Lighlfool points out that a comparison of Mark iii. 18, Mark vi. 3, and John xix. 25, makes it exceedingly probable that the Virgin Mary's sister, called elsewhere Mary, the wife of Clcophas or Alfheus, and all her family, lived at Cana. He observes, that in the list of our Lord's " brethren " or cousins we find the follow- ing names, — James, Joses, Juda, and Simon. Of these he thinks that James, Juda, and Simon were apostles. James tt e apostle is expressly called " the brother of our Lord," and the son of Alpheus, and Jude is expressly called brother of this James (Gal. i. 19; Jude 1.) The remaining brother, Simon, he think was the apostle who is called Simon the Canaanite. This, Light- foot argues, is a proof that his father and mother lived at Cana ; and hence he concludes that this marriage feast was in the house of Alpheus. That Alpheus and Cleophas were th-e same person is a general and well-founded opinion.
2. — [Jesus was called., .disciples.'] Our Lord was doubtless invited as the Virgin Mary's son. His disciples were invited as His friends and companions. We cannot, of course, suppose, at so early a period of our Lord's ministry, that He was recognized as a religious teacher, or those with Him as disciples of a new faith. The disciples here spoken of must be the five mentioned in the last chapter, viz., Andrew and his companion, (probably John.) Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael.
{To the marriage^ We know nothing about the names of the bride and bridegroom. There is a legend among Romish writers that the bridegroom was John the apostle, and that though married, John left wife and home at once, in order to become Christ's disciple ! The whole story is utterly destitute of Scrip- tural foundation, and a tissue of improbabilities. Baronius conjectures that the bridegroom was Simon the Canaanite, but witliout any proof worth mentioning.
Let it be noted, that the presence of Jesus, and His disciples, and the Virgin Mary at a marriage, is a significant fact, which stands out in strong contrast to the Patristic and Roman Catholic doctrine, of the imperfection of the state of marriage compared to that of celibacy. " Forbidding to marry " is a doctrine of Antichrist, not of Christ. (1 Tim. iv. 3.)
The Roman Catholic argument, that Christ, by His presence, made marriage a sacrament, is utterly worthless. Dyke remarks that we might ns well call feasts and burials sacraments, because Christ was pre-^ent at them. He says, " There is required a word of institution to make a sacrair.ent. Let the Papists show any such word here used. And if Christ did make marriaj,e a sacra- ment, why do they call it a work of the flesh ? Are saciaments works of the fle.sh ? "