Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 2:9
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
9. ruler of the feast ] Perhaps manager of the feast would be better. It is doubtful whether the head-waiter, who managed the feast and tasted the meat and drink, is meant, or the rex convivii, arbiter bibendi, the guest elected by the other guests to preside. The bad taste of his remark inclines one to the former alternative: Sir 32:1-2 is in favour of the second. In any case the translation should be uniform in these two verses, not sometimes ‘governor,’ sometimes ‘ruler.’ It is the same Greek word in all three cases, a word occurring nowhere else in N.T. The words also for ‘water-pot’ or ‘pitcher’ and for ‘draw out’ are peculiar to this Gospel; but they occur again Joh 4:7; Joh 4:15; Joh 4:28.
the water that was made wine ] Or, the water now become wine. The Greek seems to imply that all the water had become wine; there is nothing to mark a distinction between what was now wine and what still remained water. It is idle to ask at what precise moment the water became wine: nor is much gained by representing the miracle as a series of natural processes (rain passing through the vine into the grapes, being pressed out and fermented, &c.) compressed into an instant. Such compression is neither more nor less intelligible than simple transition from water to wine. Moreover there was no vine.
which drew ] Better, who had drawn.
called ] Rather, calleth.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And knew not whence it was – This is said, probably, to indicate that his judgment was not biased by any favor, or any lack of favor, toward Jesus. Had he known what was done, he would have been less likely to have judged impartially. As it is, we have his testimony that this was real wine, and of so fine a body and flavor as to surpass that which had been provided for the occasion. Everything in this miracle shows that there was no collusion or understanding between Jesus and any of the persons at the feast.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Our Saviours action, by which he turned the water into wine, being not obvious to the senses of any; but only the secret motion of his will, willing the thing to be; is not recorded, only the effect and the consequents of it are. The papists would from hence argue, that the bread in the sacrament may be called bread, though it be transubstantiated, as the water here is called water, though it were turned into wine; but it must be observed, that it is not here called water, without the addition of
that was made wine: we have no such addition in the gospel, where the sacramental bread is called bread; it is not said, the bread which now is turned into the flesh of Christ; nor doth the Scripture any where (as here) attest any such transubstantiation. The governor of the feast had a cup of wine presented to him, but knew not whence it came; only the servants, who by Christs command first filled the vessels, and drew out this cupful, they knew.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9, 10. well drunk“drunkabundantly” (as So 5:1),speaking of the general practice.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water,…. The Persic version reads, “tasted of the wine”, and adds, what is not in the text, “it was of a very grateful savour”: but the sense is, he tasted of that which was before water, but now
was made wine; not in such sense as the Papists pretend that the bread and wine, in the Lord’s supper, are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, by the consecration of the priest; after which they appear to have the same properties of bread and wine as before; but this water, that was turned into wine, ceased to be what it was before, and became what it was not: it had no more the properties, the colour, and taste of water, but of wine; of which the whole company were judges:
and knew not whence it was; from whence it came, where it was had, nor any thing of the miracle that was wrought, and therefore was a proper person to have it put into his hands first; since it cannot be thought he should say what he does in the following verse, from any compact with Christ, or in favour of him.
But the servants which drew the water knew; they knew from whence they had it, out of the water pots; and they knew that they filled them with water; and that that liquor, which the ruler of the feast had in his hands, and commended as most excellent wine, was drawn out of them; and that there was no juggle, nor deceit in the case: and, upon tasting of it,
the governor of the feast called the bridegroom to him; out of the place where he sat, and which might not be far from him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Tasted (). First aorist middle indicative of . As it was his function to do.
The water now become wine ( ). Accusative case, though the genitive also occurs with . Perfect passive participle of and , predicative accusative. The tablemaster knew nothing of the miracle, “whence it was” ( , indirect question retaining present indicative). The servants knew the source of the water, but not the power that made the wine.
Calleth the bridegroom ( ). As apparently responsible for the supply of the wine ( thou hast kept ). See Mt 9:15 for . When men have drunk freely ( ). Indefinite temporal clause with and first aorist passive subjunctive of . The verb does not mean that these guests are now drunk, but that this is a common custom to put “the worse” ( , the less, the inferior) wine last. It is real wine that is meant by here. Unlike the Baptist Jesus mingled in the social life of the time, was even abused for it (Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34). But this fact does not mean that today Jesus would approve the modern liquor trade with its damnable influences. The law of love expounded by Paul in 1Co 8-10 and in John 2:14; John 2:15 teaches modern Christians to be willing gladly to give up what they see causes so many to stumble into sin.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “When the ruler of the feast had tasted,” (hos de egeusato ho architiklinos) “Then when the master of the feast had tasted,” as a qualified, trusted, experienced presiding officer, governor, or master of ceremonies for such festive, formal occasions. The water had now become wine.
2) “The water that had become wine,” (to hudor oinon genenemenon) “The water that had become wine;- At what time our Lord turned the water into wine (the fruit of the vine) is not known, perhaps for Divine reasons, but that it was done is here certified, attested by this writer John, and the governor of the feast that day.
3) “And knew not whence it was:- (kai ouk edei pothen estin) “And did not know its source;” He did not know that it had been drawn from cleansed waterpots of fresh water. Therefore there was no guile, collusion, trickery, or deceit between him and Jesus.
4) (But the servants which drew the water knew;)” (hoi de diakonoi dedisan hoi entlekotes to hudor) “Yet the waiters, attendants, or servants who had drawn the water knew.” They knew that they had filled the cleansed stone water pots with pure water, then drawn out from what they had put into the pots, for his taste and judgement, at the command of Jesus, Joh 2:8.
5) “The governor of the feast called the bridegroom,” (phonei ton numption ho architriklinos) “The master or director of the feast called the bridegroom,” who normally provided the food and drink. He had a word with the bridegroom about the drink that now filled the water-pots, the provisions Jesus had made, the contribution Jesus had given to meet an immediate need for the occasion to continue and conclude as a joyful affair. Apparently the bridegroom knew nothing of what had happened, but appreciated the governor’s commendation, therefore, no response is recounted from the bridegroom.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(9) Water that was made wine.Better, water that had become wine. At what moment did the transformation take place? What water became wine? The text itself does not speak of water now become wine until the ruler of the feast tasted it, and immediately afterwards speaks of it as water, when the servants drew it, for the plain reference of the parenthesis in brackets is to the drawing of the water from the pitchers (Joh. 2:8), not to a previous drawing of water to place in the pitchers, which has not been even hinted at. Unless, then, there is a strong reason which does not appear in these words, this simple meaning is the true one;that the change took place during or after the drawing from the pitchers, and that that portion only was changed which was carried to the ruler and actually needed to supply the guests. The reason based upon the mention of the number and contents of the pitchers (Joh. 2:6) is certainly not a strong one. It is quite natural to find these stated in the picturesque style of this Gospel, and there is no care to give more than a rough estimate of the size from a remembrance either of these pitchers or of pitchers generally used for this purpose. There is more force in the general impression derived from Joh. 2:7. It may be fairly asked why was more water placed in readiness than was needed? But the pitchers would be in any case re-filled for ablutions after the feast. They were at hand, meeting the eye. All possibility of collusion is thus excluded. They had been used not long before; they would very soon be used again. The filling of all leaves to the servants the choice of one or more from which to draw. There is an unfailing potential supply; it becomes an actual supply only when needed and appropriated by human want. This, as every supernatural work, is made to depend upon faith. There is no demand for this faith in filling water-pots with water; it is otherwise when they draw it, and bear it in the usual tankard to the ruler, in answer to the demand for wine. Here, as everywhere in divine action, there is an economy in the use of power. There is no miracle of luxury or waste or excess. These cavils of the higher criticism arelike the additions of expositors, as that the feast lasted for a week or more, or their perversions, as that the wine was in no sense intoxicatingsuperstructures without a foundation.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 2:9-10. The governor of the feast called the bridegroom, The governor’s application to the bridegroom, and not to Jesus, shews him to have been ignorant of the miracle; and could have proceeded from no other reason than his persuasion, that this wine had been provided at the expence of the bridegroom. Surprised at the exquisite delicacy of the flavour, he said to the bridegroom, “It is usualwith most men to set forth the good wine , at the beginning; and when men have drank plentifully, , then that which is worse: thou hast proceeded in a different manner; thou hast kept the good wine until now.” In which words every discerning reader must remark, that there is not the least room for those many blasphemous insults upon the pure and spotless character of the holy Jesus, which deists and infidels have the hardiness to throw out, as we hinted on Joh 2:7. For, in the first place, the governor of the feast does not say even so much as that the present guests had drank plentifully; he only urges the common proceedings in such festivals as these; and the words rather countenance a contrary opinion, for he says, “Every man sets forth good wine at the beginning, and when it shall happen that men shall have drank plentifully, then that which is worse: thou (without any connecting particle in the original) hast kept the good wine until now. Thou hast not done as others do; the best wine comes last.” Herein is the whole of the comparison: he by no means says that they had drank plentifully, or to excess: it is more than probable, that there was no appearance of such irregularity or excess; seeing that the governor was thus capable of distinguishing the relish of the good wine so instantly, which, when men have well drunk, is not the case; and therefore it is, that, as he says, bad wine is brought last. However, allowing, secondly, that the words, when men have well drunk, did refer to the present guests; yet the true meaning of the original word , and its use in scripture, shew that it signifies, not criminal drinking, or drinking to excess; its proper and immediate sense is, to drink after sacrificing, and so it is used in a religious import; and in several instances in scripture it is applied to drinking where there could be no excess. See Eph 5:18. But, thirdly, allowing both these objections to be true, namely, that these guests had already drunk well, and that the word so rendered does import criminal drinking; yet it will by no means follow, that the miracle which Christ now wrought was intended to encourage any vice of this sort. Far from the mouths of Christians, far from the hearts of men, be the least surmise or supposition of such a sort! It is most reasonable to conclude, that the change of the water into wine drew off their attention wholly from the feast to this divine and wonderful Person, who thus manifested forth his glory,and obtained the faith of his disciples: it is most reasonable to conclude, that this was a great means of sobriety and seriousness, bringing the be-holders to the usual admiration What manner of man is this!
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 2:9-10 . The parenthesis, usually made to begin with . , must be limited to
, because not only does the construction run on with , but a reason is also assigned for the , . . ., which follows; for had the man known whence the new wine had come, he would not in surprise have called the bridegroom, etc.
. .] not the wine which had been water (Luther), but the water which had become wine (and now was wine). Observe the force of the perfect. If the had been repeated, this water, as that which had been made wine, would have been distinguished from other water ( aquam, eam dico quae , etc.). See Khner, ad Xen. Anab . iv. 6. 1. The not being repeated, the . . expresses one complete conception.
] whence it comes, i.e. that it had been drawn out of the water-pitchers. This is evident from the following . The table-master, therefore, cannot have been present at the drawing out of the water, Joh 2:8 . Concerning the present , see Joh 1:40 .
The insertion of the words , . . ., serves to give prominence to the reality of the miracle .
] i.e. , but they did not know that it was wine which they brought.
] He called him to him (comp. Joh 1:49 ), and said to him. Whether the bridegroom was just outside at the time (as Nonnus represents), or was reclining at the table, or is to be supposed as employed in the chamber, does not appear.
.] a superfluous repetition, but suggested by the parenthesis, as is often the case in Greek.
, . . .] spoken under the impression that the bridegroom had kept the good wine in reserve, and had not allowed it to be put forth ( ), but now was regaling them with it. We may suppose the words to have been spoken jocularly, in joyous surprise after tasting the wine. The general custom, however, to which the table-master refers, is not elsewhere with any certainty confirmed (the proof in Wetstein is doubtful); nor, indeed, considering the playful way in which it was spoken, does it need any voucher.
] when they have become intoxicated , so that they can no longer appreciate the goodness of the wine. The word does not mean anything else; not when they have well drunk (Tholuck, De Wette, and several, e.g. Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, and others), because intoxication is the essential though relative conception (see also Gen 43:34 ; Hag 1:6 ; Rev 17:2 ). The man says only in joke, as if it were a general experience , what he certainly may often have observed, and no inference can therefore be drawn from his words that the guests at Cana were already intoxicated; especially as simply means till now , after they had been drinking so long at the table, in antithesis with the .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
Ver. 9. The water that was made wine ] Doth not Christ daily turn water into wine, when of water falling upon the vine, and concocted by the heat of the sun, he produceth the grape, whence wine is expressed? His love (that is better than wine, Son 1:2 ) turned brown bread and water into manchet and wine, to the martyrs in prison.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
9. ] This is the participle of the pluperf. (as well as of the perf.), and is here to be so rendered who had drawn the water .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 2:9 . The architriklinos, then, when he had tasted the water which had now become wine, and did not know whence it had been procured, and was therefore impartially judging it merely as wine among wines, , “calls the bridegroom,” or simply “addresses the bridegroom,” and says to him The usage referred to was natural: and is illustrated by the , the mixture of all the heeltaps with which the harder heads dosed the drunken at the end of a debauch. , “when men have drunk freely,” R.V [33] The Vulgate more accurately has “cum inebriati fuerint”. And if the word does not definitely mean “when men are intoxicated,” it at least must indicate a condition in which they are unfit to discriminate between good wine and bad. The company then present was not in that condition, because they were able to appreciate the good wine; but the words of the architriklinos unquestionably imply that a good deal had already been drunk. The involves this. The significance of the remark consists in the certificate thus given to the quality of the wine. Bengel felicitously says: “Ignorantia architriclini comprobat bonitatem vini: scientia ministrorum veritatem miraculi”. Judging it by his natural taste and comparing it with the wine supplied by the host, the architriklinos pronounces this fresh supply better. What Christ introduces into the world will stand comparison with what is already in it. Christian grace must manifest itself not in sanctimonious and unpractical displays, but must stand comparison with the rough natural virtues, the courage, generosity, and force which are called for in the practical affairs of life.
[33] Revised Version.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
ruler, &c. Same word as “governor”, &c.
was made = had become.
knew. Greek. oida. App-132. See note on Joh 1:26. Not the same word as in verses: Joh 2:24, Joh 2:25.
not. Greek. ou. App-105.
but, &c. See note on “and we”, &c., Joh 1:14.
drew = had drawn.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
9. ] This is the participle of the pluperf. (as well as of the perf.), and is here to be so rendered-who had drawn the water.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 2:9. , the governor of the feast) who was directing the whole management of the feast: one skilled in deciding a question of taste.- ) The Article marks the subject.- , did not know: they knew) The ignorance of the governor of the feast proves the goodness of the wine: the knowledge of the servants[proves] the truth of the miracle.-) calls: it is not added, to himself.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 2:9
Joh 2:9
And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants that had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom,-The bridegroom furnished the banquet; the governor, or friend, and one of the guests, directed the order of it. The governor, it seems, was ignorant of what had been done.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
the water that: Joh 4:46
but: Joh 7:17, Psa 119:100
Reciprocal: Exo 7:20 – all the waters Jdg 14:10 – made there Pro 2:13 – walk Joh 2:8 – Draw
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
The foregoing information explains why the ruler of the feast tasted the wine. He thought it had been provided by the bridegroom for the use of his guests. He was so well pleased with it that he decided to compliment the host.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 2:9-10. In these verses we have the testimony borne to the completeness of the miracle. The ruler of the feast, a guest speaking as the representative of the guests, calling the bridegroom (who supplied the feast, and in whose house they were), emphatically recognises the excellence of the wine, not knowing whence it was. From whatever source this may have come, it is wine, and good wine: this is his witness. Whatever it may be, it has but now flowed from the spring as water, is the unexpressed but implied testimony of the servants. The simplicity of the double witness gives it its force; the guests as yet know nothing of the miracle, and thus afford the strongest evidence of its truth. An attempt is sometimes made to soften down an expression used by the ruler of the feast, when men are drunken. There need, however, be no scruple as to giving the word its ordinary meaning. The remark docs but express his surprise at the bridegrooms departure from the ordinary custom, in bringing in so late wine of such excellence as this. The common maxim was that the best wine should be given first, when it could be appreciated by the guests; the weak and poorer when they had drunk more than enough, and the edge of their taste was blunted. No answer is recorded,a plain proof, were any needed, that the Evangelist values the incident not so much for its own sake as for the lesson it conveys.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 9, 10. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water which was made wineand he knew not whence it came, but the servants who had drawn the water knewthe ruler of the feast calls the bridegroom, 10, and says to him, Every one serves first the good wine, and when men have become drunken, then that which is worse; thou hast kept the good wine until now.
The words , the water become wine, admit of no other sense than that of a miraculous transformation. The natural process by which the watery sap is transformed every year in the vine-stock (Augustine), or that by which mineral waters are formed (Neander), offers, indeed, a remote analogy, but not at all a means of explanation. The parenthesis which includes the words … presents a construction perfectly analogous to that of Joh 1:10 and Joh 6:21-23.
This parenthesis is designed to make the reality of the miracle apparent, by reminding the reader, on the one hand, that the servants did not know that it was wine which they were bearing, and on the other, that the ruler of the feast had not been present when the event occurred. Weiss makes the clause also depend on , and commences the parenthesis only with …This is undoubtedly possible, but less natural as it seems to me. He calls the bridegroom; the latter was in the banqueting hall. Some have desired by all means to give a religious import to the pleasantry of the ruler of the feast, by attributing to it a symbolic meaning; on one side, the world, which begins by offering to man the best which it has, to abandon him afterwards to despair; on the other, God, always surpassing Himself in His gifts, and, after the austere law, offering the delicious wine of the Gospel.
There was by no means anything of this sort in the consciousness of the speaker, and no indication appears that the evangelist attached such a sense to the words. This saying is simply related in order to show with what entire unreservedness Jesus gave Himself up to the common joy, by giving not only abundantly but excellently. There is here, also, one of the rays of His (glory). For the rest, it is not at all necessary to weaken the sense of , to be drunken, in order to remove from the guests at the wedding all suspicion of intemperance. This saying has a proverbial sense, and does not refer to the company at Cana.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
John’s point in recording the headwaiter’s comments as he did seems to have been to stress the superior quality of the wine that Jesus produced for the guests. Jesus, as the Creator, produced the best, as He always does whenever He creates. Jesus’ immediate creation of wine, which normally takes time to ferment, may parallel God’s creation of the universe with the appearance of age. [Note: Bailey, p. 162.] "Drunk freely" (NASB) and "had too much to drink" (NIV) translate the Greek word methysko that refers to inebriation. The fact that Jesus created something that people could abuse should not surprise us. Humans have consistently abused God’s good gifts. Fortunately that does not keep God from giving them or make Him responsible for our abuse of them.
Is there a deeper meaning to this story? Many students of this passage have identified the wine as symbolic of the joy that Messiah brings. This harmonizes with the metaphorical use of wine throughout Scripture. Some have seen it as typical of Christianity as contrasted with Judaism (the water). [Note: E.g., Blum, p. 278.] These parallels lack Scriptural support. Perhaps there is some validity to seeing this banquet as a preview of the messianic banquet since Jesus’ provision of joy is common to them both. However, Jesus may not have been the host at this banquet, but He will be the host at the messianic banquet.