketub. 17b; Ecc1. Rab. 1:3, §1; orators could offer speeches at weddings (Menander Rhetor 2.6, 399.11–405.13). It was praiseworthy to extend hospitality «to sages and their disciples» (Sipre Deut. 1.10.1), and second-century sages apparently felt that they should rank their disciples» seating at banquets (t. Sanh. 7:9); John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 21 (on 1:49–2:4) thinks Jesus was already becoming well known in Galilee, though he was invited on a par with other guests. Invitations were probably sent in writing by messengers if we may judge from the extant evidence; see Kim, «Invitation.»

4425

So Xenophon Symp. 1.7; Socrates» companions often accompanied him (Xenophon Mem. 4.2.8).

4426

Cf. also Toussaint, «Significance,» 47; whereas many stressed moderation (Xenophon Symp. 2.24–26; Seneca Dia1. 9.17.9; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.11.591), few except neo-Pythagoreans demanded total abstinence (Barth, Ephesians, 2:581; Iamblichus V.P. 3.13; 16.68; 21.97; 24.106–107; 31.188; 32.226, though cf. 21.98; cf. also Tatian frg. 10, in ANF 2:82–83). Rabbis understood fruit «juice» in Torah as wine unless it was more specifically designated (p. Ned. 7:1, §6).

4427

Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 95.

4428

Ibid., 94. Wine could, however, be stored and aged (e.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 114.26).

4429

Ferguson, Backgrounds, 80; cf. Plutarch Bride 20, Mor. 140F; Philostratus Hrk. 1.6; Sipra Sh. par. 1.100.1.3; b. cAbod. Zar. 30a; Num. Rab. 10:8; Casson, Travel, 213; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 95; Ruck, «Mystery,» 41; Safrai, «Home,» 742,748 (citing m. Nid. 2:2; b. Šabb. 77a); Neusner, Beginning, 23; see especially various mixtures in Athenaeus Deipn. 10.426CE, 430A. Wine was supposed to be sold unmixed (Martial Epigr. 1.56; 9.98; cf. Theophrastus Char. 30.5; but one said blessings over either mixed or unmixed, t. Ber. 4:3); water, of course, was normally cheaper (Martial Epigr. 3.56; Horace Sat. 1. 5.88–89). Different kinds of wines existed (e.g., b. cAbod. Zar. 30a; Paul, «Wine»), such as «white wine» (Longus 1.16); for commerce in wine, cf., e.g., Tchernia, «Wine» (on Roman wine in Gaul).

4430

Apollonius of Rhodes 1.473; Diogenes Laertius 7.7.184; 10.1.15; Apuleius Metam. 7.12; Plutarch Poetry 1, Mor. 15E; T.T. 1.4.3, Mor. 62ICD; Diodorus Siculus 4.4.6; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.10.588; Athenaeus Deipn. 10.427AB, 432A; cf. Wasson, Hofmann, Ruck, Eleusis, 90. Though one might devote undiluted wine to Dionysus, one might dilute wine dedicated to Zeus (as in Diodorus Siculus 4.3.4).

4431

Plutarch Alex. 70.1; 75.3–4; less disastrously, Alciphron Farmers 30 (Scopiades to Cotion), 3.32; cf. Isa 5:22.

4432

Ferguson, Backgrounds, 80; cf. Catullus 27; Athenaeus Deipn. 14.653E.

4433

Ruck, «Mystery,» 42; Wasson, Hofmann, Ruck, Eleusis, 89.

4434

Eccl 10:17; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.195,204; Sipra Sh. par. 1.100.1.3; see more fully Keener, Paul, 261–63.

4435

Those who became obnoxiously drunk were expelled (Sipre Deut. 43.8.1).

4436

E.g., Demosthenes 2 Olynthiac 18–19; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 83, passim; Aulus Gellius 15.2.4–5.

4437

        P Ha1. 1.193–195; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.473; Menander maxims 2, 5 in Sei. Pap. 3:260–61; Demosthenes Against Conon 7; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 83.19–20; Plutarch Isis 6, Mor. 353C; Statecraft 3, Mor. 799B; T.T. 3, introduction, Mor. 645A; Sextus Empiricus Pyr. 1.109; Anacharsis Ep. 3.1–3; Crates Ep. 10; Chariton 4.3.8; Phaedrus 4.16; cf. L.A.B. 43:6. For further references, see Keener, Paul, 261–63.

4438

See, e.g., Euripides Cyc1. 488–494,678; Isocrates Demon. 32; Horace Sat. 1.3.90–91; Polybius II. 3; Livy 33.28.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.11.3; Diodorus Siculus 15.74.2; Athenaeus Deipn. 1.10e; cf. 1 Esd 3:17–24; Jdt 13:15; Josephus Life 225, 338.

4439

Elsewhere in the NT μεθύσκω implies excess (Luke 12:45; Eph 5:18; 1 Thess 5:7); cf. likewise the cognate μεθύω in Matt 24:49; Acts 2:15; 1Cor 11:21; 1 Thess 5:7; Rev 17:2,6. In the LXX the term can imply satiety (e.g., Gen 43:34; Song 5:1) but generally implies drunkenness, even without explicit qualification (e.g., Gen 9:21; Deut 32:42; 1Sam 1:13–14; 25:36; 2Sam 11:13; Job 12:25).

4440

Alciphron Farmers 15 (Eustachys to Pithacnion), 3.18, par. 2, also emphasizing that they would sing and dance a lot. Cf. Athenaeus Deipn. 9.377AB.

4441

On varieties of wine (including some made without vines), see Pliny Nat. 14.6.53–14.22.118. Egyptian social clubs employed plenty of wine (P.Tebt. 118).

4442

In ancient Israel, see esp. Cohen, «Viticulture.»

4443

See Strange, «Galilee,» 394.

4444

E.g., t. Ber. 3:8; b. B. Qam. 69b (R. Meir); Pesah. 102a, bar.; Šabb. 23b; cf. perhaps Jub. 2:21. For regular blessings of wine at meals, cf. b. Ber. 33a; 51a; in much earlier Qumran texts, cf. firstfruits in 1QS 6.4–5.

4445

In general, see Safrai, «Home,» 747; Let. Arts. 274; among Greeks, see Menander Rhetor 2.7, 408.32–409.1.

4446

Homer Od. 18.304–305; Euripides Herac1. 892–893; Babrius 80.1–2; L.A.B. 51:7; p. Hag. 2:1, §9; Ecc1. Rab. 10:19, §1; Luke 15:25. In religious celebrations, see the discussion of dancing at Sukkoth under John 8:12–20.

4447

Cf. Jer 31:13; b. Ketub. 17a; Jeremias, Parables, 161.

4448

        B. Tacan. 24a, a later story concerning a contemporary of R. Judah ha-Nasi. It was understood that cultural rules on how to drink wine varied regionally (Esth. Rab. 2:13).

4449

As the prototype of all who were from above, Jesus is perhaps the first «born from above,» i.e., from God (see comment on 3:3); but John in no way tones down the reality of Jesus» physical incarnation (1:14) through a human mother (also 2:12; 19:26). (Zumstein, «Croix,» in fact, thinks the mention of Jesus» mother emphasizes Jesus» incarnation; Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 8.6.2–8.9.4 argued this against the Manichaeans.)

4450

See Martin, «Epithet.» Beck, Paradigm, 17–26, argues that Greco-Roman literature rarely leaves important characters anonymous; but in Hebrew texts, see the women of 1 Kgs 17:9–24; 2 Kgs 4.

4451

See Beck, Paradigm, 132–36, though we would not accept all examples (e.g., the man in John 5; further, we accept some named characters, such as John the Baptist, as positive models). Beck, Paradigm, 53, sees the two most important characters in 2:1–4as women.

4452

Cf., e.g., Luke 14:12; Martial Epigr. 3.27; 3.37; 5.47; Chariton 2.7.4; probably Ps.-Phoc. 152 (see note i in OTP 2:579); dining invitations indicated status (e.g., Martial Epigr. 5.47; Ecc1. Rab. 1:3, §1), and social obligations could easily become overly demanding (e.g., Seneca Dia1. 10.14.3). Cf. Judge, Rank, 26; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 63–64; esp. Derrett, Audience, 43.

4453

Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 70.

4454

Cf. Derrett, Law, 237–38. On the importance of wedding gifts, see, e.g., Pindar Pyth. 3.94–95; Theophrastus Char. 30.18–19.

4455

This does not work in Hebrew (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:29) or Greek (e.g., Mark 1:5; Luke 8:22; Acts 22:5), and John's own style tells against making a case from it (2:12; 3:22; 6:24).

4456

        T. Sanh. 7:9, R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok, ruling on what should be normative practice.

4457

The wedding in Tob 9:19–20 was thrown by the bridés father because Tobias was far from home; but their marital dwelling then became patriloca1. The groom's family was normally responsible (Safrai, «Home,» 760, citing m. Ker. 3:7; Sipre Deut. 107).

4458

At any rate, Seneca regards as self-evident that social tact includes giving someone a gift when that person needs it (Benef. 1.12.3), and some others may have shared his view.

4459

In later times, wine was actually necessary for the Sabbath Kiddush and other festivities: b. Pesah. 102a, bar.; purportedly Tannaitic tradition in B. Qam. 69b; Šabb. 23b; Tacan. 24a; cf. t. Ber. 3:8; Safrai, «Home,» 747.

4460

Safrai, «Home,» 759, citing b. Ketub. 7b-8a; cf. m. Ber. 1(where guests return from a wedding feast between midnight and dawn).

4461

Cf. Theophrastus Char. 13.4.

4462

        T. Šabb. 17:4. Perhaps there is an implicit contrast between the original host of John 2and the host (Jesus) of 6:13, since in both cases Jesus must multiply the resources available to sustain a crowd.

4463

For other references, see Safrai, «Home,» 760.

4464

Trans. Neusner, 4:38.

4465

Derrett, Law, 235: the women, nearer the domestic quarters, could have learned of the situation before the men in the dining area. Hellenistic banquets with ample facilities typically separated women from men (e.g., Cicero Verr. 2.1.26.66–69; Cornelius Nepos pref.6–7; Mark 6:24), as did homes large enough to have separate quarters (in Hellenistic architecture, Xenophon Oec. 9.5; Lysias Or. 3.6, §97; Heliodorus Aeth. 5.34; 6.1). Like the waterpots (2:6) she was εκεΐ (2:1), though not just as a prop (cf. Ashton, Understanding, 268).

4466

Safrai, «Home,» 759. Women may have drunk wine less than men (see Safrai, «Home,» 747). In much of ancient Mediterranean culture wives did not accompany husbands to banquets (Isaeus Estate of Pyrrhus 13–14), or at least to the male areas.

4467

Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 69, suggest some of the pots may «have been borrowed from neighbors» for the wedding. But these were for purification (2:6), presumably for Passover (2:13); a bride would wash before a wedding (Eph 5:26; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 54–55), but she would hardly need six pots! (Nor would guests for ritual handwashing before taking wine–p. Ber. 6:6.)

4468

Cf. Datâmes» mother in Cornelius Nepos 14 (Datâmes), 2.4–5.

4469

Jacob in Gen 32:26–30; Moses in Exod 33:12–34:9; the Shunammite woman in 2 Kgs 4:14–28; Elisha in 2 Kgs 2:2, 4, 6, 9; and Elijah in 1 Kgs 18:36–37, 41–46 are cases in point. Mayer, «Elijah,» finds Elijah/Elisha imagery in this passage.

4470

Mark 5:27–34 (in light of the fact that it was ritually forbidden for her to touch the teacher, Lev 15:25–27); 7:24–30; 10:46–52; Matt 8:7–13 (taking v. 7 as a question) are cases in point; on insistent faith, cf. also ÓDay, «Faith.» Jesus» teachings on «obnoxious» persistence in prayer fit this image as well: e.g., Luke 11:5–13 (though αναίδεια is, as Bailey and others have pointed out, related to shame and not to persistence, the idea of boldness in prayer is still present); 18:2–14. Examples of wise chutzpah could be multiplied in Cynic stories; e.g., Diogenes in Diogenes Laertius 6.2.34. Whitacre, Polemic, 84, points out that like the first disciples of ch. 1, she takes the initiative, but allows Jesus to dictate what will be done after that point (2:5).

4471

        Pesiq. Rab Kah. 22:2 (trans. Braude and Kapstein).

4472

So nicknamed for his refusal to step outside a circle until God sent rain; such circle-drawing implied forceful demands (e.g., Livy 45.12.5).

4473

Young, Theologian, 171–80, associates rabbinic chutzpah with the Gospel tradition in further detai1. Independently, I thought «chutzpah» the most apt description of this boldness (Keener, «Pneumatology,» 138–39; idem, Background Commentary, 154).

4474

Cf., e.g., P.Oxy. 261.12–13 (55 C.E.), «on account of her female weakness.»

4475

Luke 18:2–5; 2Sam 14:1–21; 20:16–22; 1 Kgs 1:11–16; 2:17; Matt 20(particularly relevant here on the traditional view of the Fourth Gospel's authorship); Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 134.

4476

Dixon, Mother, 179; Simon, «Women» (on Valerius Maximus 8.3); cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 8.44.1–8.54.1; Tacitus Ann. 16.10; Plutarch Cor. 34.1–2; Alex. 12.3; 21.1–3. Cf. also appeals to prefects with special concern for women's powerlesness (e.g., P.Sakaon 36 in Horsley, Documents, 4:132–33; Lysias Or. 32.11–18, §§506–511).

4477

Plutarch Alex. 39.7. For ancient expectations of honoring and obeying parents and for stereotypical images of parents, see Keener, «Family,» 354–58.

4478

Diogenes Laertius 9.7.42 (the differentiation from κόρη does not make it any less standard for general usage); Achilles Tatius 4.15.2; Jdt 11(Holofernes to Judith); cf. 4 Macc 15:17; 16:14; p. Nid. 1:4, §2.

4479

E.g., Haenchen, John, 1:173; Beck, Paradigm, 55. In earlier custom, it could apply affectionately to onés wife (Homer Od. 4.266; 8.424; 23.350; cf. perhaps Homer Od. 19.555, though Odysseus here acts as a beggar) but could also be curt (Sophocles Ajax 293). Colwell and Titus, Spirit, 113, wrongly suppose that she is no longer Jesus» mother because of his adoption by God in ch. 1, but this makes little sense of our passagés preference for her relational title over her name.

4480

Maccini, Testimony, 101 notes that Jesus never uses this of a woman he knows except his mother; but the data pool is small, since the only remaining use in this Gospel is the Samaritan.

4481

E.g., Sei. Pap. 1:318–19, lines 2, 21. For onés sister (probably wife), see P.Oxy. 528.2; P.S.I. 209.1.

4482

E.g., P.Oxy. 112.1,3, 7.

4483

Brown, John, 1:99.

4484

Hanhart, «Structure,» 41 (repudiating her); Worden, «Feast,» 104 (in a more positive sense).

4485

Hoskyns, «Genesis,» 211–12; Peretto, «Maria»; cf. Brown, John, 1:107, who also sees connections with Rev 12; Gen 3:15.

4486

Feuillet, Studies, 35; Brodie, Gospel, 174–75. Culpepper, Anatomy, 134, regards this as possible but uncertain. Bury, Logos-Doctrine, 32, thinks the woman is an allegorical symbol for sensation, as in Philo (Creation 59; Alleg. Interp. 2.12)!

4487

See Carson, John, 168.

4488

E.g., Sir 3:7–8; Syr. Men. 9–10,20–24,94–98; Ps.-Phoc. 8,180; Let. Arts. 228,238; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.206; Philo Drunkenness 17; Spec. Laws 2.234–236; Good Person 87; Sib. Or. 1.74–75; Jub. 7:20; 35:1–6,11–13; T.Ab. 5:3B; Mek. Pisha 1.28; Bah. 8.28–32; Sipre Deut. 81.4.1–2; b. Sanh. 66a, bar.

4489

E.g., Sei. Pap. 3:260–61 (Menander maxims 4); Hierocles Parents 4.25.53; Love 4.27.20 (Malherbe, Exhortation, 91–94); Hesiod Op. 182–185, 331–332; Isocrates Demon. 14, 16, Or. 1; Publilius Syrus 8; Cato Dist. 3.24; Col1. dist. 2; Cicero Amtc. 8.27; Appian R.H. 3.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 8.53.1; Diogenes Laertius 1.37, 60; 6.2.65; 7.1.120; 8.1.22–23; 10.1.9; Epictetus Diatr. 3.11.5; Eunapius Lives 461; Isis aretalogies in Horsley, Documents, 1:11, 17, 20; see further Keener, Marries, 197 n.107.

4490

Salvoni, «Hour,» 237; Whitacre, Polemic, 85; Bultmann, John, 116–17; Morris, John, 180. The allegorization of this as an exorcism and offer to Israel (Hanhart, «Structure,» 41 ) is purely fancifu1.

4491

Mark 3:34–35; see Witherington, Women, 81; Brown, «Mother,» 310.

4492

Haenchen, John, 1:173; 2:3; Barrett, John, 191; Michaels, John, 30–31.

4493

Maccini, Testimony, 108–9.

4494

Cf. Seckel, «Mère»; MacDonald, «Mother»; as a practical model for African Christians, see Luzitu, «Mariological Interpretation.»

4495

Cf. Maccini, Testimony, 113–14; see below on Jesus» «hour.»

4496

Whitacre, John, 78, also compares the testing of the first disciples (1:38), though I might be inclined to explain that case more in terms of ancient social obligations.

4497

Augustine Ep. 243 to Laetus; cf. also On Virginity 3; Tract. Ev. Jo. 10.3.2 (Oden and Hall, Mark, 48–49); likewise John Chrystostom Hom. Jo. 21 (on John 1:49–2:4).

4498

Salvoni, «Hour,» 236, lists 14 different passages, including in NT exorcisms, that indicate an opposition between two speakers; cf. Derrett, Law, 239–42 (who thinks, however, that she did not expect a miracle but some other help). Brown, John, 1:99, and Ellis, Genius, 42, cite 2 Kgs 3to demonstrate that rebuke is not necessarily implied, but 2 Kgs 3in context certainly implies disrespect; Brown's citation (John, 1:99) of Hos 14is even more unfortunate. Fenton, John, 48, may be correct in noting that sometimes it simply is used for refusal of a request or command, although all the passages he cites also imply some hostility, and Jesus does not ultimately refuse this command.

4499

Cf. Epictetus Diatr. 2.19.16; 20.11 (τί γάρ σοί και ήμΐν); Martial Epigr. 1.76.11–12; cf. Olsson, Structure, 36.

4500

Witherington, Women, 84; Whitacre, Polemic, 84–85; Westcott, John, 36–37.

4501

Witherington, Women, 84. Familial tension was known among men and women of God in OT tradition: 1Sam 17:29; 20:34; 25:26; perhaps Num 12:2.

4502

Olsson, Structure, 39, comparing 4:47ff., 11:3–4, 3:2–3.

4503

Cf. Whitacre, Polemic, 84–85, who rightly regards Jesus» response here as a cryptic saying that tests his mother, fitting the misunderstanding motif of this Gospe1. Ancients could follow the story line: Coriolanus acceded to his mother's request, knowing full well it would cost him his life (Plutarch Cor. 34.2; 36.4).

4504

«Beginning» may also suggest a new creation (cf. 1:1–2; 8:44; Gen 1:1; Wis 14:13; cf. the differently worded predestinarian concept in Tob 6:17), but the language is natural enough for the beginning of a particular period in question (e.g., Gen 10:10; Sir 51:20; £ Ab. 15:14A; 4:13B). That period may also be salvifically significant, referring to the beginning of God's work among his people (Pss. So1. 8:31–32; 17:30).

4505

Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 68, following Giblin, «Suggestion,» citing 2:1–14; 4:46–5:1,18; 7:2–10; 11:1–8 (though the conflict does not stem from the compliance in every instance).

4506

On the last, cf. Matthew's manner of describing healings taking place «that very hour» (Matt 8:13; 9:22; 15:28; 17:18; cf. Luke 7:21; Acts 16:18; 22:13); no less frequent chronological markers in comparable works may suggest that John's are intended primarily literally rather than symbolically.

4507

So Vanhoye, «Interrogation»; Michl, «Bemerkungen,» reading it as a question.

4508

Brown, John, 1:99, on the basis of John's uses of ούπω. Salvoni, «Hour,» 240, reads οΰπω as «nevertheless.»

4509

Cullmann, Time, 44; Salvoni, «Hour,» 237–38; Braun, Jean, 17; Feuillet, Studies, 31 (some including his subsequent exaltation). Holwerda, Spirit, 7 n. 16, does not think Jesus» death is in view in this use of «hour»; Derrett, Law, 242–43, thinks that the «appropriate» time, i.e., when guests are too drunk to notice the miracle, is what is meant.

4510

Cf. 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:21, 32; 17:1.

4511

Cf. Lucan C.W. 1.73, on the final hora («hour,» «season») in which the world will dissolve.

4512

Cooper, «Wine,» 369–70; Worden, «Feast,» 103.

4513

Cf. Judas Maccabeus in 1Macc 9:10, «if our time (καιρός) has come, let us also die in a manly way for the sake of our brothers» (my trans.)

4514

E.g., Homer /. 15.612–614; 16.441; Xenophon Mem. 4.8.6; Appian C.W. 2.16.116; Silius Italicus 3.134–135. This includes the specific language of «time» (Virgil Aen. 10.503; 11.470; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 69.6) and «day» (Euripides Ale. 24–27, 105, 147; Virgil Aen. 12.150; Phaedrus 4.11.8; Appian C.W. 2.21.149; Apol1. Κ. Tyre 29). It also could apply to the «hour» of marriage in a marital context (Catullus 62.30); could its application to time of a miracle (Eunapius Lives 549, in Boring et a1., Commentary, 250; cf. also Philostratus Hrk. 3.2, 5 in Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxvii-xxix) derive from the present story?

4515

E.g., Diodorus Siculus 15.74.3–4; Babrius 136. Cf. 1 Kgs 22:30–38; also Josephus's comments (cf. Begg, «Ahab»). But for some a «natural» death was one by nature and Fate without human violence (Aulus Gellius 13.1.5–8).

4516

Virgil Aen. 7.314–315.

4517

Homer Il. 16.91–96,684–688; 1Sam 2:25.

4518

See, e.g., Apuleius Metam. 11.12,15,25; cf. Tarn, Civilisation, 351–54.

4519

LCL trans. Stoics advised focusing not on the time of death, which we cannot control, but on onés manner of life (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 93.7); Socrates faced his time bravely (Xenophon Mem. 4.8.6); see further comment on John 12:27–30.

4520

E.g., Homer Od. 2.163–166; Euripides Medea 116–118; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.78–85; 2.65–66; Virgil Aen. 10.471–472. In the end, this sometimes increased suspense by increasing dramatic anticipation. On Fate as a plot-moving device, see Aune, Environment, 131,134; another deity in Chariton 1.1.3.

4521

E.g., Homer /. 2.694; Od. 21.96–100.

4522

Independently noted by Suggit, «Nicodemus,» 92–93; noted and questioned as unclear (admittedly true) by Hanson, Gospel, 42–43. Cf. 1Macc 13:9: πάντα όσα αν είπης ήμίν, ποιήσομεν, the people addressing Simon Maccabeus; T. Ab. 4:7A: και ότι έάν λεγη σοι, τούτο και ποίει, God instructing Michael to heed Abraham's words (also 12:5B, in a different context).

4523

Whitacre, John, 78.

4524

Cf. Jesus» «double bind» in Tilborg, Love, 7. The demands of his relationship with her would put his honor at stake (cf. Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 69).

4525

Cf.Seckel, «Mère.»

4526

The term recurs in 4:28, where Jesus replaces the water of Jacob's wel1. 4is significant for the use of the term, probably alluding to Gen 24:14–46, which accounts for over half of the term's occurrences of υδρία in the LXX.

4527

O1sson, Structure, 105, less reasonably supposes possible allusions to purification at Sinai.

4528

Thirteen of twenty-one uses in the LXX refer to the tablets of the law; two refer to God removing the stony heart from his people (Ezek 11:19; 36:26; cf. 2Cor 3:3).

4529

Reich, «Jars»; Safrai, «Home,» 741; Avigad, «Flourishing,» 59; idem, Jerusalem, 183; cf. Schwank, «Wasserkrüge»; Magen, «Yrwslym»; Gal, «T'syyt.» Many commentators have pointed to this reason for stoneware here, e.g., Schnackenburg, John, 1:332; Brown, John, 1:100; cf. Westcott, John, 37. Olsson, Structure, 48, objects that «stone ware» was usually made of hard clay.

4530

T. Miqw. 5(allowing up to three logs, as with drawn water); Sipra VDDen. pq. 6.9.7.2; b. Hu1. 25b; p. Máas. 5:5; cf. Sipra Sh. par. 9.118.1.4; p. cAbod. Zar. 5:11, §1; Ter. 8:5; Safrai, «Home,» 740.

4531

In a different connection (a widow of a priest marrying a nonlevitic rabbi) one asks if it is appropriate for a vessel once consecrated for holy purposes to be used for ordinary ones (p. Šabb. 10:5, §1, purportedly early third century; also in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 11:24).

4532

E.g., Terence Lady of Andros 362–365.

4533

So at least the son hopes, in Terence Lady of Andros 450–458. Seneca Ep. Luci1. 95.41 condemns the resources lavished wastefully on banquets.

4534

Greek orators heightened the pressure of honor on young grooms (esp. urging them not to «disgrace» the wedding preparations by failing sexually–Menander Rhetor, 2.7, 406.1–4, 8–11, 30–31); some might also regard a problem at a wedding as a negative portent of the marriagés success (cf. Valerius Maximus 2.1.1, though this is early pagan Rome). Williams, «Mother,» finds here Jesus» mother brokering a favor from him to save the honor of the groom's family (which ends up bringing Jesus honor as well).

4535

Stanton, Gospel Truth, 116. Waterpots here might suggest a priestly family (perhaps even a relative; cf. Luke 1:5, 36).

4536

M. Ter. 5:6; "Ed. 1:3, 7:3–4; Miqw. 2:3ff., 3:1–4, 4:1–5, 5:1–6; t. Miqw. 2; Sipra Sh. par. 9.118.1.1; b. Šabb. 16b, 65a, 144b; Pesah. 17b, 34b; Besah 18; Git. 16a; B.A. 66a; Mak. 4a; Bek. 55b; p. Ter. 4:12,5:7; cf. CD 10.12 (11.1–2, for Sabbath, as in jub. 2:29);Kotlar, «Mikveh,» 1536–37. Hillel argued for one hin of drawn water, Shammai for nine kabs, and the Sages for three logs (m. cEd. 1:3, t. cEd. 1:3, etc.). R. Eleazar b. R. Yose suggests that even Samaritans follow this practice (p. cAbod. Zar. 5:4, §3). Water should also not be stagnant from disuse, in p. Ter. 1(purportedly Tannaitic).

4537

Cf. m. Ber. 3:5; for degrees of impurity by the percentage of pure water, as noted in the previous note, see esp. p. Ter. 5:6; cf. Ecc1. Rab. 4:17, §1.

4538

Besides the note on the design of mikvaot above, see esp. Avigad, Jerusalem, 139; Pearlman, Zealots, 180–81; Yadin, Masada, 166; Hachlili and Killebrew, «Saga,» 44,46.

4539

Neusner, Beginning, 24–25. Variations within upper-city Jerusalem mikvaot were between those that met the minimal requirements and those that exceeded them (Avigad, Jerusalem, 142).

4540

The use of the water in the synagogues of Arsinoe, 113 C.E., may not be for mikvaot, but since they each pay about twice as much as the local baths for their water pumped in, their great consumption is probably more than a reflection of mere hospitality or boarding houses; see CPJ 2:220–24, §432.

4541

Masada is in an area that currently receives less than 5 inches (100 mm.) of rainfall annually (May, Atlas, 51), but interestingly enough for our treatment of Cana, below, the probable site of Cana receives 20–25 inches (500–600 mm.).

4542

Scholars often suggest that «drawn» water presumably implies a well or spring here, as usually in the LXX and NT (Olsson, Structure, 55); e.g., John 4:7, 11, 15 (4:7, 15 employ άντλέω as in 2:8–9); Γ. Ab. 3:7Α (άντλησον ΰδωρ άπό του φρέατος). This may be the source from which the pots are «filled» (John 2:7), but there is no indication in 2that the servants «draw» water from another source than the pots (unless Jesus simply provides purificatory water before transforming the rest of the well); if the term is unnatural for «drawing» from pots, it may suggest a symbolic allusion (Isa 12:3) or refer forward to 4:7,15 (hence backward to Gen 24:13, 20; Exod 2:16–19).

4543

Schwarz, «ΜΕΤΡΗΤΑΣ.»

4544

Villescas, «Jars»; Toussaint, «Significance,» 49; Schnackenburg, John, 1n. 25; Bultmann, John, 117 n. 3; Brown, John, 1:100; Hunter, John, 31.

4545

Some mikvaot would have more than the prescribed amount, which was only a minimum; see Avigad, Jerusalem, 139.

4546

Forty séahs was the required minimum: m. Miqw. 2:1–2, 7:6–7; t. Ber. 2:12; Sipra VDDen. pq. 6.9.7.1; Sipra Sh. par. 9.118.1.1; Sipra Zabim pq.6.158.2.1–2; b. Ber. 22ab; Qidd. 66b, 79a; cErub. 35b (purportedly Tanmaitic); Pesah. 109; Yoma 31; Zebah. 22a; Hu1. 31a; p. Hag. 2:5, §3; Yadin, Masada, 166. The important halakic point was that the water covered the entire body; m. Miqw. 9:1–4; Sipra Zabim pq. 6.158.2.1–2,3.5; b. Hu1. 10a, 106b; Qidd. 25a; cf. m. Tehar. 8(the whole immersion of objects); CD 10.10–11; Kotlar, «Mikveh,» 588. The tradition from one Amora that the Law weighed 40 séahs (p. Tacan. 4:5, §1) could be a play on the idea of purification, but given the fact that this is also the weight of pigeons for sacrifice in p. Tacan. 4:5, §13, this is unlikely.

4547

Calvin, John, 1(on John 2:6), calculated that it was enough wine for a banquet of up to 150 men, and a clear enough miracle that those who knew about the lack of wine (servants, disciples, and Jesus» mother) would know it was a miracle.

4548

Augustine Jr. Ev. Jo. 9.6.1–3.

4549

Lee, Thought, 17; Roth, «Vessels.» Gamble, «Philosophy,» 51–52, regards the amount as a historical reminiscence.

4550

Safrai, «Religion,» 830, citing Sipra Sh. 8; Sipra Mezora Zabim 6; m. Miqwáot. The first-century houses debate in m. Ber. 8presupposes a restricted form of handwashing by pouring.

4551

Let. Arts. 305–306; Sib. Or. 3.591–593. Cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31; Jub. 21:16; Exod. Rab. 22:3; cf. Acts 16.

4552

For handwashing before prayer or other important purposes, e.g., Homer I1. 6.266; 9.171; 24.304–305; Od. 2.260–261; 12.336–337; Hesiod Op. 724–726, 737–741; Lysias Or. 6.52, §§107–108; Virgil Aen. 2.717–720; for expicit reference to ritual and other water being poured over hands, e.g., Homer /. 9.174; 24.302–303; Od. 1.136–138; 3.338; 4.52–54, 216; 21.270.

4553

McNamara, Judaism, 196, assumes it; Bernard, John, 1:77, applies this to the washing of hands before and after meals. P. Hag. 2:5, §3, demonstrates that the pool of forty séahs could also be used for the washing of hands.

4554

Some waterpots were «permanently embedded in the ground,» normally kept filled by girls of the home (Safrai, «Home,» 742; cf. Jeffers, World, 68). It is not clear, however, that such waterpots were in view here.

4555

The village «Cana» in Josephus War 1.102 lacks necessities for survival, but it seems unlikely that John could have expected his readers to have known of this; «Cana» does not appear in the LXX. An Amoraic tradition in p. Šabb. 14(Urbach, Sages, 1:281) associates the Sepphoris area with cold weather.

4556

Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 31–32, 214–27.

4557

The specific term γεμίζω appears only in 2and 6:13, but as elsewhere John employs diverse synonyms for the sake of literary variation.

4558

Jewish texts, especially those sharing an apocalyptic vertical dualism, naturally portrayed God as άνω (e.g., T. Ab. 7A).

4559

In Gen. Rab. 10:1, one rabbi contends that only Torah is «beyond measure.» The term for «measure» in 2is a NT hapax (for the meaning from the LXX and Josephus, see, e.g., Watkins, John, 61); the cognate term for «measure» in 3appears twelve times in the NT but is a Johannine hapax, so is probably connected.

4560

Bruce, John,71.

4561

From the Latin triclinium, the dining room with three couches, already imported into Greek.

4562

Reluctant to draw on Hellenistic customs for understanding Galilee, Sanders, John, 112, supposes the ruler here to be «an old family slave.» Others appeal to Sir 32 (in some MSS, Sir 35); e.g., Westcott, John, 38. Greeks often used attractive youths as wine-servers (Witherington, Corinthians, 193), but this would not be relevant here.

4563

The role of such a banquet-ruler calls into question the skepticism of Haenchen, John, 1:174, as to whether anyone would know if some wine was better than other wine (because guests were coming and going). He and Bauer, «Namen,» both note the lack of attestation for the custom of serving better wine first; the latter suggests John employs the literary device of inventing customs (also in 18:39), but the custom seems intrinsically likely.

4564

Ferguson, Backgrounds, 80.

4565

Diogenes Laertius 8.2.64.

4566

Xenophon Anab. 6.1.30.

4567

Agesilaus 1 in Plutarch S.S., Mor. 208BC (though this saying emphasizes a specifically egalitarian thrust); this office was quite distinct from the slave in charge of the wine (οινοχόος).

4568

Plutarch Γ.Γ. 1.4, Mor. 620A-622B.

4569

        T. Demai 3:6. Later Palestinian Amoraim seem to have recognized a longstanding custom of supervision by elders (p. Ketub. 1:1, §6).

4570

This is not a proverb but a shrewd insight (Beasley-Murray, John, 35).

4571

Some might invest the διάκονοι with eucharistie significance, given ministerial connotations of the term (12:26; 2Cor 3:6), but even if John intends them as a model of obedience for Christians in service, the earliest form of the Lord's Supper was probably a banquet setting where «ministers» may have only supervised (more like the role in 2:9). For John's audience, the term could recall the hazzan in the synagogue (CIJ 2:57, §805), or even servants of God (12:26; Epictetus Diatr. 3.26.28) or the needy (T. Job 15:1). Filling six such large pots would have been a significant undertaking, especially if, as in some homes, the pots were kept in storage pits in the floor (cf. Safrai, «Home,» 742; Jeffers, World, 68).

4572

On the marginalized in John, see esp. Karris, Marginalized; Rensberger, Faith. Many examples of secretive miracles in Theissen, Stories, 61, reflect the magical tradition; but for the Messianic Secret in the Gospels, see Keener, Matthew, 261–63. That most people present did not «know» repeats the theme introduced in 1:10–the world's ignorance.

4573

In Hebrew, the consonants in «manifested» could also provide a wordplay with «Galilee» (2:11), but for all John's appreciation of wordplays, it is unlikely that he would expect members of his audience to translate his expressions into Hebrew or Aramaic to catch them; most of his wordplays work either in both Greek and Hebrew (e.g., 3:8) or solely in Greek.

4574

Cf. esp. Collins, «Doxa.»

4575

Cf. Bruce, Message, 107.

4576

Some who favor a Pentecost allusion prefer Exod 19(Moloney, Belief, 55–57), but it does not mention «glory,» and the Pentecost allusion is doubtfu1.

4577

See, e.g., Epp, «Wisdom,» 145.

4578

See comment on 1:14–18. Hawthorne, Presence, 218, is undoubtedly right to see dependence on the Spirit in the Synoptic and even Johannine portrait of Jesus; nevertheless, John also uses Jesus» signs to point to his deity (cf. 2:24–25; Mark 2:7–12).

4579

See 1 John 1:2; 2:28–3(eschatological); 3:5,8; 4:9. Such language could also depict divine revelation (e.g., Rev 15:4; Let. Aris. 132–133), although it need not do so (e.g., 1 John 2:19).

4580

Theissen, Stories, 69–70, citing especially NT samples. He argues that pagan parallels are rare (P.Oxy. 10.1242; PGM 4.2454f; Lucian Philops. 12; Apuleius Metam. 10.13); this rareness may, however, merely stem from amazement being taken for granted, hence not becoming a literary convention.

4581

Theissen, Stories, 130–34. When Zeus sent thunder (cf. 12:29), the Argonauts «believed» his «signs» (Pindar Pyth. 4.199–200); Iamblichus's disciples finally «believed» when they saw a convincing proof (Eunapius Lives 459).

4582

This motif is distinctly Johannine; signs are rarely said to generate faith in other NT writings (cf. 1Cor 1:22), although they frequently attest the apostolic proclamation that invites faith in Acts (e.g., Acts 14:3).

4583

For a liberationist reading of the Gospel as a whole, which correctly reads the conflict in terms of social power as well as theological divergence, see Rensberger, Faith.

4584

Ellis, Genius, 47, and Smalley, John, 89, also emphasize the theme of replacement that connects 2:1–11 with 2:13–22.

4585

Ellis, Genius, 45, finds some common threads in the narrative, though they may be insufficient to establish his chiasmus: Jesus in Jerusalem at Pesach (2:13, 23–25); the disciples remember (2:14–17, 22); and Jesus will raise the temple they would destroy (2:18–21).

4586

Whitacre, Polemic, 99–100.

4587

Jesus presumably «descended» to Capernaum because, on the lake, it was lower in elevation than Cana (Barrett, John and Judaism, 37).

4588

E.g., Horsley, Galilee, 194. Evidence also exists for a Gentile (Roman) presence there; see Laughlin, «Capernaum»; Matt 8:5–12 / Luke 7:1–10.

4589

See Herford, Christianity, 211; Osiek, «Community.» But Taylor, «Capernaum,» questions the strength of archaeological evidence for an explicitly Jewish-Christian presence before the fourth century C.E.

4590

Horsley, Galilee, 194.

4591

Cf. the remains of the first-century basalt-block synagogue (Garner, «Synagogue»).

4592

That the disciples must also adopt Jesus» original household (cf. 19:26) might call Gentile Christians to continue to embrace Jesus» ethnic siblings, although its point may be more specific in familial terms.

4593

He might have «cleansed» it whenever he witnessed abuses (see Köstenberger, John, 76–78, who also notes the accounts» links to their respective contexts); but Jesus» freedom for long after challenging the establishment does not comport well with what we know of municipal elites.

4594

Origen Comm. Jo. 10.20–22; Wiles, Gospel, 15. Augustine, by contrast, argues for two cleansings (Cons. 2.67; Oden and Hall, Mark, 160–61)–as if historically the Sadducees would have allowed his survival during any subsequent visits to Jerusalem!

4595

Braun, Jean, 16.

4596

Bordiert, John, 162.

4597

E.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 148; cf. Murray, «Feasts.»

4598

See esp. Borchert, «Passover,» 316.

4599

Some associate the act with Sukkoth (Manson, Servant-Messiah, 78), but this is less probable.

4600

Though Martin Kahler described Mark as a «passion narrative with an extended introduction,» the title fits John no less (see Collins, Written, 87–93).

4601

Gundry, Matthew, 473, cites Matt 23:37's «How often.»

4602

Horsley, Galilee, 145.

4603

Freyne, Galilee, 181. Horsley, Galilee, 144–46, challenges the contention that they made pilgrimage three times annually; but he certainly overstates the rarity of visits from Judeans and Galileans.

4604

E.g., Sanders, Judaism, 128, citing Josephus War 2.232; Ant. 17.313; Philo Spec. Laws 1.69.

4605

Passover «of the Jews» need not mean that the church no longer celebrated it (as Beasley-Murray, John, 39, suggests), but they certainly interpreted it differently in light of Jesus» death (19:31–37; 1Cor 5:7); «of the Jews» is a description not necessarily implying supersession (cf. Bruce, John, 73).

4606

Hanson, Gospel, 45, also connects Jesus» first «sign» (2:11) with his ultimate sign (2:18–19).

4607

See Tilborg, Ephesus, 69–71.

4608

E.g., Let. Arts. 100–101; 4 Macc 4:9–12; Sib. Or. 3.575–579; Philo Spec. Laws 1.76; m. Kelim 1:6–9; Mek. Pisha 1.48ff.; Schniedewind, «Criticism.»

4609

E.g., lQpHab 9.6–7; T. Mos. 5:4; 6:8–9; if early, cf. T. Levi 15:1. See Keener, Matthew, 561.

4610

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11.

4611

So M. Goguel, critiqued in Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 364 n. 4, who employs the criterion of coherence in a positive manner.

4612

Witherington, Christology, 109.

4613

With, e.g., Stanton, Gospel Truth, 180–83.

4614

        Pace Vermes, Religion, 185 n. 1. Witherington, Christology, 109, suggests an expectation that the messiah would claim special authority regarding the temple, but his texts (Josephus War 6.285–286; Ant. 18.85–87) may merely link eschatological prophecy with the restoration of a temple.

4615

Borg, Conflict, 171–73; Witherington, Christology, 109–10.

4616

Goodman, State, 58, citing m. B. Mesica 2:4; Kelim 12:5.

4617

        Sanders, Judaism, 87.

4618

Philo Spec. Laws 1.166–167 claims that priests inspected all the animals, but his apologetic testimony may not be firsthand.

4619

Lewis, Life, 136.

4620

Sanders, Judaism, 88.

4621

That Jesus was leading out his sheep (cf. 10:1) might be plausible on a symbolic level (2:19–21 may invite a larger symbolic reading), but relating the doves to the Spirit (1:32) would strain ones sense of plausibility; most likely, John intends 2on a literal level, not as a symbolic double entendre. «Pouring out» (2:15) can be related to the Spirit, water from handbasins (cf. 2:6), or judgment (Rev 16:1) only with difficulty.

4622

Sanders, Judaism, 87–88.

4623

E.g., Lev 1:3–9; 4:2–21; 8:2; 22:21; also on special occasions, as in Lev 9:4, 18; 22:23; Num 7:3–88. See also Chilton, Approaches, 164.

4624

Sanders, Judaism, 87.

4625

Ibid., citing Philo Spec. Laws 1.74–75. Elsewhere Sanders (p. 94), proves skeptical that Philo is entirely reliable in his description of the temple.

4626

Schnackenburg, John, 1:346. Brown suggests that Jesus fashioned the whip from rushes used as bedding (Brown, John, 1:115).

4627

Michaels, John, 35. In one tradition the Messiah would come with a scourge to punish evildoers (b. Sanh. 98b; Westcott, John, 41), but the value of this observation is diminished by the large rabbinic pool of diverse proposals concerning the Messiah's coming.

4628

E.g., Borg, Vision, 174–76; Catchpole, «Entry,» 334; Bammel, «Poor,» 124–26; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 70.

4629

E.g., the Egyptian «Potter's Oracle» (in Aune, Prophecy, 76–77,100); Apuleius Metam. 2.28. Cynics also engaged in deliberately provocative behavior to jolt observers from their ingrained traditions (Meeks, Moral World, 54–55).

4630

Symbolic actions appear most often in the biblical prophets (Aune, Prophecy, 100).

4631

Cf. Neusner, «Cambiavalute.» Even this, however, is not to deny that Gospel writers after 70 could use the replacement of the temple for apologetic ends (e.g., Kostenberger, John, 25–28).

4632

E.g., Avigad, «Flourishing»; Sanders, Judaism, 124.

4633

Holding down the prices of sacrifices may have allowed more to be bought and invited more pilgrims, hence was also good for the local economy (Sanders, Judaism, 90).

4634

Abrahams, Studies, 1:86, citing m. Šeqa1. 1:3; cf. Haenchen, John, 1:183; Barrett, John, 197.

4635

Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 118.

4636

Abrahams, Studies, 1:87. He cites the merchandising around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Easter and notes that such does not characterize Christianity as a whole (Studies, 1:88), a verdict that may be too generous to much Christian practice.

4637

Witherington, Christology, 110, and Chilton, Approaches, 162, following Eppstein, «Historicity.»

4638

Chilton, Approaches, 165–66, appealing to «house of trade» (John 2:16).

4639

Cf. ÓDay, «John,» 543.

4640

E.g., 2Macc 3:12; 4 Macc 4:3–7; Josephus War 2.175; Ant. 4.207; Pesiq. Rab. 10:1; Diodorus Siculus 14.63.1–2; 14.69.4; 14.76.3; 27.1; 27.4.3; 28.3.1; 34/35.9.1; 34/35.28.1–3; P.Tebt. 5.5; Livy 32.1.8; 36.20.3; 42.3.8; 42.28.12; 43.7.10; Appian R.H. 3.12.1–2; 8.20.133; Cornelius Nepos 17 (Agesilaus), 4.8; Arrian Alex. 1.17.11; 6.30.2; Strabo 17.1.43; Phaedrus 4.11.1–13; Babrius 78; Juvenal Sat. 14.261–262; Pausanias 3.23.4; 9.25.10; 9.33.6.

4641

E.g., Pindar Pyth. 4.53–54; Caesar C.W. 3.33, 105; Juvenal Sat 14.260–262; Cicero Fam. 5.20.5; Cornelius Nepos 23 (Hannibal), 9.3; Herodian 1.14.3; Lucan C.W. 9.515–516; Taylor, «Artemis,» 254; Trebilco, «Asia,» 325; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 126; Koester, Introduction, 1:90; Yamauchi, Archaeology, 107–8.

4642

E.g., 2Macc 3:6–7; 4 Macc 4:3–7; Pesiq. Rab. 10:1. Cf. further Goodman, State, 58; Wilkinson, Jerusalem, 65–66; Reicke, Era, 23. Some treasures may have been hidden elsewhere (3Q15; see Wise, «Introduction to 3Q15,» 188–89).

4643

Goodman, State, 57–59. They could make profit by changing buying and selling rates (m. Seqa1. 4:2).

4644

Goodman, State, 57. For their necessity in view of the broader Mediterranean variety of coinage, see Finley, Economy, 167.

4645

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 63–65.

4646

Sanders, Judaism, 88.

4647

See Engle, «Amphorisk,» 120. Others also think the aristocracy profited (cf. Reicke, Era, 168).

4648

        T.Bik. 2:15.

4649

This would continue in the eschatological temple (Zech 14:21; 4Q174,3.2–4). Similarly, because of their periodic impurities, women were always excluded from the court of Israel, though allowed past the outer court when they were not impure (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.104).

4650

Falk, Jesus, 152–53, thinks the Shammaites controlled the temple and were reluctant to accept Gentiles» offerings. But though the Shammaites may have been the dominant school of Pharisaism in Jesus» day, they hardly controlled the temple!

4651

Borg, Conflict, 175.

4652

E.g., MacGregor, Pacifism, 19; Glasson, Advent, 149–50; in Mark, Matera, Kingship, 147. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 67–68, doubts that concern for Gentiles was central enough in Jesus» ministry for this to be persuasive.

4653

For evidence, see Keener, Matthew, 500–501. Jesus» act recalled Jeremiah's activity in the temple (Winkle, «Model»; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 136).

4654

Mack, Myth, 10 n. 4.

4655

On 2 Thess 2 see, e.g., my comments in Matthew, 565–66,574–76. That the later church would have grown more eschatologically oriented than Jesus is inherently unlikely, and that they would have invented 2 Thess 2:3–4 after 70, when the temple was already destroyed, is even less likely.

4656

E.g., Josephus War 6.300–309. See also T. Mos. 6:8–9, which is very likely pre-70, because only part of the temple is burned and the final tribulation follows almost immediately (7). The envisioned invasion may be 6 C.E. but probably stems from when more of Herod's sons still held some power (6:7). See other examples in Keener, Matthew, 561–62.

4657

See Hill, Prophecy, 62–63; Aune, Prophecy, 174–75; further documentation in Keener, Matthew, 560–63. The tradition about a rabbi in Jesus» day fasting to prevent the templés destruction (Brown, John, 1:122) is probably too late and apocryphal to provide independent evidence.

4658

E.g., p. Tacan. 4:5, §13, which may compare the amount of bird offerings to mikvaot but attributes Jerusalem's destruction to fornication.

4659

E.g., lQpHab 9.6–7; T. Levi 15:1; T. Mos. 5:4; 6:8–9; see Keener, Matthew, 561, 613. Apocalyptic texts frequently critique the priesthood (see Freyne, Galilee, 187–89).

4660

Taylor, Politics,90ff.

4661

Cf. Josephus Ant. 18.26,95.

4662

Witherington, Christology, 115, comparing Neh 13:4–9,12–13. See also Evans, «Action,» opposing Sanders's view, below. Borg, Conflict, 163–99, emphasizes Jesus» opposition to his contemporaries» understanding of holiness.

4663

Stauffer, Jesus,67.

4664

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 65, cites Mai 3:3; Pss. So1. 8; CD 5.6–8. He doubts that the temple system as a whole was corrupt (Judaism, 90–91), but the complaints are multiply attested in various streams of early Jewish tradition (cf. Josephus Ant. 20.181, 206; lQpHab. 9.4–5; Τ Levi 14:1; 2 Bar. 10:18; t. Menah. 13.21 in Avigad, Discovering, 130; cf. Stauffer, Jesus, 67).

4665

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 68. Qumranites applied requirements for ritual purity of the sanctuary even to Eden (4Q265 frg. 7,2.11–17).

4666

E.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 66, 70–76; Harvey, History, 131–32; Aune, Prophecy, 136.

4667

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 233. On the new temple, see Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77–90.

4668

A coin from 132 C.E., during the Bar Kokhba revolt, indicates the hope for a restored temple after 70 (Carmon, Inscriptions, 81, 178, §§178–179), as do many texts (e.g., 2 Bar. 4:3; 32:4; t. Roš Haš. 2:9; Šabb. 1:13; p. Ber. 1:5, §5; Gen. Rab. 65:23; Num. Rab. 14:8; 15:10; Lam. Rab. proem 33), and probable indications in the sixth-century Beth Alpha mosaic (Dequeker, «Zodiaque»); cf. also the plea for Jerusalem's rebuilding in the fourteenth benediction of the Amidah (Oesterley, Liturgy, 65) and surrogate temple features in synagogues (e.g., Friedman, «Features»). Worship probably continued on the site of the temple until 135 (Clark, «Worship»).

4669

E.g., 1 En. 90:28–29; Tob 13:10; 14:5; Sib. Or. 3.657–660,702,772–774. The Aramaic may diverge from the Ethiopie of 1 En. 91:13, but the reconstruction of the Aramaic is problematic, so 1 En. 91probably also refers to the future temple.

4670

11QT cols. 30–45; 4Q174, 3.2; 4Q509, 4.2, 12; 4Q511 frg. 35, line 3; notes in Maier, Scroll 98–116; Yadin, «Scroll,» 41; Lincoln, Paradise, 149; Broshi, «Dimensions.»

4671

Cf. 2Macc 2:4–7; 2 Bar. 6:7–9; 4 Bar. 3:10–11, 19; 4:4; Liv. Pro. 2:15, ed. Schermann, 83; ed. Jeremiah, 25; Rev 11:19; m. Seqa1. 6:1–2; Yoma 5:2; t. Kip. 2:15; contrast Jer 3:16.

4672

Cf. 2 Bar. 29:8; commentaries on Rev 2:17; see our comment on eschatological manna in 6:32–35. For manna in the ark, see Heb 9:4.

4673

The Samaritan hope seems to have drawn this conclusion; see Kalimi and Purvis, «Hiding»; cf. Collins, «Vessels»; MacDonald, Samaritans, 365; Bowman, Documents, 89.

4674

Thus in the Scrolls (Flusser, Judaism, 43; probably, e.g., also in 4Q176 frg. 1, 2, co1. 1, lines 2–3). Bryan, «Hallel,» rightly argues that the renewal of the temple suggests its purification rather than its rejection.

4675

In Roman literature, cf., e.g., Tacitus Ann. 4.38.2 (Sinclair, «Temples»).

4676

E.g., Philo Rewards 123, where the wise man's mind is God's οίκος.

4677

E.g., 1QS 8.5, 8–9; 9.6; CD 3.19A; 2.10, 13B; 4Q511 frg. 35, lines 2–3; more fully, Gärtner, Temple, 20–46; Flusser, Judaism, 37–39; Bruce, «Jesus,» 76; Wilcox, «Dualism,» 93–94; McNamara, Judaism, 142; already applied by NT commentators, e.g., in Kelly, Peter, 90; Goppelt, Theology, 2:11; and by Sanders, e.g., in Judaism, 376–77; but cf. suggested qualifications in Caquot, «Secte.» The claims for 4QFlor (e.g., Gärtner, Temple, 30–42) have proved less persuasive (McNicol, «Temple»; Schwartz, «Temples»). The eschatological temple in 11QT follows the design of Israel's camp in the wilderness (inlay article in Yadin, «Scroll,» 42).

4678

See Keener, Matthew, 492; m. Pesah. 5:7; 9:3; 10:5–7; t. Pisha 8:22; Sukkah 3:2.

4679

As often in diverse early Christian traditions, Mark 12:10; Acts 4:11; Eph 2:20; 1Pet 2:6–7; cf. 1Cor 3:10–11; Rev 21:14.

4680

Compare also Herrn. Vis. 3.2, 5–6; 3.9, with the tower/temple in 1 En. 89:49–50. Aune, Prophecy, 175, argues that Jesus probably intended the eschatological remnant community, as in the Qumran Scrolls.

4681

Dodd, Tradition, 161; cf. similarly Richardson, Theology, 255, 261; Origen Comm. Jo. 10.228–232. Pauline tradition may have made the link via a midrashic reading of Gen 2(Eph 5:28–31).

4682

Articulated by Menenius Agrippa (Livy 2.32.9–12; Dio Cassius 4.17.10–13; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.86.1–5) but employed by many others (Aristotle Po1. 1.1.11, 1253a; Maximus of Tyre 15.5; Sallust Letter to Caesar 10.6).

4683

E.g., familial relations (Hierocles Love 4.27.20); most often to the cosmos (e.g., Diodorus Siculus 1.11.6), as among the Stoics (cf. Long, «Soul»), probably borrowing from Plato (Tim. 30B-34B).

4684

See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 69,270, citing Josephus Ant. 18.262; Philo Embassy 159,192, 194,212–215; Let. Aris. 92–99. Cf. Case, Origins, 56.

4685

Cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 302–03, citing Jer 26:8; Josephus War 6.300–309.

4686

Borg, Conflict, 173; pace Crossan, Jesus, 359.

4687

Witherington, Christology, 111.

4688

For temple symbolism in this Gospel, see also Coloe, Temple Symbolism, passim (suggesting that John places the cleansing earlier than the Synoptics partly to emphasize this point; see 65–84, esp. 84).

4689

M. Sanh. 9:6, cited by Witherington, Christology, 109, who also cites Acts 21:28–29.

4690

Bammel, «Poor,» 125. Phinehas's zeal becomes the model for the Maccabees in 1Macc 2(cf. also Philo Confusion 57; Moses 1.303–304; b. Sanh. 82b; Num. Rab. 21:3), as many scholars note (e.g., Eisenman, Maccabees, 7–9), but cf. also Elijah in 1Macc 1:58.

4691

E.g., 1Macc 2:24–27; Josephus Ant. 12.2; Philo Spec. Laws 2.253; 3.126; Phil 3:6; Exod. Rab. 1:29.

4692

E.g., Ps 119:139; 1Macc 2:50; 2Macc 4:2; 1QS 9.23; Gal 1:14; Acts 22:3; Philo Hypoth. 11.1; Virtues 45. Contrast Gaius's zeal for lawlessness in Philo Embassy 119.

4693

Hunter, John, 34. Schuchard, Scripture, 17–32, thinks the textual tradition unclear. Suffering on account of zeal for good appears in Libanius Declamation 36.36, though this is late; on the Scripture introduction formula, see comment on 6:31.

4694

Ancient narratives regularly extol heroes who could face suffering or danger bravely (e.g., Livy 5.46.2–3; Plutarch Sayings of Spartans, Anonymous 35, Mor. 234AB; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.68.2–3; Josephus Ant. 3.208; 4.322; 6.126–127; see comment on John 12:27–30). But we also have good reason to affirm that the historical Jesus taught the popular Jewish views that sufferings precede the kingdom and that prophets are martyred (confirmed by John's death); his repeated hostile encounters with members of the Jerusalem elite and multiple attestation of passion sayings further support their likelihood. Further on the passion predictions see Keener, Matthew, 431–33, on Matt 16:21.

4695

Josephus War 6.124–126; Ant. 15.417; Carmon, Inscriptions, 76, 167–68; cf. ÓRourke, «Law,» 174; Segal, «Death Penalty»; idem, «Inscription»; pace Rabello, «Condition,» 737–38. Trespassing on sacred precincts had long invited severe judgment in ancient Mediterranean thought (e.g., Hesiod Astron. frg. 3).

4696

Δεικνύω can be understood in various ways (cf. the related δείκνυμι, which is more common in this Gospel) but can refer to divine revelation (Γ. Ab. 6:8; 15:12A), making known God's greatness by praise (Tob 13:4–6).

4697

See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 171.

4698

See, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 422; Witherington, Christology, 168.

4699

Paradox, based on the unexpected, was one striking method of gaining attention (see, e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 88).

4700

Bridges, «Aphorisms,» suggests that such aphorisms arrest the flow of narrative in the Fourth Gospel, inviting contemplation.

4701

E.g., 1 Kgs 18:27; Isa 6:9; 8:9–10; 29:9; Jer 23:28; 44:25–26; Ezek 3:27; Amos 4:4–5; cf. Eccl 11:9; Rev 22:11; Sib. Or. 3.57–59. Cf. MacGregor, John, 59; Michaels, John, 36; Lightfoot, Gospel, 113.

4702

Also Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 72.

4703

The threat form supports authenticity, as it would not have been created by the later church (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 72–74; cf. Aune, Prophecy, 174; Theissen, Gospels, 113, 194). A threat against the temple would have been an adequate charge before Pilate (Blinzler, Trial, 170).

4704

The eschatological temple could also be «built» (οίκοδομηθήσεται, Tob 13:16; cf. Hanson, Unity, 130).

4705

On paronomasia and traductio as rhetorical devices (used by John far more than elite rhetoricians would approve), see Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.21.29–4.22.31; Rowe, «Style,» 132; Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 283–85; idem, Glossary, 93; comment on 3:3.

4706

Visotzky, «Cruxes»; Gundry, Matthew, 244–45; Vermes, Religion, 58–59.

4707

E.g., Gen. Rab. 100:7; cf. witness of onés death after three days had passed (Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 188). Cf. Euripides Hec. 32, but this may be due to lack of burial; Euripides Alc. 1145–1146 for purification from death on the third day; for special funeral rites on the third day, see, e.g., Aristophanes Lys. 613.

4708

It could easily apply simply to a short period of time (e.g., Josephus Life 205, 229, 268).

4709

The «forty-six» years dates the encounter somewhere in the period 27–30, most likely close to 28 (Schnackenburg, John, 1:351; Meier, Marginal Jew, 380–82), though some favor 27 (Sanday, Criticism, 122; Smith, John [1999], 90, using Josephus Ant. 15.380) or 29 (Stauffer, Jesus, 65). The language could include an unconscious allusion to Jub. 10(forty-three years for the Tower of Babel). The aorist need not indicate that John thought the process complete at this point (Brown, John, 1:116); indeed, some of John s audience might know that the temple was officially completed 63 C.E.–three years before the war that destroyed it (Josephus Ant. 20.219; local populations might build temples for centuries, Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.25.533). Augustine Tract. Ev. Jo. 10.11.1–10.12.3 uses gematria to explain the number allegorically!

4710

Haenchen, John, 2:81, following Billerbeck, appeals to the rare portrait of a messianic builder. Juel, Messiah, 213, thinks it identifies Jesus as «the Messiah who will build the new temple.»

4711

In some cases God himself was in some sense to be its builder (Jub. 1:17; Pesiq. Rab. 1:2), as he apparently was in some sense of the first (T. Mos. 2:4).

4712

Stauffer, Jesus, 123,206.

4713

Hartman, «Temple.» Cf. Hanson, Gospel, 39, 43, also comparing Jesus to Bethel (1:51), where God is met.

4714

        Let. Aris. 100–1; Philo Spec. Laws 1.76; see further Borg, Conflict, 165–70. Amoraim revised this hope to the indestructibility of the western retaining wall (Num. Rab. 11:2; Song Rab. 2:9, §4; Lam. Rab. 1:5, §31; Pesiq. Rab. 15:10).

4715

E.g., Arrian Alex. 7.18.6 (λόγον). Also of oracles, e.g., Arrian Alex. 7.26.2–3.

4716

Wrede, Secret, 232–33, compares John and Mark on the mystery motif here; more generally, see ibid., 143–45. In one (possibly late) rabbinic tradition, a disciplés skill is tested only when the rabbi departs (Pesiq. Rab. 3:2); Johannine Christians require the Spirit's continuing illumination.

4717

Jonge, Jesus, 15.

4718

Jesus» words (Luke 10:7) appear as Scripture in 1Tim 5(possibly from a pre-Lukan source; see Dibelius and Conzelmann, Epistles, 78–79; Matt 10:10; his disciples remember his words later in Luke 24:6–8, esp. 24:8). At least by the late second century a prejudice against treating recent works as Scripture seems to have normally obtained (Murat. Canon 73–80 on Hermas; though cf. earlier 2Pet 3:16).

4719

One need not, with Phillips, «Faith,» 87, view θεωροϋντες itself harshly.

4720

For the sake of the wordplay, John adopts a rare usage (Haenchen, John, 1:192), but for πιστεύειν εαυτόν as «entrust oneself,» see also, e.g., Let. Arts. 270.

4721

Some take «believed in his name» (1:12; 2:23; 3:18) as «a reference to the baptismal confession of faith in Christ's name» (Richardson, Theology, 45; cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 184). This may be possible on the level of Johannine application, but of course not in the story world.

4722

Rowe, «Style,» 133–34; Anderson, Glossary, 20; in Paul, see Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 580; it also applies to δύναμαι and οίδαμεν in 3:2–11.

4723

Theophrastus Char. 18, ridicules a person who has only άπιστία, trusting no one (cf. Polybius 8.36.1–9); but a gullible person would be no better (see discussion of signs in our introduction).

4724

1Macc 12:46, 48.

4725

E.g., Ps.-Phoc. 95–96. OTP 2n. 1. cites also Philo Embassy 120, though the masses here are led by the evils of a tyrant (119).

4726

        Jub. 15:30; cf. Sifre Deut. 312.1.1; 343.5.2.

4727

        Jub. 16:26.

4728

E.g., PGM 1.175–177; see other examples in Aune, Magic, 45. In some later traditions some demons had foreknowledge (e.g., Τ So1. 5:12) because they heard it from God's throne (e.g., T. So1. 20).

4729

Democritus in Diogenes Laertius 9.7.42; Sosipatra in Eunapius Lives 468–470; in a more rationalistic sense as discernment of character, Eunapius Lives 495.

4730

1 Kgs 14:5; 2 Kgs 4:27; 5:26; 6:12; Jos. Asen. 6:6; 23(despite textual variants in 23:8, the context clarifies the sense); 26:6; Liv. Pro., Nathan 2 (ed. Schermann, §28); p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Sanh. 6:6, §2; Joseph in Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 41:45.

4731

Smith, Magician, 116–17,199, favors more distant magical parallels but in so doing ignores the clearer prophetic parallels.

4732

E.g., Pss. So1. 17:25. Cf. the rabbinic tradition in which King Messiah could distinguish sinners by the sense of smel1.

4733

        2 En. 40:1–2, both recensions.

4734

        3 En. 11:1–3; also noted by Odeberg, Gospel, 45–46.

4735

E.g., Ahiqar 116, saying 33; 1Cor 2:11; b. Pesah. 54b, bar.

4736

E.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.181, claiming that all Jews agree; Sir 39:19; Bar 3:32; Sus 42; Let. Arts. 210; Sib. Or. 1.151; 3.12; 1 En. 9:5; 39:11; 84:3; CD 2.9–10; 2 Bar. 21:8; cf. Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 3:9; 16:13; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 1:9; «God of knowledge» in 4Q504 frg. 4, line 4; 4Q510 frg. 1, line 2; 4Q511 frg. 1, line 7. Greeks also spoke of high deities who knew (e.g., Homer Od. 4.468; 13.417; 20.75; Pindar Pyth. 3.28; Xenophon Cavalry Commander 9.9; Plutarch Isis 1, Mor. 35IE; Athenaeus Deipn. 5.218F; Musonius Rufus 1, p. 32.17–18; Maximus of Tyre Or. 3.1; Philostratus Hrk. 16.4) and saw (Homer /. 3.277; Hesiod Theog. 514; Aeschylus Eumenides 1045; Supp1. 139,210, 303–305; Apollonius of Rhodes 2.1123, 1133, 1179; cf. Aristophanes Birds 1058; Ovid Metam. 13.852–853) all things; cf. the claim for Caesar in Ovid Ex Ponto 4.9.125–128; a hero in Philostratus Hrk. 43.3; the function of oracles in Aune, Prophecy, 68. At one point a mortal suggests that the gods know all things (Homer Od. 4.379), but the deity, who does not know, must refer him to another (4.382–393), who does know (4.472–480).

4737

4Q180 frg. 2–4, 2.5–10 (explaining Gen 18:21); 4Q299 frg. 2,2.10–11; Pss. So1. 9:3; 14:8; Let. Arts. 132–133; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.166; Ant. 4.41; Philo Providence 2.35; T. Jud. 20.3–4; T. Zeb. 5:2; Γ. Naph. 2:4–5; t. B. Qam. 7:2; p. Roš Haš. 1:3, §§39–42; Exod. Rab. 21:3; 43:3; 46:3. Among Greeks and Romans, see, e.g., Hesiod Op. 267; Euripides E1. 1176; Xenophon Cyr. 5.4.31; Mem. 1.1.19; Epictetus Diatr. 2.14.11; Valerius Maximus 7.2.ext.8.

4738

E.g., PGM 4.3046–3048; t. Sanh. 8:3; b. Ber. 58a (attributed to Ben Zoma); Gen. Rab. 67:8; Acts Paul 3.24 (Paul and Thecla 24); cf. Marmorstein, Names, 73, 79, 86. One finds similar designations in other societies (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 39).

4739

E.g., Wis 7:23; 2Macc 7:35; Let. Arts. 16; Sib. Or. frg. 1.3, 4; 1.152; 2.177. God especially watches the ways of the righteous, e.g., T. Ben]. 4:3; 6:6; 4 Bar. 7:35. Greeks also spoke of the gods as επίσκοποι of all human life (e.g., Theon Progymn. 11.194; Epictetus Diatr. 1.14.1, 9; 1.30.1; cf. Xenophon Cyr. 8.7.22; Callimachus Hymns 3, to Artemis, 39; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.33; Porphyry Marc. 12.205–206; Plutarch Isis 51, Mor. 371E; Xenophanes in Diogenes Laertius 9.2.19).

4740

E.g., m. "Abot 2:1; Wis 1:6; among Greeks, Callimachus Aetia 3.85.15.

4741

E.g., Plutarch Isis 75, Mor 381B; PGM 13.62; Ps.-Euripides in OTP 2(Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets, trans. Attridge); Philo Creation 69.


Источник: The Gospel of John : a commentary : Volumes 1-2 / Craig S. Keener – Massachusetts : Baker Academic, 2003. – 1636 pages.

Комментарии для сайта Cackle