7. — [J£sus saith....fll the water-pots, dc] The remark is frequently made Dy commentators on this verse, \vith much propriety, that these simple words describe the duty of all who woik for Christ, and especially of ministers and teachers. They aie to hear Christ's voice, and do as He tells them, and then leave the result to Him. Duties are ours. Events are God's. It is ours to fill the water-pots. It is Christ's to make the water wine.
[Up to the hrim.] This circumstance is no doubt mentioned in order to show that there was no room left for trick, jugglery, or imposture. What was put into the water-pots was water, and only water, and they were so filled that nothing could be infused, or mingled with their contents.
8. — [And he saith...draw out now.] It was at this moment, no doubt, that the miracle took place. By an act of will our Lord changed the contents of the water-pots. That which was poured in was water. That which was drawn out was wine. To Him who created the vine and made it bear grapes at the first, the change was perfectly easy. He who could create matter out of nothing, could much more easily change one kind of matter into another.
[The governor of the feast.] Thi& person appears to have been one who presided at large entertainments like that before us, and superintended all the proceedings. The Greek word so rendered, is precisely the same as that translated " ruler of the feast," in the following verse. The presence of such a person at feasts was a well-known custom among the Greeks and Eomans.
9. — [Tasted... wine... Ten ew not whence it was.] The testimony of the ruler of the feast is specially adduced, in order to show the reality of the miracle. He knew nothing of what had been done to the water-pots. He had not seen the water poured in by our Lord's command. There was no collusion or conspiracy between him and the servants, much less between him and our Lord. Hence the value of his testimony. He not only testifies that the liquid which a few minutes before was water was now wine, but that it was also wine of more than common goodness and strength, — not wine mixed with water, but pure, good wine.
Let the word " tasted " be carefully noticed in this place. It supplies a strong incidental argument against the Romish doctrine of transubsfantiation. The occasion before us is the only known occasion on which our Lord changed one liquid into another. When He did so change it, the reality of the change was at once proved by the "taste." Why is it then that in ihe oretended change of the sacramental wine in the Lord's Supper
JOHN, CHAP. ir. 99
into Christ's blood the change cannot be detected by the senses? Why does the wine after consecration tasle Hke wine, jus' as it did before? — These are questions which the Roman Caihohcs rannot satisfactorily answer. The pretended change of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper is a complete delusion. It is contradicted by the senses of every communicant. The bread after consecration is still bread, and the wine is still wine. That which contradicts our senses we are nowhere required in God's Word to beHeve.
10, — {Every man at the heginning, d;c.] The words in this sentence must not be pressed too closely, in order to bring out of them a spiritual meaning. The ruler of the feast makes a general remark about the way in which banquets were usually managed. The ordinary custom was to bring the best wine first, and the inferior wine last. But the wine before him, drawn from the water-pots, was so singularly good, that the custom of this day seemed reversed. The verse is a strong incidental testimony to the reality and greatness of our Lord's miracle. Not only did He change water into wine, but into wine so singularly good as to excite remark and attention.
[ When men have weU drunk.] Foohsh remarks have sometimes been made on this expression, as if our Lord had countenanced excessive drinking on this occasion. For one thing, it may be remarked that the Greek word rendered " have well drunk," does not necessarily imply intoxication. It may be justly interpieted, as Schleusner and Parkhurst observe, "have drunk sufficiently, or drunk freely." — Men who have had enough, are indifferent as to the quality of the wine set before them. For another thing, we must remember that the ruler of the feast was only making a general remark about men's ordinary customs in supplying wine to their guests. There is nothing whatever to show that he was alluding to the guests actually before him.
[Thou hast kept the good wine until noiv.] A good practical remark has often been raised from these words of the ruler of the feast. The world gives its best things, like the best wine, first, and its worst things last. The longer we serve the w^orld, the more disappointing, unsatisfactory, and unsavoury will its gifts prove, Christ, on the other hand, gives His servimts their best things last. They have first the cross, the race, and the battle, and then the rest, the glory, and the crown. Specially will it be found true at his second advent. Then will believers say emphatically, " Thou hast kept the good wine until now." These are pious and useful thoughts. But it may be doubted whether they are more than accommodations.
This is perhaps the proper place to remark, that it seems utterly impossible, on any fair and honest interpretation, to re-