Literature.— Conder, Palestine, pp. 25-29 ; Robinson, BRP i 342 f ; Smith, Expositor, Qthser. vii. [1903] 212 fe.; art. ' Water' in Hastings' DB ; Thomson, LB p. 450 ; Neil, Figurative Lan- guage in the Bible ; Expos. Times, vol. iii. [1892] p. 318, vol. vi. [1895] p. 389, vol. xv. [1904] p. 413. JOHN REID.
WATERPOT {v5pla, freq. in LXX for i3 Gn 24";
Jff 7^
1 K 17^2 ig33^ Ec 126).— 1. Jn 2«- ' \idivai.
vdpiai ^^ Keifxevai . . . yefiiaare ras vdpLas vdaros. The Stone waterpots (c'jgN '!?? in Rabbinic writings) were placed outside the reception-room, for the washing of the hands before and after eating, as well as of the vessels used (cf. Mk V'*, Mt 15^ Lk 1 1^). ' For such an occasion the family would produce or borrow the largest and handsomest stone vessels that could be procured' (Edersheim, LT i. 357).
The view of Westcott, first put forth in 1859 m a note to his Characteristics of the Gosp. Mir. (p. 14), and afterwards stated more fully in his Com. on St. John (37, 38), that it was not the water in those vessels that was changed into wine, but the water which the servants drew from the source after having filled the vessels, has commended itself to many students of the Gospels. But it has not superseded the traditional view, which must be acknowledged to have in its favour the first im- pression produced on the minds of readers of the narrative in all ages,— a fact of great weight. Readers in general have understood that the number and capacity of the vessels were stated immediately before the command to fill them, in
WATERPOT
WEALTH
815
order to convey the idea that their entire contents were changed into wine (Dods, Expos. Gr. NT i, 704), and also that the clause ' they filled them up to the brim ' was added in order to exclude all possible suspicion of collusion (Trench, Mir. 104, after Chrys.). Such are the principal objections to Westcott's view, which, however, must not be hastily jironounced to be inadmissible, or even improbable. When the arguments in its favour are carefully weighed, the balance seems to lie almost equal between it and the ordinary view.
(i.) ' It is unlikely that water taken from vessels of purifica- tion should have been employed for the purpose of the miracle.' This argument holds good even supposing that the vessels had already been partially or wholly emptied by pouring water on the hands of the guests (Plummer, in loc'.). (ii.) The words ' Draw out now,' etc., are perhaps most naturally understood to mean that the same action of drawing water from the source was to be carried on as before, but that the water so drawn was now to have a different destination. In like manner v. 9 seems to imply that the servants who had drawn the water had borne it, in obedience to Jesus' word, straight from the source to the ruler of the feast. It may, however, be argued that the vuv may equally well mean, ' Now that the vessels are quite full, bear from them to the ruler of the feast' (in pitchers out of which he would fill the cups of the guests, Meyer, in loc). (iii.) Though it would be hazardous to say that the words «< riVTkYixi>Ti; TO uiup in v.'J render it probable that OSidp (also from the source) is to be understood after a.vTky,ira.Te in v.8, it may yet be stated that ivTAtiv is frequently used of the drawing of water (cf. Gn 24i3, Ex 216, is 123, Jn 47. 18), but rarely of the drawing of wine, so that on the whole the use of the word is in favour of Westcott's view.* (iv.) It is suggested that this view is most in keeping with the symbolical and spiritual character of the miracle. The turning of the water into wine was a (i-rtiJ.itt>y by which Jesus manifested His glory. The filling of the vessels with water was part of the 'sign,' and pointed to the fulfilling of the Law (cf . Mt 5i7). At the command of Jesus ' they filled them up to the brim.' This maj- have been designed to show that the preparation of the Law was now complete. It had reached its high-water mark, if we may so speak. The number and capacity of the vessels, and their being utilized for ' the purifying of the Jews,' may thus be regarded as providentially ordered circumstances, designed to bring out the significance of Jesus' act in its relation to the Law. The vessels were filled and then left as they stood, while the water which the servants, in obedience to Jesus' word, drew from the source was carried past them and delivered to the ruler of the feast, who on tasting it said to the bridegroom, 'Thou hast kept the good wine until now.' F\ill justice, it may be argued, is thus done to the spiritual import of the miracle, which was intended to represent that what the Law \vith its elaborate ceremonial could not do, Jesus could now do for those unto whom He had come — impart to them the true joy of salvation (cf. Ps 10415, Mk 222 and parallels). The views set forth in the Encyc. Bibl. ii. 1796, 1800, 2539 ; Wendt, St. John's Gospel, 83, 240, may be compared with the foregoing statement. — ' The symbolical in- terpretation of Scripture must not be hastily set aside because it has been often disfigured by unlicensed fancies' (Westcott, Char. Gosp. Mir. xii). A symbolical interpretation may also be quite consistently held by those who maintain the traditional view. But apart from symbolism altogether, the miracle taken by itself is comforting and edifying in the highest degree, as a proof that Christ's hallowing presence is with us in our common interests and enjoyments, and that He blesses all life's relation- ships.— It may be added that if it was the entire contents of the vessels that became wine, the magnitude of the gift is an example of our Lord's abundant mercies, with which we may compare the miracle of the loaves and the twelve baskets of fragments that were left.