a—5.
. “~ 4 ec 9 > - 3 a Ἰησοῦς καὶ ot μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ eis τὸν yduov.
708
3. καὶ ὑστερήσαντος
oe a“ an 39 - otvou,! λέγει ἡ µήτηρ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν, -Οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσι. c Jud. xi. τὸ.
4. Λέγει αὐτῇ 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς, “*Ti ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ, 5. Adyes ἡ pimp αὐτοῦ τοῖς διακόνοις, “"O τι ἂν ε vii. 6.
ἡ Opa pov.”
2 Sam. Xvi. 10.
e 3 ο οὕπω KEL d xix. 26.
ἀγύναι ;
1 Τ.Ε. in NaABL vulg. cop. syr.; but δ΄ and some vet. Lat. read οινον ουκ ειχον OTL συνετελεσθη © οινος του Ύαμον, ειτα, ‘they had no wine because the wine of
”
the marriage was finished; then... ”.
γάμον. ‘And both Jesus was invited and His disciples to the marriage.” To translate ἐκλήθη as a pluperfect “had been invited” is grammatically possible, but it is impossible that the disciples should have been previously invited, because their existence as disciples was not known. They were invited when they appeared. The collective title ot μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ is anticipatory: as yet it could not be inuse. The singular verb (ἐκλήθη) with a plural nominative is too common to justify Holtzmann’s inference that it indicates, what of course was the fact, that the disciples were asked only in consequence of Jesus being asked. Cf. Lk. il. 33. In this instance Jesus ‘“came unto His own” and His own ceceived Him, at any rate as a friend.— Ver. 3. Through this unexpected addition to the number of guests the wine began to fail, ὑστερήσαντος otvov. ὑστερέω, from ὕστερος, signifies ‘to be late,’ and hence ‘to come short of,” ‘to lack,” and also “to be awanting ” Cre Mt. xix, 20, τί ἔτι ὑστερῶ; and Mk. κ. 21, ἓν σοι vorepet. Here the mean- ing is “the wine having failed,” or “given out”. Consequently λέγει 7 µήτηρ τοῦ ‘Ios πρὸς αὐτὸν, Οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσι. Bengel supposes she wished him to leave ‘*velim discedas, ut ceteri item discedant, antequam penuria patefiat’’. Calvin suggests ΄' fieri potest, ut [mater] tale remedium [miraculum] non expectans eum admonuerit, ut pia aliqua exhorta- tione convivis taedium eximeret, ac simul levaret pudorem sponsi’’. Lampe says: ‘“ Obscurum est”. Licke thinks Jesus had given proof of His miracle- working previously. The Greek com- mentators and Godet suppose that when she saw Him recognised as Messiah the time for extraordinary manifestation of power had arrived. The words show that she was on terms of intimacy with the family of the bridegroom, that she knew of the failure of the wine and wished to relieve the embarrassment. She maturally turns to her oldest son, who had always in past emergencies proved
helpful in counsel and practical aid. But from the words of Jesus in reply, 6 Mine hour is not yet come,”’ it certainly would seem as if she had suggested that He should use Messianic powers for the relief of the wedding guests. —Ver. 4. His complete reply i is, τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; οὕπω ἥκει ἡ pa pov. γύναι is a term of respect, not equivalent to our “‘ woman’”’. See chap. xix. 26, xx. 13, Lk. xiii. 12. In the Greek tragedians it is constantly used in addressing queens and persons of distinction. Augustus addresses Cleopatra as γύναι (Dio, quoted by Wetstein). Calvin goes too far when he says that this term of address was used to correct the superstitious adoration of the Virgin which was to arise. But while there is neither harshness nor dis- respect, there is distance in the expres- sion. Wetstein hits the point when he says: ‘‘ Non poterat ο. quid mihi tecum est, mater?”—ri ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί
represents the Hebrew Wz 1 San
(Judges xi. 12), and means: “What have we in common ? Trench gives the sense:
‘Let me alone; what is there common to thee and me; we stand in this matter on altogether different grounds”. Or, as Holtzmann gives it, Our point of view an