Tag Archives: Mary

THE PERSON OF CHRIST: His conception and birth.

The truth that the Lord Jesus was born of a virgin is foundational to the Christian faith. A local assembly is required by God to be the “pillar and ground of the truth”, 1 Timothy 3:15. The fundamentals of the faith should therefore be regularly and systematically taught in the assembly, to God’s glory. The fact that Christ came into manhood, is vitally important. As also is the fact that He was born of a virgin. They affect His honour, and that of His Father. On the one hand, the Son of God cannot unite with Himself anything that is evil. On the other hand, He needs to associate Himself with men in the closest way that is possible for Him. The only way for this to happen is for Him to be really born as a man, but be born of a virgin, thus ensuring that the sin-principle that is normally passed on by a father, is not present in Him. For “by one man sin entered into the world”, and the process was begun when Adam begat a son, and did so in his likeness as a sinner, Genesis 5:3; Romans 5:12.

We begin by asking three important questions about this matter.

Why must Christ become man?
1.    To be able to die, Hebrews 2:14.
2.    To be fully-qualified to sympathise, Hebrews 2:14-18.
3.    To be approachable, but still showing His glory, John 1:14.
4.    To be of the seed of David according to the flesh, Romans 1:3.
5.    To vindicate God’s trust in man in relation to the earth, Hebrews 2:8,9.
6.    To enable Him to link believers to Himself, 1 Corinthians 6:15.
7.    Because man is lower than angels, and He willed to take the low place, Philippians 2:7,8.

Why must Christ be born of a virgin?
1.    So that He does not inherit any taint of Adam’s sin, which is passed on through the male, Romans 5:12.
2.    So that He is not prevented from occupying the throne of David in a coming day by the curse pronounced on Jeconiah, Jeremiah 22:22.
3.    So that He may unite manhood with His Deity by the Divine Agency of the Spirit of God, and not through any intervention by man.
4.    So that His birth may be a sign that God is starting a new mode of dealing with men.
5.    So God may indicate that the “seed of the woman” has indeed come, for only Christ fits that description. His birth is unique to highlight the fact that He is God’s remedy for the sin that came into the world through Adam.

What was involved when He came into manhood?
1. He gained the attributes of man without losing the attributes of God. It was on earth, as a man, that the Lord said, “I and My Father are one”, John 10:30.
2. He united Godhood and manhood for ever in His Person.
3. He really became flesh, and was not simply clothed with a body.
4. He now has two natures in one Person.
5. The attributes of God and the attributes of man are properly ascribed to that one Person.

THE GENESIS NARRATIVE AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH

We find the first allusion to the birth of Christ as soon as sin came in. This shows God’s concern that the remedy for sin should be clearly known. The expression “seed of the woman” shows that something unusual is to be expected. All others born are the seed of man.
After man had sinned, God pronounced His judgement on each of the parties involved, and the following is what He said to the literal serpent:

3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

And the Lord God said unto the serpent- there is no cross-examination of the serpent, (this verse is God’s judgement on the animal Satan used to tempt the woman; the next verse is His judgement on Satan himself, that old serpent, Revelation 12:9). The order of the judgement is the order of the sin, namely serpent, woman, man. Whereas the order of the examination is man, woman, serpent. We note in these verses that there is a two-fold division to what God said to each. As for the serpent, it is first judged, and then the Ancient Serpent who was behind it is judged, in verse 15. Then the woman is judged as to the physical consequences of her action, and then her changed relationship to her husband. Finally, Adam is judged physically, with hard work imposed upon him, then the statement, “Dust thou art”, speaking of the moral consequences of his actions.
Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life- the literal serpent was used to cause the fall, so it must be a constant reminder of the fall, that men may learn that sin is always judged. The creature is to be cursed more than the beasts of forest and field. They share in the general bondage of corruption and subjection to vanity that creation presently knows, Romans 8:20,21, but the serpent is to be condemned over and above this.
The fact that from that point on it would go on its belly would suggest that it did not do so before. And the fact that its food would now be contaminated by the dust, and it would take it in with its food, shows that this was not the case before. This serpent may once have been a beautiful flying creature, the counterpart on earth of the angels of heaven. Now it is to be loathsome and venomous, a creature likely to be trodden under foot of man.
A further way in which it was cursed above the cattle is that when creation is delivered by Christ when He comes to earth to reign, the serpent, although deprived of its venom, will still go on its belly, and eat dust with its food, Isaiah 65:25. Thus all through the millenial reign of Christ there will be a reminder of the entrance of sin and its consequences.

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”, Genesis 3:15.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman- the Lord now turns to the Ancient Serpent who has used the animal serpent to beguile the woman. There is to be mutual enmity between him and the woman. Animals cannot show enmity, although they can react to present circumstances. The reference therefore is to Satan himself. The cause of this enmity is going to be the role of the woman in bringing in the Promised Deliverer. And more than this, the woman is going to repent and believe, and thus be on the side of those opposing the Serpent. She will begin to hate what Satan has done, and Satan will hate what she is to be used for, in the purpose of God. We see reasons for this change of heart by the woman as the history unfolds.
And between thy seed and her seed- Satan now has a certain control over men because they are sinners. They have a nature that responds to evil and error, and indeed, gravitates towards it. It was precisely because Christ told the truth that men did not believe Him, for their hearts were only responsive to error, John 8:45. As a result, men can rightly be described as “of their father the Devil”, as the Lord Jesus said, John 8:44. On the other hand, there would be a line of believing men, traceable down through the years, who would culminate in the Seed of the Woman, Christ Himself.
Many would be the attempts of Satan to eradicate that line, but he would not succeed, and Christ would be born. He would use Cain to murder Abel; evil spirits to cause the flood; Esau to hate his brother and threaten to kill him; Pharoah to destroy the male children in Israel; his cavalry to try to drive Israel into the Red Sea; Goliath to attempt to kill David, the first king of the line of the Messiah; King Saul to do the same; Athaliah to destroy the Seed Royal; Nebuchadnezzar as he made the princes of Judah eunuchs; Haman as he sought the extermination of the Jews. Even after Christ was born, the hatred did not stop, for Herod sought the young child’s life; the men of Nazareth tried to fling Him from the top of the hill; the men of Jerusalem took up stones to stone Him. In all these ways the enmity of Satan towards Christ was manifest.
It shall bruise thy head- the apostle Paul declared to the Christians at Rome that “Christ shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly”, Romans 16:20, a reference to the Second Coming of Christ, when He will share His victory with His people. A reference, also, in a lesser sense, to the way in which Satan would be defeated if his attempts to cause division amongst the believers was prevented, for this is the subject of the verses previous to the one just quoted. (This is why when it is a question of the bruising the serpent, the word is “it”, the seed, Christ and believers, whereas when it is a question of the heel being bruised, it is “He”, for just Christ is in view).
Notice that there is nothing to indicate that the bruising will result in immediate death for the serpent. So it is that Satan has had his head bruised constantly, and one day will meet his eternal doom in the Lake of Fire. The pre-eminent place of bruising was at Calvary, when the Prince of this world came, and yet had nothing in Christ; there was nothing at all in the Lord Jesus that answered to the Devil.
And thou shalt bruise his heel- just as the bruising of the head of the serpent did not result in immediate destruction, so in this phrase there is no thought of the serpent dealing a death-blow to the Seed of the Woman, whether considered as Christ Himself or His people. The Lord Jesus has met and defeated the Devil by His death on the cross, as Hebrews 2:14 states. The Devil had no power over Him in the ultimate sense, even though he had the power of death over the rest of men. He had this power over them because they have a sinful nature, and “the wages of sin is death”, Romans 6:23. The wise man said, “There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death”, Ecclesiastes 8:8. The Lord Jesus said explicitly, however, as regards His life, “No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself”, John 10:18. It is true that, as the apostle Peter said on the Day of Pentecost, “ye by wicked hands have crucified and slain”, yet nonetheless, He was delivered by “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”, Acts 2:23. And Pilate needed to learn that he had no power at all against Christ, (even though the death penalty was in his jurisdiction), except it were given him from heaven above, John 19:11. God had given him a sword to execute criminals, but not the innocent, Romans 13:3,4. So it is that the Lord Jesus laid down His life of His own will, and not because of the will of men or devils.
Nevertheless, the Devil did bruise His heel, causing Him extreme pain as he confronted Him at Calvary.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH NARRATIVE IN ISAIAH 7

Having given the general promise about a coming deliverer, God now speaks more specifically in the days of the wicked king Ahaz. For not only is the seed of the woman the deliverer from the sin the woman brought in, but He is also destined to sit on the throne of Israel to rule for God. That throne and the royal house were in danger in the days of Ahaz, (who is specially marked out in Scripture for his wickedness by the words, “This is that Ahaz”, 2 Chronicles 28:22), hence the need for a sign to warn Ahaz, and also encourage God’s faithful people.

The following is the background to the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14:
7:1 King Ahaz is Uzziah’s wicked grandson. He is threatened by Ephraim, which is a name for the northern kingdom of ten tribes, (otherwise known as Israel since Solomon’s death), and Syria. Ephraim is ruled by Pekah the son of Remaliah, and Syria is ruled by Rezin.
Their plan is to displace Ahaz, and put “the son of Tabeal” on the throne. He is of unknown pedigree, so this is an attack on the Royal Line of the Messiah.

7:2 This news causes the House of David, that is, the Royal Household headed by Ahaz, great consternation and panic.

7:3 Sent by God, Isaiah meets the king at the end of the conduit that brings water into the city. This is a symbolic place, for Jerusalem, although in a strong position in many ways, was vulnerable because the water supply was outside the city and needed to be brought through this conduit. This was all the more reason to trust God to protect them.

Isaiah is also told to take his son with him. If the prophet met the king in a symbolic place, the prophet’s son was a symbolic person. His name was Shear-jashub, meaning “a remnant shall return”. This denotes three things. There is hope that a remnant shall return. But there is judgement foretold by the name for the return is from captivity, and those returning will be but a remnant.

7:4-9 Ahaz is assured by Isaiah that he need not fear, for the plan of Ephraim and Syria will not be successful. Within sixty-five years the kingdom of Ephraim will be broken. This came to pass in the days of Ezekiel, who was told that the period of 390 years from the division of the kingdom at the death of Solomon, had come to an end. From Isaiah 7 to Ezekiel 4 is a period of 65 years.

The end of verse 9 records Isaiah saying to Ahaz, “If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established”. In other words, the royal line will be in danger if Ahaz does not act in faith and trust God’s protection.
The prophet discerns that Ahaz does not believe his words, and therefore offers to give the king a sign. This will test whether he has faith or not. Those who sit on the throne of David were ideally to rule in the fear of God, 2 Samuel 23:3. It will also test whether he is interested in the continuance of the royal line.

7:10,11 Ahaz is offered a sign “in the depth or in the height above”; in other words, there is no limit to the sign God will give him.

7:12 Ahaz pretends to be too spiritual to need a sign, claiming that it would be to tempt the Lord to ask. This is not the case if it is God that offers the sign.

7:13 This wearies Isaiah, and the men of Judah generally, for their national hopes rest in the king.

This wearies God, too, for Ahaz clearly has no faith to confirm by a sign.

7:14 Because Ahaz is not fit to receive a sign, it will be couched in such terms that give it both present and future relevance.

We now come to the terms of the sign:
7:14 Behold- something of the wonder of the event, and the surprise of it, is expressed in Isaiah’s words. And the wonder was still there centuries later when the thing promised came to pass. Of course, the greatest surprise was that a virgin should conceive. This is unknown amongst mankind, although parthenogenesis, as it is called, takes place with some plants.
A virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son- this is impossible naturally, but as the angel said to Mary, “For with God nothing shall be impossible”, Luke 1:37. It is not that a maiden who was a virgin at the time of Isaiah’s prophecy would later on have a child. In that case she would no longer be a virgin. She must be a virgin and be with child at the same time to fit the requirements of this prediction.
When it comes to deciding what is involved here, our safest course is to be governed by what the Old Testament usage of words is. So when we turn to Genesis 24, we find reference to Rebekah, and we are told in verse 16 that, (a) she was a damsel, (naarah), (b) that she was a virgin, (bethulah), and (c) that she had not been known by man. Clearly, to be described as a “bethulah” was not enough, (especially as it is used in Joel 1:8 of a married woman), so the words “that had not known man” needed to be added to make the situation clear. Now when Rebekah was described in Genesis 24:43, the servant calls her “the virgin”, (alma). He is clearly summing up what verse 16 has said, as is shown by the use of the definite article. The servant is giving a summary of what had happened when he first met Rebekah, and therefore she is the definite person he has in mind.
So an “alma”, as Mary was, is a maiden; is of marriageable age; is not married, and has not had relations with a man.
And they shall call his name Emmanuel- notice that whilst it was Mary who was to name the child Jesus, as His true mother, and Joseph who was to name Him likewise, as the legal father, it is “they” who call Him Emmanuel. The “they” are clearly the people whom He will have saved from their sins. They gladly acknowledge that the One who died upon the cross for them, so that their sins might be forgiven, is none other than Emmanuel, God manifest in flesh. The person He is gives value to the work that He did.
Matthew knows that Israelites will understand the meaning of the name Emmanuel, but he also knows that Gentiles are going to have the gospel preached to them, so for their benefit, since the identity of this person is so important, he translates the name for us, Matthew 1:23. Whereas others have names that simply reflect the pious hopes of the parents, this Child really is who His name declares Him to be. So it is that God’s promise comes literally true, for He saves “by the Lord their God”, Hosea 1:7.
There are those who suggest that there are two children involved in the context of Isaiah 7:11-16, from which Matthew is quoting. and it would certainly solve some of the problems associated with these words in a superficial (and artificial) way if that were the case. It is certainly a better view than that a maiden in Israel living at that time would have a child and call him Immanuel. This, obviously, would be no sign of any great significance, and it would not fulfil the exact terms of the prophecy, (the ones that give it its significance), for the child would not be born of a virgin, only of a woman that was once a virgin, which is true of all children. This is hardly a sign “in heaven above or earth beneath”.
The problem is, that the “second child” idea is always going to fall foul of this objection. If we read Isaiah 7:14 with verse 15, there is nothing to indicate a change of child. In fact, the verses are joined together by the twin concepts of sign and significance- the virgin-born son is the sign, but the significance is that He will be brought up in certain conditions, and the period between His birth and His reaching the age of discretion is significant as far as Ahaz is concerned.
So it is best to think of both verse 14, and verses 15,16, as referring to Christ’s birth and childhood. Obviously verse 14 does, because Matthew says so.

7:15 Butter and honey shall He eat- the eating of butter and honey is a sign of hardship, as verse 21 indicates. It might be thought that butter and honey are luxuries, (with echoes of “land of milk and honey”), but the point is that the population of the land is going to be decimated, and there will be a surplus for that reason, not because of productivity. The same goes for the thorns and briers, for there will be no-one to keep the weeds under control. So verses 17-25 build upon the idea of desolation consequent upon the arrival of the enemy after a period of time.
That He may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good- the eating of butter and honey in itself does not teach a child to refuse evil and choose good. But if we see eating butter and honey as a sign that God has intervened in judgement, then the Child will grow up with the evidence even in His surroundings of the privation that being judged of God as a nation brings. The home of May and Joseph was a poor one, as is seen in that Mary offered the poor person’s offering when she presented her firstborn Son to the Lord, Luke 2:22-24. He will realise that national unfaithfulness is an evil and will realise that national faithfulness is good. Of course, this is the message of the law, “obedience brings blessing; disobedience, cursing”, Deuteronomy 28. Notice that the prophet does not say He will learn how to refuse what is evil, and learn how to choose the good, but that He will know to refuse the evil; in other words, know the experience, rather that have to learn by trial and error what is evil or good.
So it was that the Lord Jesus was brought up in Nazareth, which was home to a Roman garrison. Daily He would see the evidence that His people were in a state of bondage, even though they had been brought back from captivity in Babylon. So the knowing to choose the good was the desire for better things for the nation, and the knowing to refuse the evil involved having right thoughts about the state of the nation that had been brought so low as to be ruled over by the Romans.

7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings- the time span between the birth of a child and the age of discretion, (when good and evil are distinguished), is variable, but only amounts to about six to eight years. This is the length of time before the two kings, Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, shall be dealt with by God, and Ahaz will be rid of them, and will therefore not need to seek the help of the king of Assyria. He still did this, in unbelief, and thus confirmed he did not trust in God. Three years after this prophecy, a rebel by the name of Hoshea was installed on the throne of Israel by the king of Assyria, and Pekah was deposed, and was slain a year later, 2 Kings 15:30. Significantly, this is said to happen in the 20th year of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, who was the deceased father of Ahaz. Thus Ahaz is not mentioned, and the date is reckoned by reference to his godly father, and not by himself. Is this not a comment on the expression “the land that thou abhorrest?” Ahaz was so wicked that he hated the land where Messiah shall reign! Because of this he was judged.
Moreover, Rezin king of Syria was slain by the Assyrians shortly afterwards, 2 Kings 16:9. So it was that during the time span of six to eight years the two kings Ahaz feared were no longer a threat to him.
The mention of Syria in the prophecy is significant. Is this why Luke mentions Quirinius being Governor of Syria, Luke 2:2, and dates the census that brought Joseph and Mary to David’s city for the birth of Christ by his governorship?

VIRGIN BIRTH NARRATIVE BY MATTHEW

1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise- having spoken of the birth of the kings of Israel, which were perfectly normal, Matthew is now going to record the birth that was supernatural. This is the beginning of the three ways in which Matthew records the fact of birth of Christ. In 1:1-16, in relation to history. In 1:17-21 in relation to humanity. In 1:22-25, in relation to Deity. He does not record the actual event of Christ’s birth, but leaves that to Dr. Luke. Matthew adopts more the stance of the Registrar of Birth, after the event.
When as His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together- the expression “when as” means that the previous phrase is being explained. Matthew is summarising the position at the point where Luke left off, with Mary returning from her three month’s stay in Elizabeth’s house in Judea. She is espoused to Joseph, but they have not “come together” as a result of a formal marriage ceremony. “Come together” should not be confused with “knew her”.
She was found with child of the Holy Ghost- Matthew is careful to add how it is that Mary is with child, even though at this point in the account Joseph does not know that this is how it came about. As far as Joseph is concerned, she is with child, and discovered to be so, for the fact has become obvious.

1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Then Joseph her husband- in Jewish law, as one espoused to Mary, he is her husband, and she is his wife.
Being a just man- we are told three things about the character of Joseph, and this is the first. As a just man, he would be careful to obey the commands of the law of God. This would involve him in questioning Mary as to the circumstances by which she was with child. His subsequent course of action will depend on her answer. If she was waylaid in the city, (that is, where others were nearby to hear her call for help), then she and the man involved are to be stoned to death, Deuteronomy 22:23,24. If she was waylaid in the field, with no-one at hand to hear her cry out, then nothing is to be done to her, for the law mercifully supposes that she was not willing, but the man is to be stoned to death, Deuteronomy 22:25-27. Mary, however, would have assured Joseph that neither of these situations was the case.
And not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily- as a just man, Joseph was jealous for the honour of the House of David, but he knew that in Jewish law, if he married Mary, her child would become his child legally. Is it safe to do this, and thus, as a son of David himself, incorporate into the royal line a child whose identity is not known? This is the dilemma that faces him. And this is why he contemplates divorcing Mary, even though he does not believe she is with child by fornication.
It is this scenario that the Lord Jesus referred to in Matthew 19:3-9. The so-called “escape clause” that some believe sanctions divorce today is a reference to the situation with Mary and Joseph. Being legally betrothed, the only way Joseph can be free of his obligations to her is to divorce her for fornication. Mark and Luke, significantly, do not mention the phrase “except it be for fornication”, so making the Lord Jesus ban divorce altogether. But in early times the whole of the New Testament was not available to every believer. So some believers had Luke’s gospel, and could not divorce, some had Mark’s gospel, and could not divorce, whereas some had Matthew’s gospel and could divorce, in the specific way envisaged in the Lord’s words. So these various believers could possible move, and arrive at the same town and be in the same assembly. Two of them believe they cannot divorce for any reason, one of them believes he can for one reason. This is confusion, and God is not the author of confusion. We are forced to say that Matthew’s account takes notice of a particularly Jewish practice of betrothal, and does not apply today, and never did apply to Gentiles.
Joseph has two options- to bring her before the elders of the city as one who must be cross-examined, or put her away, (that is, divorce her), privily, or privately, as one whose account is believed. If, as a just man, he believed Mary should be questioned, then he would adopt the former policy. If he believed her account, he would take the latter course, but again as a just man. The justness of his action being in this latter case in regard to Mary, for it is only just to deal with her gently, given that he believes her account. So this is the second feature that marks Joseph, even his gentleness and kindness.

1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

But while he thought on these things- the third characteristic of Joseph is his careful consideration of matters. The scripture says, “He that believeth shall not make haste”, Isaiah 28:16.
Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream- Joseph had no doubt gone to sleep with these things on his mind, and seeking God’s guidance on the matter. Now the answer comes to him in such a way that he is not in a position to dispute it. The angel Gabriel came to Mary, and they had a conversation, for her fears and sincere questions needed to be answered. Joseph, however, only needs to know the answer to a simple question, should he or should he not marry Mary? If not, he must divorce her, for they are betrothed to marry. He cannot simply break off the friendship, for they are legally obligated already.
He does not simply hear a voice, but an angel of the Lord appears to him as well. There would be something about this appearance that would leave him in no doubt that it was a messenger from God.
Joseph, thou son of David- the angel knows his name and his ancestry. By being addressed like this, Joseph is assured that the message has to do with the fact that he is of the royal line of David. The fact that he is a son of David is the matter that is on his mind, and now he is to be given the answer to his dilemma.
Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife- this shows he had been inclined to marry Mary, for he believed her story, but had a lingering doubt about the identity of the child. It is not “fear to divorce”, as if that was his inclination, but rather, “fear not to take”, for that was what, as a just man, he thought it right to do. Note that the angel recognises that Mary is his wife, and also reinforces that truth upon Joseph’s mind by stating it.
For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost- thus the angel delicately confirms what Mary would have told him. Note that it is not simply that she conceived with the aid of the Holy Spirit, for no doubt that could have been said about Sarah. The child is directly “of” the Holy Spirit, with the preposition meaning “out of”, “sourced in”. That is, the conception or begetting of the child is only by the action of the Holy Spirit. The other women in the list given by Matthew are not said to have begotten sons, simply that the fathers begat through them. Yet that same word “begat” is used of Mary in the Passive Voice, in the expression “of whom was born”. Christ is thus uniquely the promised “seed of the woman”, Genesis 3:15. This is why Matthew has to say, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise”, for he needs to ensure that his readers know accurately what is involved. The other sons in the chapter are begotten in the normal way, “on that wise”, so to speak; Christ is born “in this wise”, in a different way.
Notice that Joseph has not been told the child is “son of David”, and heir to David’s throne, for the simple reason that He is not that yet. And this even though the angel has told Mary that His father is David, Luke 1:32. Because the line of kings runs through the male side, even Mary being descended from David does not make Him heir to the throne. He will only be son of David in the legal sense when Joseph marries Mary.

1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS- “she” means “Mary as the one you will have married”; it is as a married woman that Mary will bring forth a son. In this way Joseph learns that he is to marry Mary before the child is born. This will ensure that he will be considered the legal father of the child, with all that that entailed, since he was a son of David. Yet, as we have seen, there was the insurmountable obstacle of the curse on those of Jechonias’ line. However, by being the legal son of Joseph, but not the biological son, the Lord Jesus avoids that obstacle.
So the order of events is:
The child is conceived.
Joseph and Mary marry.
Joseph has no physical relations with Mary until after the birth.
The child is born to married parents, but his mother is still a virgin.

So Joseph is assured that the child will be safely born, and will be a son, not a daughter. He is to reinforce that he is the legal father by naming the child himself. When the angel spoke to Mary, he told her she would name the child. So the child is named by Mary as the physical mother, and by Joseph as the legal father. They would be agreed as to the name, in contrast to Zecharias and Elizabeth, Luke 1:59-64.
Jesus is the equivalent to the Old Testament name Joshua, and means either “Jehovah is Saviour”, or “Jehovah the Saviour”. Of course, having an illustrious name did not guarantee in ordinary circumstances that the person named would live up to it. For instance, there were wicked kings of David’s line who had names like Jehoram, “Jah is high”; Ahaziah, “Jah possesses”; Jehoahaz, “Jah upholds”; Jehoiakin, “Jah sets up”, and Jeconiah, “Jah is establishing”. The last name being specially interesting, because God (Jah) dis-established him by sending him into captivity; so his name was the reverse of his character and history.
For He shall save His people from their sins- so the name Jesus is no mere pious hope, but the expression of the character the person will display. None of those kings in the genealogy of the previous verses could save the people, (whom they would call “their people”, because they were king over them), from their sins, for they were failures themselves in greater or lesser degree. This one is different, for His name implies that He has no sin of His own, and is therefore in a position to deal with the sins of His people.
Note that it is sins that He deals with. He is not presented here as one who will overturn the Roman oppression, and deliver the people and set up His kingdom. His conquest will be seen to be successful when men and women are delivered from the greatest oppression of all, namely their sins. God said to the people in Hosea’s day, “But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen”, Hosea 1:7. One of the things that stumbled many in Israel, and even John the Baptist, (Luke 7:19, and see Luke 1:71,74), was the fact that when He came amongst them, He did not call for a rising up against the Roman Emperor. He even chose as one of His apostles Simon the Canaanite. The word Canaanite indicates Simon belonged to the Zealots, the party that were dedicated to the overthrow of the Roman rule. Christ called him away from working against the Roman authorities, just as He called Matthew away from working for the Roman Authorities.
If they had remembered Hosea’s words, they would have realised that it was as the Lord their God that He would save, and His Deity would give utmost value to the death He would die at Calvary. It is by this they must be saved. The Lord Jesus cannot rule over an unbelieving, uncleansed nation.
But who are His people; are they simply those who are of the nation of Israel? The answer is found in the prophecy that Matthew will now refer to.

1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Now all this was done- that is, the sum total of all events surrounding the birth of Christ, whether it be the action of the Spirit of God, the willing submission of Mary, or the courage of Joseph in taking her to be his wife. All combined together, under God’s overruling, to bring about the birth of Christ in the appointed and foretold way.
That it might be fulfilled- there are three ways in which the fulfilment of prophecy is introduced in the New Testament, as follows:

1.    Where the Greek word “ina” is used, as here, then it is “in order that it might be fulfilled”, and the event in question completely fulfils the prophecy.
2.    Where the word “tole” is found, as in Matthew 2:17, then it is “was fulfilled”, and indicates that the event was merely a case in point, and what happened was an illustration of what was said in the prophecy, (in that instance, that there was tribulation for the mothers of the district. But there will be tribulation for all Israel in a day to come, so the fulfilment is only partial in Matthew 2:7).
3.    Where the word “opus” is used, as is the case in Matthew 8:17, it is “so that it might be”, and the fulfilment is not complete, but an event which was within the scope and intention of the prophecy. (The healing of the sicknesses of the body becomes an indicator that the Lord Jesus will deal with the spiritual problem, sin itself, at Calvary).

Which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying- note that the words were recorded by Isaiah, and yet they were the words of the Lord. He chose to speak through the prophet. This reminds us of the unique character of the Holy Scriptures, for, although written by men, yet they are the very word of God to us. Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Spirit of God, 2 Peter 1:21. Like a sailing ship is borne along on the water by the wind in the sails, but yet all the time the captain is in control. The prophecy in question was uttered over 700 years before the event, but the long period of time did not mean the promise had lapsed.

1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Behold- something of the wonder of the event, and the surprise of it, is expressed in Isaiah’s words. And the wonder was still there centuries later when the thing promised came to pass. Of course, the greatest surprise was that a virgin should conceive. This is unknown amongst mankind, although parthenogenesis, as it is called, takes place with some plants.
A virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son- this is impossible naturally, but as the angel said to Mary, “For with God nothing shall be impossible”, Luke 1:37. It is not that a maiden who was a virgin at the time of Isaiah’s prophecy would later on have a child. In that case she would no longer be a virgin. She must be a virgin and be with child at the same time to fit the requirements of this prediction. When it comes to deciding what is involved here, our safest course is to be governed by what the Old Testament usage of words is. So as we have already noted, (but to repeat it will do no harm, given the importance of the matter), when we turn to Genesis 24, we find reference to Rebekah, and we are told in verse 16 that, (a) she was a damsel, (naarah), (b) that she was a virgin, (bethulah), and (c) that she had not been known by man. Clearly, to be described as a “bethulah” was not enough, (especially as it is used in Joel 1:8 of a married woman), so the words “that had not known man” needed to be added to make the situation clear. Now when Rebekah was described in verse 43, the servant calls her “the virgin”, (alma). He is clearly summing up what verse 16 has said, as is shown by the use of the definite article. The servant is giving a summary of what had happened when he first met Rebekah, and therefore she is the definite person he has in mind.
So an “alma”, as Mary was, is a maiden; of marriageable age; is not married; has not had relations with a man.
And they shall call his name Emmanuel- notice that whilst it was Mary who was to name the child Jesus, as His true mother, and Joseph who was to name Him likewise, as the legal father, it is “they” who call Him Emmanuel. The “they” are clearly the people whom He will have saved from their sins. They gladly acknowledge that the One who died upon the cross for them, so that their sins might be forgiven, is none other than Emmanuel, God manifest in flesh. The person He is gives value to the work that He did.
Which being interpreted is, God with us- Matthew knows that Israelites will understand the meaning of the name Emmanuel, but he also knows that Gentiles are going to have the gospel preached to them, so for their benefit, since the identity of this person is so important, he translates the name for us. Whereas others have names that simply reflect the pious hopes of the parents, this Child really is who His name declares Him to be. So it is that God’s promise comes literally true, for He saves “by the Lord their God”, Hosea 1:7. The name Emmanuel is not a personal name, for no-one addressed Him as such, but it gives indication of who He is. He is God, and yet in a special way is “with us”, referring to His incarnation.

1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him- here is another feature that marked Joseph, even his ready obedience to the revealed will of God. He has patiently waited for light, and now, having received it, acts upon it. He will have to share with Mary the reactions of the men and women of Nazareth as word is passed round as to the situation. Yet he is prepared to bear this reproach, just as Moses was prepared to bear the reproach of Christ in Egypt, “for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward”, Hebrews 11:26.
The features we have noticed about both Mary and Joseph give us insight into the sort of home in which the Lord Jesus was brought up.
And took unto him his wife- she who was his wife by betrothal, is now his wife by marriage. By marrying her before Christ is born, Joseph ensures that He is truly son of David, and can inherit the throne. In one sense, then, this is the most important marriage in the Bible.

1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son- to “know” in this setting, is to have physical relations. At every stage the integrity of the person of the unborn Christ is maintained. The tomb of the Lord Jesus was safeguarded, being sealed and watched over, so that it is certain that only Christ went in, and only Christ came out in resurrection. So when He was in the womb, every safeguard is in place so that we know without a doubt that Mary’s firstborn child is the one conceived of the Holy Spirit. That He is firstborn removes all doubt, for Mary had no child before who could be confused with Him. She presented Him in the temple as required for firstborn sons, Luke 2:23. The title firstborn would have no meaning if Mary did not have other children afterwards. That she did do so is shown by Matthew 13:55,56.
And he called His name JESUS- by that action Joseph formally took the Child Jesus as his own son legally, with all its implications since Joseph was of the royal line of David.

SPECIAL NOTE
This sequence of events regarding Joseph and Mary establishes the principle that when a man and a woman formally and publicly take one another as husband and wife, they are, at that moment, a married couple. We should distinguish between being “one flesh”, as in proper marriage, and “one body”, as in a sinful relationship involving fornication. The teaching of 1 Corinthians 6:15,16 is clear. The passage reads as follows:
“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith He, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s”.
When we were saved, we were in-dwelt by the Spirit of God, and one of the things He does is join us to the Lord in a union that is on the highest level, that of the Spirit. But it is our bodies that are in-dwelt by the Spirit of God, and therefore we are not only linked to Christ on the level of the spirit, but also as to the body. To use those members so as to be joined temporarily to a harlot is a disgrace. This relationship is only on the level of the body, whereas the Scripture describes true marriage as being a man and a woman becoming one flesh. This is an ongoing relationship, as two lives are bonded together, and is completely different to being bonded in body. Our bodies were bought by Christ’s precious blood, and hence we are no longer our own, for our bodies are the property of God, to be used for His glory.

VIRGIN BIRTH NARRATIVE BY LUKE

Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

And in the sixth month- that is, of Elizabeth’s pregnancy. Luke, being a doctor, is very interested in these details, and they show the thoroughness with which he had researched his subject, as he himself indicated in 1:4. They also show his gospel as one relating to the conditions of men.
Elizabeth had hidden herself for the first five months, verse 24, and now Gabriel comes to Mary. After long years of silence from heaven, God is beginning to speak again. But soon angels will recede and first “the voice”, John the Baptist, John 1:22,23, will speak, and then the Word Himself.
The angel Gabriel was sent from God- this angel had been sent to Daniel to tell him of the way events would unfold concerning his people, and in particular about “Messiah the Prince”, Daniel 9:25. Note that the word is directly from God by means of an angel, thus signalling that heaven was making movements to fulfil God’s purpose on earth. The incarnation of the Son of God was of great interest to the angel-hosts, so the apostle Paul declares that part of the mystery of God being manifest in flesh was that He was “seen of angels”, 1 Timothy 3:16. The seraphim veil their faces in heaven, Isaiah 6:2.
Unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth- this village is not mentioned in the Old Testament. It is situated in the foothills of Galilee. It was a garrison town for the Roman army, with all that implies in terms of vice and uncouth behaviour. So much so that it had become a proverb- “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth” John 1:46. Yet in this unholy place a maiden and her husband-to-be were living in purity and righteousness.
They give to us a fine example of separation from sin, whilst living in the world of sin. The Lord Jesus prayed about His people to His Father, not that they should be “taken out of the world”, but that they should be “kept from the evil” that is in it, John 17:15. This is possible because, although “in the world” physically, verse 11, because we have been born naturally, we are “not of the world” (morally), verse 16, because we have been born of God.
Matthew records that when, subsequent to the birth of the child, Joseph and Mary went to live again in Nazareth, after having lived for a while in Bethlehem, the prophet’s word was fulfilled which said, “He shall be called a Nazarene”, Matthew 2:23. It is not readily apparent where that quotation comes from, but Matthew is careful to say, “spoken”, and not “written”, and “in the prophets”, not “by the prophets”. So the most likely explanation is that this idea of Him being a Nazarene is connected with the fact that the Messiah was to be despised and rejected of men, (part of the sufferings that all the prophets spoke of, 1 Peter 1:11), and this was suggested to Matthew by His move to Nazareth, a notorious, despised place. There may also be a connection with the word “netzer”, meaning “branch”, one of the titles of the Messiah, Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12.

1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

To a virgin- if she had been anything other than pure in mind and body, she would not have been fit to be the mother of the Lord. “Be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord”, exclaimed the prophet, Isaiah 52:11. If those who carried the vessels of the tabernacle were to be clean, how much more is this necessary for one who bears that One the vessels speak of! As she grew up in Israel, she, as a godly believer in the Old Testament prophecies, would wonder if she was to be the mother of the Messiah, especially as she was of the line of David. She would know the word to Ahaz, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel”, Isaiah 7:14.
Espoused to a man whose name was Joseph- in Jewish practice, to be espoused or betrothed was to be considered a man’s wife-in-waiting. In fact, if a betrothed husband died before the wedding day, his wife-to-be was reckoned a widow. So much so that Mary is called Joseph’s wife before they were married, Matthew 1:20, and he was called her husband, verse 19. This is why Joseph thought he needed to divorce her, rather than simply break off the friendship. As a son of David he would be concerned about the royal line. If an espoused husband was prepared to marry his espoused wife despite the fact that the child she carried was not his, then that child was reckoned to be his son in Jewish law. The question in Joseph’s mind is whether the child was of the royal line. If there was uncertainty about this, then he would refuse to marry Mary. The reason being that, as Scripture says, he was a just man, Matthew 1:19, and therefore would be scrupulous in regard to the honour of the Messiah, and the demands of God in the law.
Of the house of David- the birth narrative is viewed from the point of view of Joseph in Matthew’s gospel, there being emphasis on Christ’s legal claim to the throne through Joseph in that gospel. There are three sons of David in Matthew 1: Solomon, the direct son; Joseph the descendant son, and Christ the designated Son. Luke emphasises the moral claim to the throne, as one who had not failed as the rest of David’s house had, 2 Samuel 23:3-5. Joseph was a son or descendant of David, but because of the bar placed on anyone descended through Jeconias occupying the throne of David, he himself had no right to the throne, see Jeremiah 22:28-30; Matthew 1:11,12.
And the virgin’s name was Mary- this is the same name as Miriam, Moses’ sister, and it means bitter. It is also the same as Naomi’s other name, Mara, also meaning bitter. Naomi’s testimony was “Call me not Naomi, (“pleasantness”), but call me Mara, for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me”, Ruth 1:20. Both Miriam and Naomi had bitter experiences because of their own folly, whereas Mary had bitter experiences as one who was subject to the will of God. This reminds us that despite the joy of being the mother of the Messiah, there was great affliction ahead of her, as she watched the sufferings of her Son. As Simeon would say, “A sword shall pierce through thine own soul also”, Luke 2:35, a reference, no doubt, to the fact that she was present for some of the time at the crucifixion. Needless to say, her sufferings are not vicarious, for only a sinless person can suffer for others, and she was not sinless, even though blameless before men.

1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

And the angel came in unto her- she does not seem to have been frightened by the angel, although she was troubled about what he had to say. The angel came in, so the interview was conducted in the privacy of her home, as was appropriate given the nature of the matters dealt with. Clearly the angel knew where she was at the time, reminding us of the unobtrusive ministry of the angels towards the heirs of salvation, Hebrews 1:14. Yet the angel was to have no role in the incarnation, even though angels encamp round those that fear God, Psalm 34:7. It was to be the Spirit of God Himself who would protect her.
And said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured- the word hail means to rejoice, and would quieten Mary’s spirit, for she now knows that the message to be brought to her will cause her to rejoice and not fear, although she did fear somewhat when she heard it. The words highly favoured were used of Daniel when he was addressed by this same angel Gabriel, Daniel 9:23. This shows that it is not something unique, but it is something special. The expression, in fact, is used of all believers in Ephesians 1:6, where it is rendered “accepted”. It was indeed a great favour to be the mother of the Lord Jesus; with this favour comes the idea of grace, to enable to task to be accomplished. Notice that it is Mary who has received grace and favour, not who bestows grace and favour on others, as certain heretics teach.
The Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women- the one who would be born of her was to be named Emmanuel, God with us, and this in a special and unique way. As it is, the angel refers to the fact that the Lord is with Mary in every sense of the words, for He is on her side, at her side, and the special object of His attention. She is not blessed above women, in the sense that she is to be worshipped as if higher than mortals. Those who elevate Mary thus are clearly ignorant of the Scriptures, and tools of the Devil, as he seeks to divert praise away from Christ, who alone is worthy, Revelation 5:2,9.

1:29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying- she was not troubled by his arrival, even though presumably she had not had an angel visitant before. But she was in communion with God, so was comfortable in the presence of one sent from Him. She is troubled at his saying, however, for it was an unusual greeting, (and she may have connected it with the salutation to Daniel), and seemed to signify that something great was about to be announced to her, and she was no doubt fearful as to whether she was adequate for the task ahead.
And cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be- what was the angel about to announce? Could it possibly be about “Messiah the Prince”? By the words of her song later on, Mary demonstrates an intimate knowledge and love for Old Testament Scripture, and she is no doubt ranging over the possibilities in her mind. Foremost among them would surely be the coming of the Messiah- to be His mother was every Jewish maiden’s dream. Couple this with the fact that the period of time between the commandment to restore Jerusalem under Cyrus, (see Isaiah 44:26), and the cutting off of Messiah, was fast running out, Daniel 9:25.

1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God- the angel assures her that those who find favour with God have no need to fear about the task He gives them to do. During her life Mary must have held on to this assurance when circumstances were grim. She was accustomed to ponder things in her heart, being a thoughtful girl, Luke 2:19; 2;51. It was indeed a great favour to be the mother of the Lord, yet we should remember that the apostle travailed in birth also, so that in the hearts of the believers in Galatia, Christ might be formed, Galatians 4:19. So whilst Mary is unique in one sense, in another all who seek to build Christ-like features into their fellow-believers travail also.

1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name JESUS.

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb- well might the angel say “Behold”, for this was a matter of great significance, and worthy of the closest attention. Notice that the child to be born is the real child of Mary. She is no mere carrier, as if He has no link with her. There was a heresy in earlier times, (and sadly there are still some today who promote it), which suggested that Christ was not in any way connected to Mary. That, in effect, she was simply the protective covering for the child in her womb. Those who put forward this error did so with the idea of maintaining the holiness of Christ, thinking that if He was linked to Mary too closely, He would become contaminated. But this, at heart, is the false doctrine known as Dualism, (and was taught by the Gnostics, false teachers the apostles warned the believers about), which teaches that matter is evil. This is not the case, for matter is neutral morally; it can be used for good, or for evil. The evil rests with the one who uses it in the latter way. So Christ was the real child of Mary, yet received no contamination through being physically connected with her. After all, subsequent to His birth, He was nourished by her- did this contaminate Him? Of course not. Then why should being nourished by her before birth do so? This error is a subtle way of denying the true humanity of Christ. If there was a possibility of contagion touching Him by birth in this way, He could have been produced without a mother as both Adam and Eve were.
The truth is, His real birth is vitally important, for He needs to experience every feeling that we have, sin apart. The words of Hebrews 2:14 are conclusive in this connection, “He also Himself likewise took part of the same”. He (the Lord Jesus), also (as well as the children taking flesh and blood), likewise (in the same way as they do, as far as that is possible given who He is), took part (as one coming from outside of humanity), of the same (that is, the same flesh and blood as the children have).
The apostle Paul has been accused of not believing in the Virgin Birth. It is strange that Luke, the writer of the gospel we are considering, should have fellowship with such a person if he denied “the things most surely believed among us” that he writes of in his gospel, Luke 1:1. But fellowship with Paul he did have often, as we know from the “we” passages in the Acts, (the “we” meaning Paul, Luke, and others). The fact is that the apostle did refer to the virgin birth, although not in the same terms as Luke and Matthew. There was no need to repeat what they had already written. But there was need to emphasise the implications of His birth, however. So in Galatians 4:4 Paul writes, “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law”. In 1 Timothy 3:16, “God was manifest in flesh”. In 1 Timothy 2:5, “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”; in Romans 8:3, “God sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin”. These all imply the virgin birth, but instead of merely repeating the fact, they add doctrine to the fact. The apostle Paul also believed and taught that Jesus Christ was the Son of David, Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 1:8.
And bring forth a son, and shalt call His name JESUS- here it is Mary, the mother, who names Him Jesus, to establish that He is indeed her very own child. Luke is emphasising by telling us this that He is the real child of His mother, even though He has no sinful nature. In Matthew’s account, Joseph is instructed to name Him Jesus, in order to show that he was taking Him as his legal son.

1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David:

He shall be great- Mary is now told certain things about the child she will give birth to. And the first consideration is His greatness. Messiah’s greatness was thought of by many in Israel in terms of the defeat of Israel’s enemies, and the setting up of a glorious kingdom. That kingdom, however, will only be brought in when the nation as a whole receives Him as Messiah in the right way. That right way being with repentance and faith. He will not rule over a nation that is unbelieving. So when Christ came there was a genuine offer of the kingdom to Israel, with Him as their King. Sadly, however, they knew not the time of their visitation, Luke 19:44, and instead of giving Him a throne, they gave Him a cross. Instead of a crown of glory, a crown of thorns. Instead of a sceptre, a reed. Instead of the holy anointing oil, their vile spittle ran down His face. And all this because they did not understand that He had come primarily to save His people from their sins at Calvary, and only afterwards would He enter into His glory, Luke 24:26.
Even John the Baptist failed to grasp the true mission of Christ. When he was in prison because of his faithful rebuke of Herod’s immorality, he sent to the Lord and asked, “Art Thou He that should come, or look we for another”, Luke 7:19. After all, had not the Lord gone into the synagogue at Nazareth and claimed that He was the Messiah who would “preach deliverance to the captives”, and “set at liberty them that were bruised”, Luke 4:18. How is it that he, the herald of the King, is left in prison? John failed to grasp the significance of the fact that the Lord Jesus has stopped reading the scroll at a significant point. He closed the scroll without finishing a sentence! For Isaiah 61:2, from which He was reading, went on to say, “and the day of vengeance of our God”. The day for vengeance upon Herod and those like him had not come, and this fact is clearly signalled by the Lord’s act of stopping the reading. So the day of setting literal prisoners free had not come either.
So the greatness the angel speaks of is moral greatness, and this fits in perfectly with Luke’s theme, and prepares the way for the other features of this king, as we shall see when we consider the statement about the throne of David.
And shall be called the Son of the Highest- the title “Most High God” is found in the Old Testament in connection with His supreme control over the affairs of men, and especially when the prophets speak of a coming day when Christ reigns as the representative of God on the earth. God made David His firstborn son figuratively, for the firstborn son administered everything for the father, and David was entrusted with the duty of being king over Israel. The words of Psalm 2:7 were, “Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee”, meaning that David, upon his accession to the throne of Israel, was to administer for God. This charge was also extended to Solomon, in the words spoken to David about him, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son”, 2 Samuel 7:14. After all, God had called the nation His firstborn son, in Exodus 4:22. As king over such a people, it was appropriate that David and Solomon should be given the same title. Both these “sons”, however, failed in some way, and their successors who followed them on the throne were no better. David admitted this when he wrote, “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God…although my house be not so with God”, 2 Samuel 23:3,5. Yet David held fast to the promises God had made to him, that despite the failure of his descendants, the promise of the throne would not be withdrawn. Speaking of this, God said about David, “Also I will make him My firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and My covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake My law, and walk not in My judgements; If they break My statutes, and keep not My commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless My lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer My faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of My lips. Once have I sworn by My holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah”, Psalm 89:27-37.
Now the words spoken to David and Solomon about being God’s sons figuratively, are applied by the writer to the Hebrews to the Lord Jesus, who is God’s Son actually, see Hebrews 1:5. And this at the point in the chapter where He is described as being brought into the world by God at His second coming, to reign. So the promise that a descendant of David’s would sit on his throne still stands. As does also the promise that his kingdom would endure for ever. But what also stands is God’s threat that if his sons failed and did iniquity, they would be punished. This had come to pass, for the kingdom had been taken from Judah, and the Times of the Gentiles had begun with the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.
So who is competent to administer for God? Only the one who is genuinely the Son of the Highest, whose abilities reach to the heights of Divine expectation.
And the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David- note that the throne is given to Him. He does not simply inherit it by virtue of descent from David. The throne had lapsed at the captivity, and a curse had been pronounced upon any who were of the line of Jeconias. Jeremiah was told to announce this in the most solemn terms:

“O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. This saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: For no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Israel”, Jeremiah 22:29,30.

So none of the descendants of Conias, as Jeconias was otherwise known, were to sit on David’s throne. Yet Joseph is son of David through Jeconias, as Matthew 1:11 shows, so he could not have claimed the throne. How is the difficulty to be overcome? Only by Mary, (who is of the line of David, but not through Jeconias), being the mother of the child, and Joseph becoming his legal father. So He is not the seed of Joseph, and therefore not the seed of Jeconias. The ban does not apply to Him. In this way David is His father, but He is not descended from Jeconias.
In John 6:14,15 the people wanted to make Christ king, after He had fed the multitude. He departed from them into a mountain to pray. He would not be given the throne by the people. But one day He will be given the throne by God, for Daniel saw the Son of Man brought near to the throne of God, and “there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed”, Daniel 7:14.

1:33 And He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end.

And He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever- is this poetic licence, or strict truth? The latter, for the Lord Jesus shall indeed reign for ever. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream which depicted types of successive Gentile rule under the form of the different metals that made up an image of a man. There came a stone out of heaven, however, which destroyed the image, and then expanded into a kingdom that filled the whole earth, and which lasted for ever, Daniel 2:44. This represents the kingdoms of this world being swept away by Christ at His coming to earth, and the setting up of His kingdom for 1000 years. After this He shall deliver up that kingdom to God, 1 Corinthians 15:28, and then the Godhead shall be all in all, and shall rule eternally.
Notice that He will reign over the House of Jacob. The angel is using the name that reminds us of Jacob who, in many respects, was a failure. As he himself admitted before Pharaoh, “few and evil have the days of the years of my life been”, Genesis 47:9. Yet it is the House of Jacob that Christ shall rule over, for He shall transform their failure into success. At His return to earth, it is said with reference to the Lord Jesus, “There shall come out of Sion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is My covenant with them, when I shall take away their sins”, Romans 11:26,27. So shall come to pass the promise given by God through Isaiah in these terms, “For I the Lord thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee. Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee saith the Lord, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel”, Isaiah 41:13,14.
There is also a connection with the fact that the nation that came from Jacob, the nation that was named after him as a changed man, Israel, (see Genesis 32:24-28), became divided on the death of Solomon, and the two parts were called Israel and Judah. Now those divisions are going to be healed, and Christ shall reign over a united nation. If the angel had said “reign over the house of Israel”, then we might have wondered if he was using the word in the sense the later prophets used it. For they described the 10-tribe division of the nation as Israel. Since He is to reign over Jacob, then all misunderstanding is removed.
And of His kingdom there shall be no end- how can this happen? Only if He is risen from the dead. Only as a resurrected man can He sit on David’s throne. This is a point made by the apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost. He showed that David knew that God had sworn on oath to him that one of his physical descendants would be raised up to sit on his throne, Acts 2:29-31. But if this one was to be physically descended from David, then He would be able to die. How could He then reign for ever, as other scriptures said He would? This is where David’s role as a prophet comes in, for in Psalm 16, (quoted by Peter in Acts 2), he prophesied that the Messiah would rise quickly from the dead. Only by sitting on the throne of David as a resurrected man, clear of death, can He reign for ever. So He has sole right to David’s throne by birth and by resurrection.

1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Mary is not aware at this point of the way God is going to act. She is thinking in terms of normal human generation. She knows of only three ways in which a human being has ever come into the world, by creation, as Adam; by formation, as Eve; by generation, as all others. She is to learn that her child will come in through incarnation. She has no relations with Joseph, apart from being legally betrothed to him. The question does remain, however, why she did not immediately assume that the child would be born to them. Why does she not ask if she should marry Joseph? It is clear that she is feeling her way with the question, and not rushing to conclusions. She would have known of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 about a virgin who would conceive and bear a son, who would be called Emmanuel. Yet the angel has not referred to this, and has directed that the child’s name should be Jesus, not Emmanuel.

1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee- the angel answers her query by revealing that the child shall be produced by the enabling of the Holy Spirit. As was said to Joseph later on, “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”. This is all we are told about the conception of the Lord Jesus. We should not be tempted to pry into this matter, and to unravel what the apostle Paul called a great mystery. To try to understand it medically is a task doomed to failure, and God has told us all we need to know about the matter.
When persons in the Old Testament were entrusted with some great task by God, He ensured that they could accomplish it by giving to them the Holy Spirit. In those days and times this was not a gift given permanently. David was given the Spirit of God to enable him to be a good king.. When he failed in the matter of Bathsheba, he pleaded with God not to take His Holy Spirit away from him, Psalm 51:11. If this had happened, he would no longer have been able to function as king. Things are different in this age, however, for the Holy Spirit indwells each believer for ever, John 14:16. Mary is assured of Divine power to strengthen her in every way for this great task, as men of old time were strengthened to serve God.
And the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee- so she will be protected by the overshadowing power of God Himself. She is not entrusted to the care of angels, but God Himself will preserve her. This is especially needed, since the penalty in most cases for fornication under the law was stoning. God will prevent men taking the law into their own hands. He will ensure her child is born without mishap. We must not forget that the child Mary will bear is the Seed of the Woman spoken of in Genesis 3:15, and against this Seed the enmity of the serpent and his seed will be directed. Many times Satan had sought to destroy the Seed Royal, but had failed. He knows he has but a short time to achieve this, but God will ensure he fails again.
Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God- the “also” indicates that this is an additional reason to the one Mary has already been given in verse 32. There the reason was that He would be Son of the Highest because God would recognise Him as His Firstborn, fit to reign. Here, it is because He is born as a result of the action of the Spirit of God. When Luke gives the genealogy of the Lord Jesus, he traces the line right back to Adam, and describes him as a son of God. In other words, Adam was a man because God had created him. So here, the child is to be called Son of God not only because He is equal with the Father as to His Deity, but also because He has been given a body by God’s intervention, as to His manhood. As He Himself said, “But a body hast Thou prepared me”, Hebrews 10:5. So there are three ways in which the Lord Jesus is the Son of God:
As Only begotten Son, He is eternally in relation to God as to Divine affection, John 1:18.
As Firstborn Son, He is eternally in relationship to God as to Divine administration, Colossians 1:15.
As Son of God born, He is in relationship with God as to Divine intervention, Luke 1:35.
So by the manner of His birth, the Lord Jesus retains His relationship with His Father, so that it is still appropriate to call Him Son of God after He has taken flesh. He who is in the form of God has taken upon Him the form of a servant, and thus He has added manhood to Deity.

1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren- this shows that Mary did not know that her aged kinswoman was expecting a child, (for Elizabeth had hid herself, verse 24). John the Baptist and Christ are conceived six months apart, in different places, and without the knowledge of it by the other mother. Couple with this the fact that Mary left Elizabeth just before John was born, so there was no confusion about the children. Up until recent times, it was the requirement in English law that the Home Secretary should be present at the birth of the child of the sovereign, to ensure that there was no mistake as to who was presented to the world as child of the monarch. So it was that Mary went to Elizabeth after her child was conceived, verse 39, (by which time Elizabeth can greet her as “the mother of My Lord”, verse 43), and left her before Elizabeth’s child was born, verse 56,57. It was important that Mary should leave before John was born, even though Elizabeth, as an old woman having her first child, would have been greatly helped by her presence and assistance. There were considerations over-riding that need, however, for the identity of Mary’s child must not be in doubt in any way.

1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

For with God nothing shall be impossible- this is encouragement to Mary, who was no doubt baffled as to how this great thing will happen. The birth of a child to Elizabeth prepares her for the greater work of a child being born of her, who knows not a man. This is an encouragement to all believers, as they remember that everything that is in harmony with the divine character and nature is possible with God. Of course there are some things that God cannot do; lie, for instance, Titus 1:2.

1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word- the simple, believing, humble reply of Mary is a lesson to all who believe. She accepts the great and privileged task given to her, and does so with humility, as the handmaid of the Lord, happy to serve in this way even though it will mean misunderstanding and censure from the world. The Lord Jesus “took upon Him the form of a servant” when He became a man, Philippians 2:7. How appropriate that she who is the means, under God, whereby this came to pass, should describe herself as a servant.
There are those who believe that this is the moment of Christ’s conception, as Mary willingly resigns herself to the will of God.
And the angel departed from her- thus ensuring that no-one could suggest that there was any angelic involvement in the incarnation, apart from the announcement of the event. The work is entirely of God, as befits the Person who is coming into manhood.

JOHN 2

Leave a reply

We hope you will find these notes helpful. Do feel free to download the material on this website for your own personal use, and also to distribute if you so wish. Please be aware that all the writing is copyright, so no alterations should be made.

Please feel free to comment on any aspect of what you find on this website using the contact form at the end of each article. We would be pleased to hear from you.

JOHN 2

Setting of the chapter
The chapter begins with an event which occurred at the end of the sequence of days mentioned in chapter 1. There is no record of what happened after the fourth day, and the narrative moves to the third day after that day, which would complete the cycle of seven days. The kingdom of Christ of which the marriage is a foretaste, will involve “the dispensation of the fulness of times”, Ephesians 1:10, although the present age is the most favoured of all. It is appropriate that the preview of the kingdom that the marriage suggests, should come at the end of a cycle of time. The apostle Peter spoke of these times as “the times of restitution of all things”, and the word restitution was used by the Egyptians for the end of the circle of time.

By “dispensation” is meant the action of Christ as He dispenses the blessings His sacrifice at Calvary has secured. The word does not denote a period of time, but rather the actions carried out during that period of time.

In the kingdom age which will follow the Tribulation Period, the land of Israel shall be “Beulah Land”, for God’s promise to Israel is, “Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.” Isaiah 62:4,5. Hephzibah means “My delight is in her”, and Beulah means “Married”.

Nathanael is now a disciple, and the disciples were present at the wedding in Cana, verse 11. Nathanael was of Cana of Galilee, 21:2, and he forms a link between the happenings of the fourth day which prefigure the tribulation period and its end, and the wedding in Cana. Those who are saved during the Tribulation Period will be taken into the kingdom, which the Lord Jesus likened to a wedding feast that a king made for his son, Matthew 22:1-14.

Summary of the chapter
n John chapter 2 we find that the Lord Jesus manifested Himself in a twofold way to the nation of Israel, first in a domestic scene, verses 1-12, and then in a national scene, verses 13-25. We could set out the comparisons and contrasts in the following way:

Verses 1 to 12

The marriage

Cana of Galilee

Countryside

Rustic

Marriage

Domestic

Presence invited at wedding

New beginning in life

Emphasis on grace

The disciples had real faith

Christ supplied a lack

Love and humility

Christ in the background

Spoke of “His hour”, at Calvary

Verses 13 to 25

The passover

Jerusalem

City

Sophisticated

Festival

National

Presence required at Feast

New beginning in religious year

Emphasis on truth

The Jews had incomplete faith

Christ purged the excess

Zeal and holiness

Christ at the forefront

Spoke of His death and resurrection

As He presents Himself to Israel, the Lord Jesus confronts the three main sins that marked the nation generally. These were immorality, infidelity, and hypocrisy. So it is that Christ manifests His glory at a wedding in Cana of Galilee, the jurisdiction of the immoral Herod. Then He goes to the sphere of influence of the Sadducees, the temple, and asserts the truth of resurrection, which they denied. Then He speaks with Nicodemus the Pharisee, to show that religious orthodoxy in not enough, for “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”.

Structure of the chapter

(a)	Verses 1-12	In Cana of Galilee for a wedding
(b)	Verses 13-22	In the temple at Jerusalem before the passover
(c)	Verses 23-25	In Jerusalem at the passover

(a) 2:1-12
The marriage in Cana of Galilee

Structure of the section

Verses 1-2	The glory of His grace
Verses 3-5	The glory of His gentleness
Verses 6-8	The glory of His greatness
Verses 9-12	The glory of His genuineness

Verses 1-2
The glory of His grace

2:1
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee- we now come to the sequel of the incident with Nathanael. The last verses of John chapter 1 presented to us a preview of the way in which souls will be saved so as to enter into Christ’s millennial kingdom. As we have already noted at the end of chapter 1, Hosea makes it clear that during that kingdom earth and heaven will be linked together by a common interest in the Messiah, Hosea 2:14-23. So it is that the land of Israel shall be called Beulah Land, Beulah meaning “married”, Isaiah 62:4. As we have noted in chapter 1, Ephesians 1:9,10 tells us that all things, whether in heaven or earth, will be gathered together by Christ, and earth and heaven shall be married.

So John links the time of this wedding with the days he has mentioned in chapter one, and in particular the day when Nathanael confessed that Christ was the Son of God and the King of Israel. The miracle he is about to record would demonstrate that Christ is indeed the Son of God, and therefore the Creator, but also that He is the destined King of Israel, able to bring in the unbroken joy of kingdom conditions in a day to come. The “wine” shall never run out in that day.

By not telling us what happened during the fifth and sixth days of the week he is chronicling, John establishes a break, so the scene is set for a new departure for Christ, even His presentation of Himself to Israel at that time. He has revealed Himself to Nathanael, who represents the nation in the future, and now He introduces Himself to the nation at His first coming.

It is significant that He does it, first of all, at a marriage. It is interesting to notice that the vine was created on the third day of creation week, Genesis 1:11-13, and now we have another third day. Interesting also that the fruit of the land of Canaan that the spies brought back was, first of all, a magnificent bunch of grapes, Numbers 13:23,24. The Lord is showing at Cana that He can bring in the good things that God promised. His miracles are called “the powers of the world to come”, Hebrews 6:5, samples beforehand in a limited way as to what He will do in a widespread way during the kingdom.

The writer to the Hebrews warns his readers that they can either be like the earth, “which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed”, and thereby receives “blessing from God”, or they can be like the earth “which beareth thorns and briers”, and “is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned”, Hebrews 6:7,8. At the beginning of John chapter 2 the disciples were like the fruitful earth, for they believed in Christ when they saw His glory manifested at the marriage. Those at the end of the chapter were in danger of being cursed for their failure to properly believe, as we shall see.

The Lord had assured Nathanael that he would see greater things, 1:50, and this is the beginning. The Son of God is the creator of all things, as verses 1-3 of chapter 1 have told us, and this He is demonstrating by His first miracle. It is God who sends the rain, which falls on the soil around the vine, and then soaks down to the roots, nourishes the tree, and enables it to make grapes. A further process takes place by which the ripe grapes are made into wine. Thus the long process of turning water into wine is now compressed into a moment of time as the Son of God shows conclusively that He is the creator of all things, for He is in control of the processes which He Himself had put into operation at the beginning, as recorded in Genesis 1.

In Genesis 1:1 the three things that go to make up the universe are introduced. There is the time-word “beginning”, then heaven and earth tell of matter, and then the notice of their separate positions, indicating space. Time, space, and matter are the three components of God’s creation, and the Lord Jesus in His first miracle at Cana showed Himself to be the master of time and matter. In His second miracle, again at Cana, He showed space and time was no difficulty to Him, for He healed the sick boy at a distance, and at the precise hour of His choosing. And matter was no problem either, for He dealt with the organism that caused the boy’s sickness.

And the mother of Jesus was there- the fact that the mother of Jesus was at the wedding and was not called as the Lord Jesus and his disciples were, would indicate that perhaps the wedding was of someone closely connected to the family, but not one of the family. Perhaps some relative of Mary, given that she has some sort of authority at the occasion. The tense of the word “was” is the imperfect, telling us that she was already at the wedding before the Lord Jesus arrived. It is not clear whether the brethren of the Lord were present or not.

2:2
And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage- graciously the Lord Jesus accepts the invitation, and manifests Himself in a way totally unexpected by those who invited Him. John the Baptist had shunned the company of men, living for many years in the deserts, and as a Nazarite, he totally abstained from wine, as Luke 1:15 makes clear. By contrast, the Lord Jesus, come in grace not law, sought the company of men, and came to bring the joy of which wine is the symbol.

It is significant that the Lord Jesus should introduce himself to Israel at a wedding, thus supporting the concept of marriage. The Scripture says that marriage is honourable in all, Hebrews 13:4. The Lord underlined that by His presence. He would later refer to the beginning of the history of man, when marriage was instituted by God, Matthew 19:3-6, and now God manifest in flesh is reinforcing that primary truth at the beginning of His ministry.

The first plague of Egypt was to turn water into blood, Exodus 7:20, the symbol of death and sorrow, but here water is turned into the symbol of joy, Judges 9:13. Such is the great change that Christ brings about, not only in the lives of men, but also universally when He comes to reign.

Verses 3-5
The glory of His gentleness

2:3
And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine- to want wine means to have a lack of wine; it was the wine that was wanting, not the guests. This may indicate that the newly-weds were relatively poor, and could not afford to provide an abundance of wine. How like the Lord Jesus to enrich the poor; and this He has done more generally as far as all of His people are concerned. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” 2 Corinthians 8:9. It was customary to give gifts of wine or oil to a couple when they were married, thus supplying their needs as they embarked upon life together. If the five disciples and the Lord were the extra guests at the wedding, then the Lord provided six waterpots of wine as a gift to the newly-weds from Himself and His disciples.

It was necessary to drink wine, since the water supply could not always be relied upon to be clean. This is why, if the gospel banned the drinking of wine, it would condemn many converts to dysentery or similar illnesses. The apostle Paul exhorts Timothy to use a little wine for his stomach’s sake, and his often infirmity, 1 Timothy 5:23. He does not exhort him to drink wine, but rather to use it as medicine. In fact the word “use” is connected with the word “necessary”, so the apostle is talking about necessities, not excesses.

There is no prohibition of wine in the New Testament, only a warning about excess. The believer must ask the question about everything he allows, “Will is cause others to be led astray if they do what I do?” Put that way, it is clear that Christians should not drink wine. The wine of those days would not have been very potent and dangerous, unlike that available to us today. “They have no wine” is a simple statement of fact by Mary, with the possible implication that she thought He should do something about it.

2:4
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? The term woman is not rude, but respectful, but on the other hand is not especially a term of endearment. The Anglo Saxon word for woman was “quene”, and is the word from which the word “queen” is derived. John does not make her prominent in this scene, for she is nothing like the person that Catholics worship, to whom they give the same titles as to Christ. Such a person is more like the Semiramis of the Babylonian mythology, who was called “Queen of Heaven”, Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17,18,19,25.

His mother had spoken to Him without any address, so she was speaking just as a woman would to her son. His reply, “What have I to do with thee” indicates that at the outset He establishes that it is the spiritual relationship with Him that matters. It had been the same in the incident recorded by Luke. When His mother and Joseph found Him in the temple, she said, “behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing”. He immediately defended His relationship with His Father in heaven, making it clear who His Father was by saying, “I must be about my Father’s business”. Matthew records an incident in which His mother and His brethren wanted to speak with him, as follows, “He replied, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother”, Matthew 12:46-50. Note that every true believer is brother, sister, mother, as is shown by the singular verb “is”. It is not that some believers are brothers, some are sisters, and some are mothers. Note the parallel passages in Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21, which show that to hear the word of God and to do the will of God are vitally linked. To obey the word of God is to be His brother, and sister, and mother, but not His father, for even this omission defends His relationship with God.

The same title that He gives to His mother here, He gave to her when He was on the cross, thus indicating that He has no intention of rebuking her by the use of the word. The Lord Jesus honoured His earthly mother and legal father, and thus magnified the law and made it honourable, Isaiah 42:21, for the commandment to honour father and mother is the first with a promise attached to it, Ephesians 6:1-3. It was also the first commandment to do with conduct toward men, after the four commandments to do with conduct towards God. And yet for all that He was hung upon the cross as if He were a lawbreaking son who would not obey His mother and father. See Deuteronomy 21:18-23 and Galatians 3:13.

The last mention of Mary is in Acts 1:14, where she is found in the upper room waiting for the Spirit to come on the Day of Pentecost, when she would be united to the Lord Jesus in a far higher relationship. All believers of this age share the same relationship to Him as Mary does in this respect.

In John 20:17, He forbids Mary Magdalene to touch him, the reason being that He had not yet ascended to His Father. Believers “touch Him” as He is in heaven. The apostle warns the Colossians against “not holding the head”, Colossians 2:19. He goes on to speak in that verse of joints and bands ministering nourishment, for the apostles and prophets with their written ministry, and pastors and teachers with their spoken ministry, are the channels of supply to us directly from Christ the head of the church. The word for bands the apostle uses is derived from the verb “to touch”. This is the way believers touch Christ, even though He is far away in heaven. What was true for Mary Magdalene was also true for Mary the mother of Jesus; she must wait until Pentecost to have the closest link with Him.

Mine hour is not yet come- this indicates a time when this relationship would be initiated. It is when all the events surrounding His departure from this world back to the Father take place. At the cross earthly links are broken, Galatians 2:20, and at Pentecost spiritual links are established, 1 Corinthians 6:16;12:13.

It is interesting to note that the Lord Jesus goes to a marriage where a natural relationship and joining is enacted, and yet He implies by His word that natural relationships must give way to spiritual ones at the appropriate moment. We should ever hold natural relationships in their proper place, and not allow them to hinder love to Christ. He Himself said, “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me”, Matthew 10:37. Yet at the same time, through the apostle Paul, He condemns those who have no natural affection, 2 Timothy 3:3, so we should keep these things in their proper balance.

2:5
His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it- this shows that Mary has not been offended by being called “woman”. She is no doubt convinced He is the Messiah. The disciples will have told her of the descent of the Spirit and John’s comment about it. She may even have been there herself. She does not seem to think that by the words “mine hour is not yet come” He means that now is not the time to remedy the lack of wine. She clearly has confidence in His ability to cope with this situation, for she tells the servants to do whatever He instructs them.

This is a valuable insight into the way the Lord had conducted Himself during those years of obscurity in the home at Nazareth. He had always shown Himself capable, but His actions had never been designed to draw attention to Himself. He had been about His Father’s business then, but it had been a different sort of business during those years before He was manifest to Israel.

Let us rise to the challenge of these words, being careful to do whatsoever He commands, Matthew 28:20; 1 Corinthians 14:37. The fact that Mary spoke to a servant like this without going through the governor of the feast, tends to confirm that she was in some way responsible at the marriage.

Verses 6-8
The glory of His greatness

2:6
And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews- the expression “set there” can mean “lying there”, that is, on their side because they were empty. Thus we are assured there is nothing in the pots to start with, which is why the Lord commands the servants to fill the waterpots with water, and not simply add water to what was already there. The word “containing” need not mean any more than that they could hold two or three firkins if filled. That was their volume as containers.

Two or three firkins apiece would be about fifty-four gallons or four hundred and thirty-two pints. This is the Lord’s generous wedding present to the happy pair, but they would begin their married life by sharing this gift with others. It should always be true that we share His gifts with others.

2:7
Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water- they no doubt went to the village well to do this, so it was a perfectly natural action, which they had done many times before. It was also perfectly natural water.

And they filled them up to the brim- note the immediate and unquestioning response of the servants to the command of the Lord Jesus, and the fact that they filled the pots to the brim. There was no room left for any substance to be added, so there was no trickery.

2:8
And He saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

And He saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast- this would no doubt involve pouring from the pots into a drinking vessel, and taking it straight to the governor in charge of the arrangements. Note the confidence of the Lord in His ability even though this is His first miracle, for He is acting, as ever, in line with His Father’s will, and simply doing what His Father is doing. He did His Father’s business before His manifestation to Israel, in the obscurity of the years at Nazareth, as Luke 2:49 shows, and now it is true as publicly manifested. The business has changed in character, however.

The servants have been given commands in stages and they obey each one in turn. They must have been puzzled at the idea of bearing water to the guests. It would add insult to injury to run out of wine and then offer the guests water. Despite this, the servants obey unquestioningly, as we should. Those things which the Lord commands us to do are not what the natural man would do, but they are what obedient servants would do.

Note that the Lord respects the role of the governor. He did not impose Himself upon the occasion, nor did He come to impose a new social order upon men, but to radically change the men themselves. The apostles continued in this way, and did not seek to initiate social reforms. Their only concern was that men would be saved, and thus be personally reformed and ready for heaven, while at the same time being useful for God on earth.

And they bare it- the singular pronoun indicates that the reference is to the cup of wine they have poured from the pots, and which they now carry to the governor. All the servants go, so that they may know what his verdict is, and respond accordingly.

Verses 9-12
The glory of His genuineness

Every stage of this miracle was transparent and open; there was no deceit. We see this in the following ways:

1. As we have suggested, the pots were laying on their side to start with, the water having been used up to wash the guests feet as they arrived. This means there was no water left in them.

2. The servants do not know a miracle is about to take place. All they think they are doing is filling pots with water. They are not complicit in some deception.

3. They fill the pots to the brim, so there is no room for some substance to be added to colour the water red.

4. The Lord has nothing to do with this filling process; He does not bless the pots or the water, but is completely apart from the action.

5. The water is borne straight to the governor so that he can give his unbiased verdict on the suitability or otherwise of the wine. He probably did this to all the wine before it was served. The Lord’s wine will be subjected to the same test as the other wine.

6. The servants can testify that it started as water; the governor testifies that it finished as wine.

7. The governor calls the bridegroom, not Christ, for he is not aware of what has happened.

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.

When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was- it would be normal for the governor to taste the wine to ensure that it was a suitable quality before it was served to the guests. He is an independent witness. He is convinced it is wine, yet he knows not what has happened.

(But the servants which drew the water knew)– this is John’s comment, found in parenthesis, and assures us that there was no collusion between the servants and the governor, any more than there was collusion between Christ and the servants. All is genuine and open. After all, John was present at the wedding, and he writes near the end of his gospel that the Lord did signs “in the presence of his disciples”, John 20:30, so there was no secrecy.

The servants can now testify that the pots were empty; that they filled them with water; that they filled them with water to the brim; that the Lord Jesus had not prayed over the pots. Most likely He had not even been present when they were filled. In between the time the servants filled the pots with water, and the time they drew it out of the pots to take to the governor, the water turned to wine.

The governor of the feast called the bridegroom- it is not Christ but the bridegroom who is called, but the latter was unaware of what had happened, so he is not advanced as a witness. In fact it is the governor who bears witness, and gives the bridegroom the credit for the quality of the wine.

2:10
And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse- after the governor had tasted the water that became wine his verdict is that the first wine is inferior. The governor thinks that the bridegroom has reversed the normal order, and set on the good wine at the end. In fact, the bridegroom had set on his good wine at the beginning, but it had been surpassed in quality by the Lord’s good wine. Both lots of wine had come from Christ, the first from Him by way of processes He as Creator had initiated, the second by His miraculous intervention in those processes.

The Lord is indicating by this miracle that He is about to introduce a new order of things. Later in His ministry He will liken the law to old wine skins, which cannot stand having new wine put into them, Matthew 9:17. The new wine of the gospel cannot be contained in the old “skins” of men under the law. The skins must be replaced. It is in Christ that a man is renewed, so that he may contain the new wine of the gospel. Later on the Lord will promise that his people shall do greater things than the miracles He performed, 14:12. They would be able to bring out the spiritual truth behind the miracles, and disclose that there is a joy that is beyond natural joy, and He is the one who brings it in. The apostle Peter calls it joy unspeakable, and full of glory, 1 Peter 1:8.

But thou hast kept the good wine until now- note that the Lord does not make wine that is so good that it makes the first wine seem bad, and a reflection on the bridegroom. He carefully regulates the quality so that the difference is noted, but not in a way that will draw attention to Himself. As the governor says, the normal practice was to set on the lesser wine when men have had a good fill of the good wine, so that they do not realise the wine at the end is less good. Here the good wine has been served first, and still the last wine is thought to be better. Christ always surpasses our expectations. The wine of the law-covenant was good wine, having to do with the righteousness of God, but the wine of the gospel-covenant is better, for it is based on the work of the cross. As the Lord said to His disciples in the upper room, in reference to a cup of wine, “this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”, Matthew 26:28. The law condemned sins, but grace brings forgiveness. The law brought sorrow, but grace brings joy.

2:11
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee- the notion that the child Jesus worked miracles is mere tradition, and has no foundation in scripture. When He went to preach in the synagogue at Nazareth, “where he was brought up”, there were cynics present who, the Lord said, would surely say unto him in a proverb, “Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country”, Luke 4:23. They have heard of His miracle-working in Capernaum,, and now suggest He should do some miracles in Nazareth to prove His claims. But if He had done miracles during His childhood in Nazareth, they would have said something like “Do some more of the miracles you have always been doing in Nazareth”.

And manifested forth his glory- glory may be defined as “the expression of inherent worth”. The Lord Jesus does not look for public reputation. He made himself of no reputation, yet manifests Himself as the creator of all things in the world His hands had made. He retires quietly, because He does not want the guests to believe on Him only as a miracle-worker, as the events at the end of the chapter and also His interview with Nicodemus show, for He must be believed on as a Saviour who died on a cross for sins.

There are those who speak as if Christ veiled His glory when He came into manhood. This does not find support from this verse, or from verse 14 of chapter one, where John says “we beheld his glory”. The fact is that He retained His glory, for it is intrinsic to His Deity, which He never left. What He did do was manifest that glory in a way that could be appreciated by seekers after the truth. So it was moral glory that was seen.

It is also noticeable that in John’s gospel, which sets out to show us that Jesus is no less than the Son of God, the miracles all touch upon human experience. The first, the joy of marriage; the second, the sadness of parental grief; the third, the inability to work; the fourth, daily needs; the fifth, physical handicap; the sixth, bereavement; the seventh, the need to earn one’s living. How like the Lord to enter into the everyday affairs of men, and manifest His glory in them!

And his disciples believed on him- they already believed on Him, having listened to John the Baptist’s testimony and as a result transferred their allegiance to the Lord. In this incident their faith is confirmed, and they believe on Him in a deeper way, for He had not only taught them as the Prophet when they abode with Him, but He now is seen to work miracles as the Christ. They now believe in a double way.

2:12
After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and is brethren, and his disciples- John does not tell us how many disciples this involves. Perhaps it is the five mentioned in chapter one. Nor does he tell us how many brethren accompanied Him, although we know that He had four brethren and at least two sisters, Matthew 13:55,56. These would be the other children of Mary, with Him being the firstborn, Luke 2:7.

The more permanent move from Nazareth to Capernaum had not taken place yet, for this occurred after John the Baptist had been beheaded, Matthew 4:2,12,13. Perhaps His mother was more free to move about now that her children were grown up, and, as is most likely the case, her husband Joseph had died.

Note the distinction made between the disciples and His brethren, for sadly the latter have not yet believed on Him. These men lived with Him for thirty years and did not believe on Him. They saw His miracles, and still did not believe on Him. From the language they use in John 7:1-5, which has an Old Testament character about it, they were zealous for the coming Messianic Kingdom. When Christ did not live up to their expectations by defeating their enemies, they refused to believe on Him as the Son of God. When He was crucified, this would only confirm in their minds the impression that He was not the Messiah. Yet when He rose from the dead they believed, as we see from the fact that they were with the apostles waiting for the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, Acts 1:14. We are also told that the Lord appeared to James the Lord’s brother after His resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:7. Such is the genuineness of the resurrection of Christ, that it convinced hardened unbelievers of the truth as to His person. If He had not really risen, they would not have changed their minds.
And they continued there not many days- it seems the plan was to wait in Capernaum until it was time to go up to Jerusalem together for the passover, which was “at hand”. This would explain why His mother and His brethren travelled with Him, even though His brethren did not believe in Him. They had most likely come from Nazareth to Cana for the wedding, and met up with the Lord’s party as they came from beyond Jordan. The brothers would be going to the feast as a matter of religious duty, John 7:10. It was not compulsory for women to go to the feasts, but it appears Mary did, Luke 2:41, which shows her devotion to God. That He continued where He was “not many days” shows that the Lord did not impose Himself upon His host.

See the end of the chapter for a special and extended note on marriage.

(b) 2:13-22
In the temple at Jerusalem before the passover

Special note on the passovers in John’s gospel
It would be appropriate at this point to notice the way in which John uses the feast of the passover as the basis for the new things that Christ brings in as He reveals the Father. After all, the passover was a new beginning for Israel, and even their calendar was altered to reflect that. God’s word to them was “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you”, Exodus 12:2. We learn from Exodus 34:22 that the feast of ingathering, which was to be held in the seventh month, was “at the year’s end”. It was the end of the agricultural year, when the cycle of seed time and harvest came to its climax, but when God made a new start with the children of Israel, He ordained that they should begin their religious calendar with the passover.

At the original passover, a new people came into being, for in Exodus 12:3 we have the first mention of “all the congregation of Israel”. Likewise, it is a new company that is being formed in the first part of John’s gospel, with the idea of the new birth in the prologue, 1:13, and then in the Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus at passover time, 3:3-8.

At the second passover in His ministry, (assuming the feast of 5:1 was a passover), there is introduced the idea of a new pilgrimage, for the impotent man, unable to walk for thirty and eight years, (the same length of time as Israel wandered in the wilderness after they had reached its borders, instead of purposefully making their way into the Promised land), is able to rise, take up his bed and walk. He begins to be a pilgrim on the way to heaven.

At the next passover time the Lord provided the five thousand with food in the wilderness, just as after the original passover the people were given manna from heaven in the wilderness. A new people on a new pilgrimage need new provisions.

The fourth passover is the one at which “Christ our passover” was “sacrificed for us”, 1 Corinthians 5:7, and laid the basis for the formation of a new people, whose destiny is heaven, and who are sustained by bread which is His flesh, which He gave for the life of the world, John 6:51.

2:13
And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

And the Jews’ passover was at hand- John is careful to tell us that what in Old Testament times was called the Feast of the Lord, has now become “the Jews’ passover”. Sadly, the festival had become man-orientated, and God’s interests were secondary. This can happen with believers today. The apostle Paul rebuked the Corinthians because the Lord’s Supper had become their supper, 1 Corinthians 11:20,21. Instead of being for the glory of God, the assembly gathering had become a social occasion. We should guard against this self-centredness creeping in amongst the assembly. It can do so in subtle ways, such as by hymns that constantly use the word “I”, when in the assembly gatherings it should be “we”, the collective thought. Also by occupation with our blessings and privileges, rather than upon the one who gained them for us at such a cost.

And Jesus went up to Jerusalem- the temple services had become man-centred, but this is about to change, as Christ intervenes as one who has His Father’s interests at heart at all times and in all ways, and He becomes central. John has already referred to Christ coming to His own things, 1:11, and here is a case in point. The temple is His Father’s House, and as the Son of the Father it is His house too, although He does not claim this now.

Malachi spoke of a day when the Lord would suddenly come to His temple, Malachi 3:1, and here is a preview of that day. The Devil had tempted Him to come suddenly by casting Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, Matthew 4:5-7. He had refused to tempt God by doing this, but now comes to the temple as guided by His Father, and not provoked by the Devil. Jerusalem was ideally the “Place of the Name”, where God was honoured, but that name was tarnished. Christ goes to Jerusalem to remedy this.

It was required of Jewish males that they appear before the Lord at three seasons of the year, namely at passover time, the feast of weeks, which became known in the New Testament as Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles, for the seven feasts of the Lord were clustered around these seasons, Deuteronomy 16:16. The Lord Jesus magnified the law and made it honourable, and so was found faithfully appearing before God at these times. Whilst for the Christian set feasts and a religious calendar are not the order of the day, yet there should be the exercise of heart to gather with the Lord’s people in accordance with the New Testament. We should heed the exhortation, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” Hebrews 10:25.

2:14
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves- John in his gospel especially emphasises the burnt offering side of things, so it is significant that he mentions the three classes of animal that were offered as burnt offerings, the sacrifices of a man who was devoted to God. It is as if the Lord is placing Himself alongside the offerings of men, and giving them opportunity to see that He had come to institute a better order of things. He will then displace them, for His sacrifice would take away the old things. As the writer to the Hebrews states, (having listed the Old Testament sacrifices, including the burnt offering), “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Hebrews 10:9. By “the first” is meant the will of God expressed in animal sacrifices, and by “the second” is meant the will of God expressed in the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.

And the changers of money sitting- clearly, the visitors to the temple have not come only to offer a passover lamb, but to offer other sacrifices as well, particularly if they lived in foreign lands. They would need the service of the money-changers in order to buy their animals, since the temple authorities would not accept Gentile currency, particularly if it was inscribed with pagan or idolatrous symbols. We might wonder why the Lord expelled them therefore, since they seemed to be preserving the integrity of the name of God, so the explanation is given for us in the next verses.

These money changers were sitting, for they did not have to move about trying to find trade. The pilgrims had no option but to use the licensed money changers, so all these latter had to do was sit and wait for their customers to come.

2:15
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen- the word for cord means a rope made of bulrushes, so the scourge is symbolical only, an emblem of authority and judgment. The temple was in chaos morally, and this is shown graphically and visibly by the Lord’s action here. We must never think that the Lord did these things in a fit of temper. He was acting in righteous anger, outraged at what was happening in His Father’s house. He had been many times to these temple courts, and had seen what went on, and now, after long years of patiently waiting, He moves to expose the wrong in a righteous and controlled way.

The expulsion of the animals is the act of One who knows that His Father had no pleasure in them, since they were offered by the law, and offered in circumstances that were not glorifying to God. He Himself mentions His body in verse 21, but there as a temple, whereas in this section it is a potential sacrifice, for we read that believers are “sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”, Hebrews 10:10. He replaces the temple and the sacrifices by what He did in the body.

And poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables- these were the particular objects of Christ’s indignation, for they represented the principle that money may be made out of the service of the Lord. The apostle Paul could say, “I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.” Acts 20:33.

2:16
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

And said unto them that sold doves- the dove sellers are especially singled out, because they would have dealings with the poor, (the dove-offering being the sacrifice the poor could make, Leviticus 5:7), and consequently would be more likely to take advantage of their vulnerability.

Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise- Zechariah assures us that in the millenial temple, there will no more be the Canaanite, (the word means “merchantman”), in the house of the Lord of hosts, Zechariah 14:21, for self- interest will be displaced by the desire to glorify God alone in His temple.

In this first cleansing, the charge is making merchandise out of Divine things, and thus getting gain for themselves. In the second cleansing, the charge is more severe, that of robbing God of His due. The situation is all the more sad because it was the priestly family of Annas and Caiaphas who leased out the stalls in the temple courts, and these should have certainly known better, for “the priest’s lips should keep knowledge”, Malachi 2:7.

We should be very careful not to give the impression that the unsaved may contribute anything, including finance, to the Lord’s assembly, lest it should be thought of as a house of merchandise. “Taking nothing of the Gentiles” 3 John 7 should be our motto in this regard. See also Ezra 4:1-3.

2:17
And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up- note that the disciples are learning to relate Old Testament scriptures to the Lord’s actions. Psalm 69, from which this quotation comes, is not especially Messianic, because it contains a confession of sin and foolishness, and this could never be on the lips of the Holy Son of God. It is significant that Psalm 69:30,31 says that to magnify the Lord’s name with thanksgiving pleases Him “better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs”, and the Lord Jesus was indeed defending the honour of His Father’s name by His actions at this time, as ever, and as His Father acknowledged in John 12:28. He magnified His Father’s name by expelling the oxen.

The duty of the head of the Israelite houses was to purge out the leaven found there in preparation for the feast of passover, and the feast of unleavened bread which followed immediately after. As the Son representing His Father, the Lord Jesus undertakes to purge the leaven from the House of God, the temple at Jerusalem.

Today the House of God is the local assembly, 1 Timothy 3:15. Can it be said of us that the zeal of that house consumes us? Are we totally committed to furthering the interests of the Lord’s assembly, or have we time only for our own interests, and rate the assembly as a secondary matter? And do we ensure that we do not introduce into it anything that can be classed as leaven? The Corinthians had introduced the leaven of immorality into the assembly, and the apostle commands them to purge it out, 1 Corinthians 5:6-8. They did so, and he can describe their action in these terms, “For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.” 2 Corinthians 7:11.

The Galatians had allowed the introduction of the leaven of evil doctrine, and they are commanded to cut off from themselves those who had done this, Galatians 5:7-12. When they did this, then the zeal of God’s house would be eating them up, giving them a consuming passion for the honour of God. For as the apostle said to them, “But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.” Galatians 4:18.

John is careful to note that it is His disciples that remember it is written in the psalm about His zeal. It is significant that the statement in the psalm begins with “for”, indicating that it is an explanation. The previous statement is, “I am become a stranger to my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children”. Could it be that the children of His mother, (whom we know from John 7:10 were accustomed to going to the feasts), found this display of zeal for God’s house an embarrassment, and caused them to begin to think that He was not the Messiah, since He did not seem to be in sympathy with what went on in the temple? Happily, they would be convinced by His resurrection from the dead, which He foretells in this very passage.

2:18
Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Note the difference in reaction of these Jews in authority, to the disciples’ reaction. The disciples see a fulfilment of prophecy, but the authorities only see it as an attack on their power base. His assertion of His authority had left them amazed and powerless.

The Jews require a sign, said the apostle Paul later, in 1 Corinthians 1:22. They wanted proof that He was acting for God in His radical actions. They asked a similar question at the second cleansing of the temple, but then the Lord refused to tell them His authority, for He had given ample proof during His ministry as to who He was and who had given Him His authority.

2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up- these are words which would be brought up at His trial, and twisted to try to gain His conviction, Matthew 26:61. They were also used to revile Him as He hung upon the cross, Matthew 27:39,40. By His actions and words here He showed that He knew they would slay Him at last. The Divine response to the Jewish demand for a sign is Messiah’s death and resurrection, Matthew 12:38-42.

The Lord is speaking on two levels here. He is speaking of His body as a temple, but also of the literal temple where they were standing. They would destroy His body so that His spirit and soul and body would be separated in death, but this would mean that the literal temple would be destroyed too. By crucifying Him, they would secure the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple, for the destiny of the temple at Jerusalem was bound up in the destiny of the temple of His body.

Hosea had spoken of a period of three days after which God would raise up His people Israel again from the grave of the nations, Hosea 6:1,2. Together with the Messiah’s dead body would they rise, Isaiah 26:19, or in other words, they would be associated with and believe in His resurrection at long last, and gain the benefits which His rising again brings to those who believe. It was the Sadducean party which controlled the temple, and they did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They will recognise this statement by Christ as an attack upon their doctrine.

2:20
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? Not realising He was uttering a prophecy which involved the destruction and fall of the nation and its subsequent rise, they thought only in terms of physically building the temple. They contrast Herod’s labours for 46 years, with the short period of three days. Herod commenced the restoration and embellishment of the temple in about 19 BC. If the exact date when Herod began to build the temple could be established with absolute certainty, it would also establish the date of this passover, and hence when the crucifixion occurred, three passovers later. Provisionally, we may say that if Herod began building in 20 BC, then forty and six years later is AD 26, which becomes the date of the first passover in the Lord’s ministry. Three passovers later brings us to AD 29, when it is said that the passover was on Wednesday March 23rd. This means that on this reckoning the Lord was crucified on a Thursday.

2:21
But he spake of the temple of his body.

There is a connection therefore between the destiny of the temple, and that of His body. Both will be destroyed, but both will rise again. In the case of Christ’s body the destruction would mean the separation of His body, soul, and spirit in death, and significantly, when that happened the veil of the temple was rent, for the destruction or dissolution of the temple of His body had begun! And by rending the veil God was signalling the fall of Jerusalem in due time. But it is said of Messiah that “he shall build the temple of the Lord”, Zechariah 6:12-14, so there shall be a temple in Jerusalem again during the kingdom of Christ.

2:22
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them- the disciples were slow to learn the truths that the Lord Jesus taught them, and they had to be rebuked for that slowness on more than one occasion. When He foretold His death and resurrection later in His ministry, Luke tells us “And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.” Luke 18:34. So it was ordered of God that they should not believe He would rise quickly, so that when He did it could not be said that they imagined it. It was the actual sight of Him in resurrection that finally convinced them.

And they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said- after the Lord had risen, and especially after they received the Spirit of God at Pentecost, they were not only able to understand what He had said to them when with them, but were also able to relate the events of His life to the Old Testament, (“the scripture”), and to do so in such a way as to recognise that His word and the Old Testament are of equal authority. In both John 17:12 and 20:9 there is reference to “scripture” in the singular, where there has not been a quotation of a particular verse, but a reference to some well-known one. So we may understand the word scripture here as referring to the prime passage that speaks of the resurrection of Christ, namely Psalm 16:10,11. The apostle Peter appealed to this passage in Acts 2:24-28 when he was announcing the resurrection of Christ. The apostle Paul does the same in Acts 13:34-37.

2:23
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover- this is the first passover of the Lord’s public ministry. Every male in Israel was expected to attend this feast, and as one who was “made under the law”, Galatians 4:4, the Lord was in attendance, no doubt having joined the pilgrim band from Capernaum.

In the feast day- it is clear from verses 13-22 that the Lord had been in the temple courts before the main feast day. Now it is the actual passover day itself, when the lamb was to be killed and eaten. Passover time was a commemoration of the deliverance God had effected for the nation in their downtrodden state. It was also a reminder that Moses and Aaron had been able to perform miracles to demonstrate that they were acting for Jehovah, the God of heaven.

Many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did- taking the foregoing facts together, we see that the time of passover was one when expectations were raised considerably. When one came who seemed to have authority, especially in the temple courts, and, moreover, was able to work miracles, the people began to wonder whether the Messiah was in their midst. Of course, the miracles the Lord Jesus did were indications that He was the prophesied Messiah, as a reading of Isaiah 35:5,6 will show. But it is not miracles alone that present this proof, but miracles accompanied by doctrine. And it is the doctrine that went alongside the miracles, and was demonstrated by the miracles, that the natural heart of man was not willing to accept.

2:24
But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men- we might think that to believe in His name was a good thing, but the Lord indicates that in this context it is not so. His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, even that aspect of it which will be known upon the earth in a day to come. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, Romans 14:17. Carnal expectations of a political deliverance had no place in the thinking of Christ. The Lord knew their hearts, that they believed on Him only in this carnal way; the same way in which any political figure may be believed in, as one able to produce results. They probably compared his miracles to those of Moses just before the Exodus from Egypt, especially as the prophets had used this ancient deliverance as a symbol of the future deliverance of the nation under the Messiah.

2:25
And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

And needed not that any should testify of man- Jeremiah 17:9,10 reads- “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give to every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” It will become increasingly evident as the months go by that this is the case, for the Lord Jesus could read the thoughts of men. He had already shown that He knew about Nathanael from a distance. When he was thinking of the omnipresence of God, David wrote, “thou understandest my thought afar off”, Psalm 139:2.

For he knew what was in man- not only did He know thoughts from afar, He knew what those thoughts sprang from and what they could lead to. In this case they sprang from a desire for signs, and they would lead to Him being rejected because of the doctrines He taught in connection with the miracles.

Special note on faith
It important to realise that there are different sorts of faith. The ability to believe has been built into man by His Creator. This is seen from two things. First, the terrible consequences of not believing. If a man is not able to believe, how can God be just when He condemns him to eternal damnation for not believing? He can only do this justly if man is able to believe but refuses. Second, Paul traces the cause of man’s unbelief to the work of the god of this age, Satan himself, 2 Corinthians 4:4. If a man can only believe if God gives Him faith, as some would say, why does Satan need to blind his mind lest he believe?

So the reason there are different sorts of faith is because man is corrupted by sin, and prefers his own thoughts to God’s. When the word of God is made known, however, the Spirit of God applies that word so that true and saving faith is exercised. The Spirit does not produce the spurious forms of faith we shall look at now.

There is incorrect faith, when people believe in their own ability to earn salvation, whether by religious ritual, or by good works. They trust in themselves that they are righteous, Luke 18:9. Or when a person believes about the Lord Jesus, but does not consciously repent and believe on Him in the gospel sense.

Then there is insincere faith, when a person makes a profession of faith for the sake of some advantage which he believes he may gain from it, such as to please Christian parents or friends.

There is the impulsive faith that the Lord Jesus spoke of in the parable of the sower, where there was a plant which grew up in the shallow, rocky soil, and the same sun that caused it to quickly grow also caused it to wither, for it had no root in itself, the root being evidence of life within. Such “for a while believe, but in time of temptation fall away”, Luke 8:13. The true believer thrives on tribulation, Romans 5:3. (We might think that those who responded to the gospel on the Day of Pentecost were like this, for they quickly responded to the gospel, but the genuineness and permanence of their faith is seen in them being “pricked to the heart”, for the word of God had produced true repentance and faith, Acts 2:37-40).

The apostle Paul warned the Corinthians about believing in vain, 1 Corinthians 15:2, by which he meant believing without due consideration, and with a flippant, unthinking attitude. Those who preach the gospel should preach a solid message, firmly grounded on the truth of Scripture, and one which appeals not to the emotions, (although the emotions cannot be totally excluded from conversion), but to the conscience, (2 Corinthians 4:2), heart or innermost being, (Romans 10:10), mind, (2 Corinthians 4:4), and will, (Romans 1:5), of those listening.

Then there is the faith in Christ as a miracle-worker, the sort of faith being exercised in these verses. This is imperfect faith, which the Lord does not despise, but rather seeks to turn into faith of the right sort. Nicodemus was at first one of these, as his words in the next chapter show, (“we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with Him”). He was led on to see that it is as one given by the Father to the cross that he must believe in Christ. Surely he reached that point, for he saw Christ hanging on the cross, and immediately came out from his secret discipleship to assist Joseph of Arimathea to publicly bury Him, John 19:39.

Such are the spurious forms of faith for which the Spirit of God is not responsible. There is however, that important and intelligent faith, the faith that saves, and on the principle of which a person is reckoned right before God, as detailed in the Epistle to the Romans.

Now this faith is presented to us in the New Testament in three aspects, for different prepositions are used in the Greek in regard to it. We need therefore to consult our concordance and see the actual prepositions that are used. We should remember as we do so, that Greek prepositions first of all tell of a physical position, and then of a non-physical meaning which can be derived from this.

Special note on the three prepositions used in relation to faith in Christ:

There is the preposition “eis”, which has to do with motion towards an object. In relation to faith, this indicates that a person has Christ before him when he believes, so Christ is his object. This preposition is used in regard to faith in Christ in the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles. Christ is presented to men for their faith, and faith is directed towards Him as the object. In some cases in the Scriptures this faith in Christ is incorrect, insincere or imperfect faith, and sometimes important, saving faith. The context must decide.

There is the preposition “epi”, which has to do with resting on an object. In relation to faith in Christ, this indicates that Christ is the one on whom faith rests, so Christ is his foundation. This preposition is used in the Acts and the Epistles, but not in the Gospels. It is used after Christ died, rose again, and returned to heaven. Christ is rested on as one proved to be a stable foundation.

The following are the scriptures that use “epi”, meaning “upon”:

“Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?” Acts 11:17.

“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Acts 16:31.

“And whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed”, Romans 9:33.

“For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.” Romans 10:11.

“Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on Him to life everlasting.” 1 Timothy 1:16;

“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.” 1 Peter 2:6.

Note that three of these verses, (Romans 9:33;10:11; and 1 Peter 2:6), quote from Isaiah 28:16.

There is the preposition “en”, which has to do with being in a place or position within an object. In relation to faith, this indicates that a person is fully surrounded by Christ, so Christ is his security. Such an one believes from within this secure place. This preposition is used seven times, but only in the Epistles, after the work and person of Christ has been fully manifested, and the secure position of the believer is set forth.

The following are the scriptures which use “en”, meaning “in”:

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:26.

“Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints”, Ephesians 1:15.

“Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,” Colossians 1:4.

“And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 1:14.

“For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 3:13.

“Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 1:13.

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15.

Note that in six cases the faith is in Christ Jesus, the risen, glorified man in heaven, and once it is in the Lord Jesus, the one with all authority. Faith in Him is well-placed.

Special and extended note on marriage

The institution of marriage
When He was questioned by the Pharisees on the matter of divorce, the Lord Jesus responded by first speaking to them about marriage. They wanted to debate the divorce law, but He took them back to the institution of marriage in the book of Genesis with the words “but from the beginning it was not so”, Matthew 19:8. It must therefore be the best policy to note what God did and said in that first week of this world’s existence, and in particular, what happened on the sixth day when God made the man and the woman. We turn first, therefore, to Genesis chapter 2.

Genesis 2:18
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone- these are words spoken on the sixth day. No doubt God made all the other creatures with a mate, or else how could they multiply? It is true that the land animals are not expressly commanded to multiply, but they surely did, and Noah took male and female into the ark to replenish the earth after the flood.

After many times saying “good”, now God says “not good”. But the “should be” indicates that He is thinking of a potential situation in the future, not describing a feeling that was currently known by Adam, for there was no sadness in Eden before the fall. He was a lone man for a brief time but he was not a lonely man, for he had God to commune with. It is God’s intention that the Last Adam should not be alone either, so He will have His bride by His side for all eternity. Nor is this because He is lonely, for He has His Father to commune with.

I will make him an help meet for him- the woman is going to be Adam’s helper as he serves as God’s regent upon the earth, and she will be meet or suitable for him, corresponding to him in every way. She will be his counter-part. She is not a second-class or second-rate person. As the apostle Paul wrote, “the woman is the glory of the man”, 1 Corinthians 11:7. The believing woman makes a vital contribution to the glory that comes to God when the man exercises his headship role. He would not be complete in that respect without her help.

Genesis 2:19
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air- this is a reference to what happened on the sixth and fifth days respectively. This indicates that the birds of the air were in fact made out of the earth, showing that despite what we might think from 1:21 about the waters producing them, they were made of the earth; most probably of the earth of the sea-bed.

And brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them- God is impressing on Adam his distinctiveness, for there is no creature that can be described as “meet”. There are many animals and birds which are a help to man, but not one has that collection of qualities which makes it meet or suitable. Adam is discovering the truth that the apostle Paul will centuries later point out, that “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” 1 Corinthians 15:39.

And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof- Adam exercises his authority over creation, but at the same time finds none he can call woman. God was content to allow Adam to name these creatures, for he was the image of God on earth, and as such represented Him. He is being entrusted with tasks as a responsible being, and given opportunities to be faithful to God.

Genesis 2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field- cattle are specially mentioned here, for they are of most help to man.

But for Adam there was not found an help meet for him- perhaps as he named these creatures he did not realise he was in fact ruling them out as helps meet for him. He does not know loneliness yet, so is not looking for a wife.

Genesis 2:21
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept- the woman for Adam is going to be formed in a unique way, without parallel in the natural world. Adam was put to sleep, (“God caused a deep sleep to fall”), and was maintained in that state, (“and he slept”). At no time is he going to be half-awake. There is a comparison and a contrast in the spiritual realm, for Christ has obtained a bride. His Calvary-experience corresponds in one sense to Adam’s sleep. But there is a great contrast, for God saw to it that Adam was unaware of what was happening to him, but the Lord Jesus was fully aware of what was happening when He suffered on the cross. He was offered stupefying drink, but He refused it, because He would not allow man to alleviate the sufferings into which His God took Him. Just as at no time was Adam not asleep, so at no time was Christ’s suffering relieved.

And he took one of his ribs- so the woman is to be made of part of Adam. And the fact that only one rib is taken, shows that she is to be his only bride. But God does not take a bone from his foot, as if she could be trampled on, nor from his head to dominate her. She is taken from that part of Adam that protects his heart and his lungs. His life and his breath are temporarily exposed. While it is true that theoretically Adam’s heart was at risk during this operation, in reality it was not so, for the surgeon was God, and He would not allow any to take advantage of Adam when he was vulnerable.

How different was it with Christ at the cross, for His many and varied enemies gathered round Him, and did their utmost to deflect Him from His purpose. Is it not the case that the Lord Jesus was prepared to have His love put to the test at Calvary? And did He not yield up His spirit to God, and thus cease to breathe? He loved the church and gave Himself for it. He did not limit Himself to a rib, but gave His whole self, surrendering to the will of God so as to purchase His bride by His own precious blood. This was the price He was prepared to pay, and since it is in the past tense, we may say that it is the price He did pay.

And closed up the flesh instead thereof- it seems that this was done before the woman was formed, as recorded in the next verse. There are two ideas combined here. There is the closing up of the flesh which covered where the rib was taken from, and also the making of that flesh to replace the rib, (“instead thereof”), so that it would function as a rib. Thus Adam lost nothing by this process, whereas the Lord Jesus gave Himself in loving surrender, in order to have His bride. The fact that Adam’s flesh was closed up confirmed that the operation was final and complete. Does this not mean that that there was no visible evidence on Adam’s body that his rib had been removed? But Christ’s wounds will ever bear testimony to His Calvary-experience.

Genesis 2:22
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman- the rib is one of those bones in the body that contains bone marrow. This substance is of two types, red bone marrow, which produces red blood cells, and yellow bone marrow, which contains stem cells, which are immature cells able to turn into many different sorts of cell, and produce fat, cartilage and bone, the constituents of the material part of man. In other words, in normal circumstances bone marrow produces blood, flesh and bone. It can do this because of the process put in place by our Creator. Is it any surprise that He used this technique to form the woman in the first instance?

And brought her unto the man- Adam has obviously woken from his sleep, and now for the first time he looks upon his bride. God had brought the animals to Adam in verse 19, “to see what he would call them”. And now the same thing happens with the woman. What will he call her?

It is important to note that Adam’s bride comes with the very highest recommendation, for God Himself formed her for him. It is important in our day that those who contemplate marriage should ensure that their prospective wife has the commendation of spiritual and mature believers, who can vouch for her genuineness and suitability. The same goes, of course, for the prospective husband. If this is done prayerfully and carefully, much of the tragedy and heartache that, sadly, affects even believers today, could be avoided. Choice on both sides should not be made only on the basis of looks. As the Book of Proverbs says of the perfect wife, “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.” Proverbs 31:30.

It was often said that the best place to find a wife is in the assembly prayer meeting, and that still stands true. If she is not present there, is lax about attending the other assembly gatherings, has no convictions about having her hair long and her head covered in the gatherings, and shows little interest in the scriptures, finds being with believers embarrassing, has no exercise about giving to the Lord and serving Him, then it would be best not to marry her. All these characteristics, and others of like sort, are not the marks of “a woman that feareth the Lord”. The apostle Paul taught that marriage was to be “only in the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 7:39. It is not even enough for a prospective wife to be a believer. She must be one who owns the Lordship of Christ in belief and practice.

Genesis 2:23
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh- this is the basis upon which Adam names the woman. When he named the animals and birds he no doubt did so in reference to their natural characteristics. But he names the woman in accordance with her origin. That this is a different way of classifying is seen in Adam’s statement, “This is now”, for before when he had named the animals it was different. None of them could be said to be meet for him, even though in a limited way some of them could be a help.

The woman’s whole physical body was made from his bone, so she, (as a person with a physical body), is bone of his bone. She is also made like him as to his flesh, for from his bone God has made her so as to have the same nature as him, for he is a man in the flesh, having a human nature.

She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man- so it is that Adam, as head of creation, states very clearly that there is a difference between male and female, thus establishing this truth for all time. Even though the woman is of the same flesh as Adam, she is of a different gender.

So it is that Adam establishes his headship over the woman by naming her. The word woman is simply the feminine version, “ishah”, of the word for man, “ish”. Adam does not need to invent a name, for she is part of him, and even her name reflects this. There are several words used for man in the Old Testament, and this particular one means “a man of high degree”. So Adam regards his wife as a woman of high degree, as indeed she was. From the outset he showed her respect, and this is a good example to husbands.

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother- it is God’s will that mankind should be perpetuated by new spheres of headship being set up. When a man marries he leaves the headship of his father, and establishes his own headship situation. He leaves the care of his mother to enjoy the care of his suitable helper, his wife. This is not to say that father and mother can now be dispensed with, for the law of Moses required that a man’s father and mother be honoured, and there was even a promise attached to this, Exodus 20:12. Christian children are to requite their parents, and consider their welfare in recognition of all they have done for them and the sacrifices they have made whilst bringing them up, 1 Timothy 5:4.

And shall cleave unto his wife- it is only the leaving of the father’s headship in an official way, and the cleaving to a wife, that constitutes marriage before God. Simply living together is not marriage, but immorality, and will meet with God’s judgement if not repented of, for “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” Hebrews 13:4.

This establishes who it is that may be married. It is not man and man, or woman and woman, but one man and one woman. Homosexuality is not normal, for God did not make a man for Adam. Nor is it in-built into some people’s genes, (as some would try to tell us), for conversion does not alter the genes, but it does radically alter behaviour, and the thinking behind behaviour. Some of the believers in the assembly in Corinth had been homosexuals before they were saved, but Paul can write, “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:11. The pollution, unholiness and unrighteousness of their pre-conversion state had been dealt with, and they were new creatures in Christ.

And they shall be one flesh- the Lord Jesus used these words when He was asked about divorce, as we shall see when we consider 1 Corinthians 6.

Those who are merely, (and sinfully) only joined in one body, are not married. They can go their separate ways afterwards if they choose. Those who are married have not that option, however, for they have pledged themselves to be joined as one flesh, and their lives are inextricably entwined. So it is “what” God hath joined, not “who” God has joined. The lives are joined the moment the marriage ceremony has taken place, for it does not depend on physical union. Joseph and Mary were legally married before the birth of Christ, or else He would have been illegitimate. It was only after His birth that they knew one another in a physical sense, as Matthew 1:24,25 clearly indicates. So non-consummation of a marriage in the physical sense does not invalidate the marriage, whatever men’s law-courts say. It is worth stating that if there are physical or mental matters that would cause complications after the marriage ceremony, they should be made known to the other prospective partner before a relationship develops, to avoid heartache, misery and disappointment.

It is significant that when the idea of being one flesh is mentioned in connection with marriage, whether in Old Testament Hebrew or New Testament Greek, the preposition is used which speaks of progress towards a goal. The idea is that “they two shall be set on a course towards being one flesh”. To be one flesh is much more than being one body, for marriage is a sharing of everything; goals, ambitions, desires, hopes, experiences, joys, griefs. It is an ongoing process of the lives of two persons merging ever more closely. It is a relationship that is on a vastly higher plane, (even in the case of unbelievers), than an immoral and passing affair. So the moment that this process begins is when the man and woman are pronounced man and wife at the marriage ceremony. They are as truly married then as they will ever be, but they are not as closely married then as they will be at the end of their life together, for marriage is a process. It is very sad when couples drift apart when they get older; they should be bonding even more closely.

The Indissolubility of Marriage
Because marriage is a one-flesh arrangement, the bond that is made at the wedding ceremony only death can loose, for only then does life in the flesh for one of the marriage-partners cease. A divorce court may make arrangements so that the two parties live apart, but no court of man can split up one flesh. The apostle Paul makes it clear in Romans 7 that only death breaks the bond of marriage. Of course he is using marriage as an illustration, so that he may show that the believer is not under the law of Moses, and should not seek to please God by putting himself under it.

Just because it is an illustration of something else does not necessarily mean there are exceptions to what he is saying. Indeed, the illustration is of no value if there are exceptions. We should remember that the apostle states in 1 Corinthians 7:39, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” This is almost word for word what he wrote in Romans 7, but is not in the context of an illustration. This statement comes at the end of a whole chapter full of teaching on the subject of marriage, but at no point does he speak of divorce.

It would be relevant at this point to consider Romans 7:1-3.

Romans 7:1
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Know ye not, brethren- the apostle appeals to their Christian intelligence. If they were consistent, they would act upon what they knew about the idea of law. He expresses slight surprise that some of them seemed not to be doing this.

(For I speak to them that know the law)- the believers at Rome would be familiar with the concept of law, for the Romans were great law-makers, and as believers they were familiar with the law of Moses too. Even though the Roman law provided for divorce, the point is that any law only applies to a living person. If a man dies, the law has lost its hold on him. The believers at Rome knew this.

How that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? Laws only regulate living people. If a man steals, and dies before the matter is brought to court, there is no case to answer in man’s courts, although of course God will judge the sin in His court. The word “man” at this point is “anthropos” meaning man in general, an individual person, male or female. The law in particular in the next verse is the law of marriage, given by God, and it applies equally to a man and a woman.

Romans 7:2
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth- the law of marriage is that “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Matthew 19:6. The marriage covenant is life-long, or as is usually said at the ceremony “till death us do part”.

Those who refuse this verse as an argument against divorce say that the apostle is merely using an illustration, which is not in the context of instructions concerning marriage. But if there were exceptions to the “married for life” principle, it would undermine the apostle’s doctrine here regarding the law. In any case, as we have already seen, these words are used in 1 Corinthians 7:39 where they are not part of an illustration.

But if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband- the law of the husband is not his command, but the principle involved in having a husband. The point is that death looses the connection, (that is, it breaks the connection), and makes the marriage bond entirely inactive. The only One with authority to loose the bond is the One who made it, and He does this now only by the death of one of the partners. Because the husband in this illustration has died, the “law of her husband” ceases to have force, and his wife is therefore not bound to it. The life or death of the husband is the determining factor.

Romans 7:3
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

So then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress- so binding is this “law of the husband”, that it still operates even if she is unfaithful. She is “an adulteress by trade or calling” if the first husband is still alive. She is no different to those who make money out of harlotry. Note that her unfaithfulness has not ended the marriage, for if it had, she would not be an adulteress.

Of course it is true that the word “married” in verse 3 is in italics. This is because the Authorised Version translators were honest men, and wished to indicate that they had added a word to give the sense in English. They put the word in italics, and left it to the Holy Spirit to guide the readers to see that the addition was justified. They did not impose their will on the scriptures.

But if her husband be dead, she is free from that law- only in this way can she be free as far as God is concerned.

So that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man- she can be rightly married to a second man, but only if the first is dead. His death has freed her from obligation to him. The apostle makes applications from this in connection with the believer’s relationship with the law, but he does so on the basis of the law of marriage, which is our concern at the moment.

The Inescapability of Marriage
There are those who believe that there is a situation where a man can lawfully put away his wife, and they base their belief on the words of the Lord Jesus Himself to the Pharisees in Matthew 19, to which we now turn. We should remember as we do so, however, that no interpretation of the words of scripture may contradict another passage.

It was because John the Baptist had condemned Herod for taking Philip’s wife that he had lost his life. Perhaps the Pharisees are hoping that word would spread that Christ was of the same view as John, and in this way He would be put in danger. It is interesting in that connection to notice that John had said, “It is not lawful for thee to have her”, Matthew 14:4, and here the Pharisees begin with “Is it lawful”. We know from Luke 16:14-18 that on another occasion the Lord confronted the Pharisees on the matter of covetousness, and the fact that He condemned divorce immediately afterwards, showed that they were coveting other men’s wives, in transgression of the law. They are now seeking their revenge.

Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

The Pharisees also came unto him- as well as the people coming to Him to learn from Him, (as Mark records in his parallel passage, chapter 10:1-12), the Pharisees also come, but only to try to undermine His teaching. Near the start of His ministry the Lord had said, “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:20. He had already asserted His resolve to uphold the law and prophets, and had condemned those who teach men otherwise; now He is going to expose those who taught the law, but transgressed it in their hearts. Outward observance, (“the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees”), will not be enough to gain an entrance even into the kingdom of heaven, (which is the realm of profession), let alone the kingdom of God, (the realm only of those who are genuine).

He then proceeded, in what some call the Sermon on the Mount, to examine certain statements that the scribes were making, and showed that they did not go far enough in their teaching. For instance, (and this is very relevant to our subject), the scribes taught, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, and it was right that they should do so, for this was the seventh commandment. But they were content with the letter of the law. But as the Lord proceeds to show, to look upon a woman to lust after her is heart-adultery, even though at that point it is not body-adultery. He then speaks of the eye that lusts, and the hand which could be used to write a bill of divorcement, and teaches that if the eye and the hand are liable to sin in this way, drastic action must be taken to prevent that sin. In the language of the apostle Paul, there must be the mortifying of our members which are on the earth, Colossians 3:5.

If this teaching were followed, the next passage would not be needed, which reads, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Matthew 5:31,32. By the expression “But I say unto you”. the Lord is clearly contrasting the teaching of the scribes and His teaching. He says nothing of their teaching being “of old time”, (as was the case with other statements He deals with in the passage), so it must have been a fairly recent innovation on their part, perhaps influenced by the Gentiles, amongst whom they had been dispersed. Evil communications had corrupted good manners, 1 Corinthians 15:33 .

Christ in righteousness, however, stressed that their action of putting away caused the woman to sin, and was therefore in itself sinful. That sin was not mitigated by giving a bill of divorcement to the women. The Lord is highlighting the havoc that is caused if divorce is carried out for reasons other than the fornication He mentions, (which we will come to later). The woman is caused to commit adultery, for she is still the wife of the one who has divorced her, but in order to survive in a cruel world it is assumed that she will marry again, relying on the teaching of the scribes who said this was lawful. Moreover, the man who rescues her from destitution by marrying her, also sins, again because he listens to the scribes. Instead of being scrupulous about the apparently trivial matter of giving a bill of divorcement to her, the original husband should have been concerned about the moral implications of his action. The problem was that he was listening to the wrong teachers, the scribes, believing they had authority in the matter.

Tempting him- their sole object was to try to trip Him up, and make Him side with one or other of the schools of thought in Israel. They have not come with a genuine desire to find out the truth.

And saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Note the word lawful, for they are basing their question on what is legitimate as far as the law of Moses was concerned. They do this because they have a second question, which they think will undermine the answer they expect He will give to the first one. Note too, the word cause, for it also has a legal tone to it, having the idea of an accusation. What they are asking is whether a man may bring a cause before a law-court which will give him the right to put away his wife, whatever the circumstance.

Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read- this is a phrase that appears six times in the gospel of Matthew, either in this form or in a similar one. The Lord is answering their question directly, but He is not going to quote the law of Moses at first, but the book of Genesis. He does not say, “Verily, I say unto you”, as elsewhere in the gospel, for He does not need to do so, for He had spoken already in the words of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24.

That he which made them at the beginning made them male and female- so the Lord Jesus believed that the act of making Adam and his wife on the sixth day of the creation week happened at the beginning. The same beginning as is mentioned in Genesis 1:1. So there is no time-gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1.

In Mark’s account the phrase is “from the beginning”, and these are the words of Christ Himself. So Matthew 19, where there is a quotation from Genesis 1:27, tells us of the actual historic event of the creation of male and female. Mark’s account tells us that the act of making male and female is ongoing, for it is from the beginning as well as being at the beginning. So God is not making people who are not male or female today, and has never done so.

Matthew 19:5
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother- the God who made male and female is also the one who spoke the words of Genesis 2:24 quoted here. But in Mark’s account the Lord does not quote, hence there is no “Have ye never read?” He says the same things there as were said in the beginning, thus testifying to His Deity and authority. The word of God in the beginning is the word of God still.

Because God made male and female, there is an attraction between the two, and this attraction is stronger than between a son and his father and mother. The son leaves the sphere of his father’s headship, and begins a new sphere of headship, thus maintaining social order on the earth, and in the case of a believer, establishes another centre for the maintenance of godly order. He also leaves the care of his mother to care for his wife, and to be cared for by her. His mother cannot help him in his new role of head of the house, but his wife can.

And shall cleave to his wife- this is no casual relationship, but a gluing together, (such is the idea behind the word), of two persons in a life-long relationship, whatever the future may bring.

And they twain shall be one flesh? They twain, (the word simply means “two”), are, on the one hand, the man who has left father and mother, and on the other hand the woman he is now going to cleave to in marriage. It is only these, who leave and cleave, that are one flesh. A man who consorts with a harlot does not leave and cleave in this way. He does not formally leave the family unit he was brought up in and establish another. Nor does he become one flesh; he only becomes joined in body.

Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh- the words of the quotation are given again to emphasise this main point of two people being one. How can the question of putting away come up in that situation?

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder- notice it is “what” and not “who” that is put asunder. It is two lives that are joined together, and they are not to be ruptured. Notice that it is God that joins together, not the one who conducts the wedding ceremony, and He does this the moment the couple say their vows. This was seen in the case of Joseph and Mary, for they were married several weeks or months before that marriage was consummated, for the scripture tells us “Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name Jesus.” Matthew 1:24,25. So there were four stages in their experience. First the betrothal, then the “taking”, meaning the legal claiming of Mary to be his lawful wife, then the birth of Christ, and then the “knowing” of Mary in the physical sense.

To put asunder is to insert a space between two persons that God has joined, thus acting directly in defiance of God. A fearful thing to do, indeed. Notice that the Lord does not say it cannot be attempted, for the law-courts of men are full of those who make a living out of divorce procedures. But no device of man can divide between one flesh, for that is what married persons are. Of course divorce does disrupt the life-long process of becoming one flesh, so in that sense the relationship is disturbed. In the final analysis, however, no act of men can overthrow the act of God.

That this is so is seen in the fact that a man who divorces his wife and then marries another, commits adultery against her, Mark 10:11. He sins against God by divorcing, for he is defiantly trying to divide what God has joined. He sins also by remarrying, for the Lord calls that adultery. But if the divorce cancels the marriage, why should this be so? Of course, some will respond that the exception clause, “except it be for fornication”, in some way allows divorce to happen. But if unfaithfulness destroys a marriage, and a divorce is obtained, it is as if the man is single. Why then is his subsequent marriage adulterous? And why, in particular, does he commit adultery against his first wife, if he no longer has any relationship with her?

The Intensiveness of Marriage
There are those who teach that “one body” is the same as “one flesh”, and draw wrong conclusions from that deduction, such as that if a marriage is not physically consummated it is not complete marriage. We need to consult the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 on this matter:

1 Corinthians 6:15
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? It might be thought that the spiritual link believers have with Christ has nothing to do with the physical body. This scripture assures us it is not so. This raises an interesting question, which is this. The believer’s body is still indwelt by the sin-principle, and is capable, therefore, of sinning. It is a soulish body and not the spiritual body it will be at the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:44,45. It is composed of atoms that are part of the creation that was cursed by God and made subject to vanity. In a word, our body is in the bondage of corruption, so how can it be linked to Christ?

The answer is found in the fact that dwelling within us is the Spirit of God, and one of His titles is “the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead”, Romans 8:11. His presence is the pledge that we shall share in the resurrection of the just, with its consequent changed and sin-free body, and God takes account of that in His dealings with us now. So we are linked to Christ even as to the body. Meanwhile the indwelling Spirit safeguards the honour of Christ, for He is the pledge that a spiritual body will certainly be ours, and God takes account of that, and not the fact that we have a physical body with its accompanying sin-principle.

Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid- this situation has serious consequences for us. If the members of our body are united to Christ, then we must be very careful what else we unite them to. Being a physical entity, our body can be united in sin with a prostitute. Is that acceptable behaviour for a believer? The apostle answers that question with a thunderous “God forbid”.

1 Corinthians 6:16
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? The apostle is outraged to think that they are not aware of the intimate physical relationship that is formed when a person is joined in an illicit union with a street-girl. As far as the physical act is concerned, they are joined as if they were formally married. This is as far as it goes, however, for they are simply joined in body. They are not joined in any other way. A man, even a believer, who consorts thus with a prostitute, has not entered into a life-long relationship until it is dissolved by death. It is an act no different to that which animals engage in, who have no moral sense.

For two, saith he, shall be one flesh- it might seem at first sight as if the apostle, by quoting this statement which has to do with marriage, is suggesting that to be joined to a harlot is to be in a marriage relationship. This cannot be the case, or else harlotry would not be condemned in Scripture. It is important to notice exactly what the apostle writes in this verse. The word “for” is not part of his quotation about marriage. No reference to marriage either in Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, or Ephesians 5, uses the word “for”, so this is the apostle’s word, and indicates the answer to an unspoken query by his readers. The apostle often answered unspoken questions and objections in this way. It is as if he had been asked, “Why is it so sinful to be joined to a harlot?” The apostle answers by saying, in effect, “for (because) God has ordained that marriage should be a one-flesh arrangement, not a one-body one”.

The next word is “two”, which is the first word of the quotation. Then comes “saith he”, so some person is being referred to here. Then comes the remainder of the quotation, “shall be one flesh”. So the quotation is “two shall be one flesh”. The “for” is the apostle’s word. But who is the person who says “two shall be one flesh? Since the apostle is referring to the Divine institution of marriage, we could assume the reference is to God when He instituted marriage in Genesis 2:24. But the words there are, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”.

The only place where these exact words are found is Mark 10:6-9, where we hear the Lord Jesus Himself speaking, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined, let not man put asunder.” So it is He that the apostle refers to in the statement, “Two, saith he, shall be one flesh”. So not only does the Lord Jesus say God is still making men as male and female, (for He does it “from the beginning”, and not just “at the beginning”), but that the marriage-institution words of Genesis 2:24 were, and are, still valid.

This also tells us the interesting fact that Paul, writing about AD 59, had read Mark’s gospel, so it was in circulation within twenty-five years of the events it records, and well within the lifetime of many of those who were involved in what it details.

The Indiscretion before Marriage
We return now to Matthew 19, and the discussion about the giving of the bill of divorcement as recorded in Deuteronomy 24. We should bear in mind as we do so that there were detailed penalties under the law of Moses when immoral behaviour was discovered. Those penalties were severe, but for a just reason. It was vitally important in Old Testament times to preserve the line of the Messiah. If any child was conceived in circumstances where the name and the tribe of the father were not known, it would put at risk the genealogy of Christ. Hence the severity of the punishments. They also acted as a deterrent, to maintain a high moral standard in the nation, so that God could bless it. They were to be a holy nation, Exodus 19:6.

The list is as follows:

1. The unfaithful married woman was to be put to death, as was the man she had sinned with, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22.

2. The unfaithful betrothed free woman, whose sin was only discovered after the wedding, was to be put to death, Deuteronomy 22:20,21,23,24.

3. The betrothed maiden who was assaulted in the city but did not cry for help, (showing she was to some extent complicit), was to be put to death, as well as the man, Deuteronomy 22:23,24. Notice that the betrothed maiden is called “his neighbour’s wife”, in verse 24, showing that betrothal was a legal enactment.

4. The betrothed maiden who was assaulted in the field, and cried for help, (showing she was not complicit), but no one heard, is allowed to live, but the man is to be put to death, Deuteronomy 22:25-27. No doubt note would be taken of the name of the man, so that if the attack resulted in a child being born, the genealogy would be known.

5. The virgin maiden who was assaulted anywhere, city or field, and they both “were found”, (indicating someone happened to come across them sinning, rather than responding to a cry for help from the girl), was not put to death, and was to marry the man involved, and never be put away, Deuteronomy 22:28,29. This was for her protection, for it prevented her from marrying another, and thereby risk coming under the penalty of verses 20,21, when it was discovered she was not a virgin.

Note the distinction that is made here between the betrothed maiden of Point 3 above, and this non-betrothed maiden. The former has violated the pledge she made when she was betrothed, showing it did alter the legal situation to a degree. The latter has not apparently cried out, so is to an extent complicit, hence the penalty, but tempered by mercy.

6. The daughter of a man of the tribe of Levi who committed fornication was to be burned with fire, Leviticus 21:9. The dramatic punishment was no doubt because she had not only profaned herself, but profaned her father, and the worship of God was affected.

7. A betrothed bond woman who acted immorally was to be scourged, but not put to death, and the man was to offer a trespass offering, Leviticus 19:20.

8. A married woman who was found to have some “matter of uncleanness”, and who had a hard-hearted husband, could be sent away with a bill of divorcement, and she could marry another, but not return to the first husband if the second man died or put her away.

It is this last case that is the subject of discussion with the Pharisees. The woman concerned was clearly not cases 3-7, because she was married. Nor was she cases 1 or 2, or else she would have been put to death. Nor has her husband suspicions about her faithfulness, for then there was the provision of the trial of jealousy, in Numbers 5. She was a special case, therefore, and is the only case of a married woman who was not put to death. No doubt this was because she posed no threat to the line of the Messiah, for she had not consorted with another man. All the other categories listed above had done so.

We now look at the Lord’s further words, this time in Matthew 19.

Matthew 19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? Instead of discussing divorce, the Lord had enforced the truth of marriage. This should always be the emphasis, for if we were more versed in the truth regarding the marriage relationship, we would be less taken up with divorce. There needs to be regular teaching concerning marriage so that it is constantly the norm in the minds of believers. Those whose marriage is experiencing difficulties need to start to remedy the situation before God, by acting on the premise that they are joined for life. This will focus the mind on the reality, and not the fantasy of release by divorce.

This second question is really the one the Pharisees wanted to ask from the beginning, but the Lord had frustrated their plan, for if they obeyed the word of God regarding being one flesh, the matter of divorce would not come up. The reference is to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, where a man who had found some “matter of uncleanness” in his wife was allowed to put her away.

Matthew 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives- the Lord pinpoints the attitude of heart of some in Israel who were prepared to reject their wives because of something the wives could not help. It is not known precisely what is meant by “uncleanness”. The expression in the Hebrew is “dabar ervah”. “Ervah” is indeed used 51 times in the Old Testament in connection with illicit sexual behaviour, (“uncover the nakedness” is a phrase used for sexual relations), but not with the addition of “dabar”, which means “matter”, or “thing”. Some indication as to its meaning is given by the fact that it is only elsewhere used with dabar with regard to the toilet arrangements in the camp of Israel, Deuteronomy 23:14.

If it had been unfaithfulness on the part of the woman there was provision in other parts of the law for this. This is the only situation in which divorce was allowed in Israel, so was an exception rather than the rule. The Pharisees possibly wanted to make it the general rule. They wished to make what they thought of as the vagueness of the phrase an excuse for divorce “for every cause”, which is the expression they used in their question. Certainly they wanted the Lord to take sides, and thus be open to criticism. He sides only with God’s word.

Clearly the man in this situation is not prepared to accommodate the unfortunate plight of his wife, and is hard of heart towards her, no doubt angry that he has been deprived of conjugal rights by her condition. In that situation Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife for her own protection, and marry another man if he would be prepared to marry her knowing her condition. If the second man put her away for the same reason, or if he died, she was not to return to her former husband again. She might be tempted to think that without her second husband maintaining her, (either because he had died or had put her away), it was better to return to the first man than to be destitute. Again, the law of God provided for her protection, for it overrides her faulty reasoning in her own interests, as there is no reason to think the first husband had changed. The woman is protected from her possible lack of realism in the matter.

This is an instance of God’s grace superseding the general rule for the sake of the welfare of His people. It is a mistake to think that there was no grace during the law-age. A reading of the passage where God described Himself to Moses will assure us there was, Exodus 34:6,7. The Pharisees wanted to talk of what was lawful, but the Lord highlighted the attitude of the man in the scenario, and Moses, representing God. The man was hard of heart, but Moses, acting for God, was merciful.

But from the beginning it was not so- again they are taken back to the beginning where the laws of marriage were instituted by God. Nothing that was instituted at the beginning was set aside by the law at Sinai. Those who wish to make this special case the general rule should be aware that the Lord does not sanction it, but points us back to the original institution of marriage. The reason He does not sanction it is not because He disagrees with what Moses did, but because in a few weeks time a new age of grace will have begun, and the law as a rule of life will be obsolete, (although its underlying principles will remain). After Pentecost there was not “Jew and Gentile”, and the special case lapsed, for it is not envisaged that a believer will be hard of heart.

In any case, the believer is not under law but under grace, and should not put himself or others under its bondage. Are the advocates of divorce willing to enforce the stipulation of Deuteronomy 22:20,21, where the law required that a damsel must be stoned to death after due process? Just as we are not under the law of Deuteronomy 22, so we are not under the law of Deuteronomy 24. So even if it was a general rule under the law, (and it was not, being a special case), the fact remains that we cannot appeal to it for help today.

The regulations in Deuteronomy 24 were so that Israelites did not “cause the land to sin”. The land in question being the land of promise, which they would soon occupy. But believers have no land in that sense, and so the stipulation does not apply. Our inheritance is in heaven, and is “incorruptible, and undefiled”, 1 Peter 1:4.

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication- the last phrase is the well-known “exception clause”, as many call it, which some feel gives them grounds for advocating divorce. This clause is only found in Matthew’s gospel. Now the truth of God is the same for every believer, yet in the early days of the church some believers might only have Mark’s gospel, some only Luke’s, some only Matthew’s. It cannot be that only the latter are allowed to divorce, whilst believers who only have Mark or Luke are not, for there is no exception clause in these two gospels.

We are surely forced to the conclusion, therefore, that Matthew’s account has something distinctive about it. It must relate to a situation particular to Matthew’s gospel, or else those who had the other gospels would be governed by different principles. When He commissioned the disciples to go into the world, the Lord required them to teach “all things whatsoever I have commanded you”. They were to teach all things, not just some things. They were to teach Matthew 19 truth as well as Mark 10 truth, for they were not at variance.

Those who have read as far as chapter 19 of Matthew’s gospel will have already come across the situation described in the first chapter, where Joseph was faced with the prospect of putting Mary away. Such readers have already been prepared, therefore, for the teaching of the Lord Jesus regarding divorce, and will be aware of what “except for fornication” must mean, if it is not to conflict with the teaching that marriage is life-long. It relates to the Jewish practice of betrothal being classed as a legal relationship, with the parties concerned being called man and wife, as we see in the case of Joseph and Mary. But because Joseph and Mary were not formally married, Mary’s supposed sin is fornication, not adultery, for that latter sin is on the part of a person who is married to another formally.

Such a situation did not pertain for those for whom Mark and Luke wrote. They wrote especially with Gentiles in mind, as is seen by the fact that Mark mentions the Gentile practice of a woman divorcing her husband, 10:12, something that was not allowed in Israel, and Luke is writing to a Gentile to confirm his faith, 1:3. For this reason they do not mention the exception clause, thus showing it to be a matter distinctive for Jewish readers at that time.

And shall marry another, committeth adultery- notice the distinction the Lord is making here between fornication and adultery, as does the apostle Paul in Galatians 5:19, and 1 Corinthians 6:9, where the two sins are found together in a list, showing they must be distinguished. Indeed, the Lord Himself distinguished them in this very gospel, when He listed some of those sins that proceed from the heart of man, 15:19. Fornication is immorality on the part of an unmarried person, whereas adultery is an act of immorality on the part of a married person. The origin of the words indicates this, for the word fornication is derived from the Latin word “fornix”, which denotes the vaulted room tenanted by harlots. Adultery, on the other hand, is formed from the Latin expression “ad alterum”, meaning to go or mix with another. Hence to adulterate a substance is to mix it with another so as to corrupt it. An adulterer mixes another woman with his lawful wife, thus corrupting his relationship with her.

The list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 is sordid, but the Spirit of God would have us be aware of them. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Notice that the apostle is careful to distinguish between fornication and adultery, mentioning them separately, as the Lord Jesus had done, but he also carefully distinguishes between the effeminate and the abusers of themselves with mankind. These two persons were the passive and active participants in the sin of sodomy. If he was precise in his wording in connection with two men who are engaging in the same sin, does this not tell us that he was being precise when he mentions fornication and adultery separately, showing they are not interchangeable?
If we do not make the distinction between fornication and adultery, then it is legitimate for a man to divorce his lawfully wedded wife on the ground of her adultery. She is now free of her marriage bond, according to this view. But we have already seen from 1 Corinthians 6:16 that physical joining does not form a marriage. Nor does unlawful and immoral joining in unfaithfulness break a marriage, because of the teaching of Romans 7:1-3, which says that a man and a woman are joined in marriage until one of them dies. The apostle Paul claimed that the things he wrote to the Corinthians were “the commandments of the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 14:37. So the teaching of 1 Corinthians 6 is as binding as the commandments of the Lord in Matthew 19. The apostles were sent forth to preach what Christ had commanded, Matthew 28:20. Are we really going to say that the commandments given to the apostle Paul are at variance with the commandments given to the twelve? So to say that fornication and adultery are synonymous in this verse is to say that the scriptures are in disarray and in conflict with one another.

But what if we say that fornication in this context does not mean adultery? Then, everything falls into place, and there is no conflict. The use of fornication rather that adultery highlights the fact that the “wife” in question here, if she sins, commits the sin that single persons commit. This can only be because she is in a state of betrothal. She is linked to the man enough to be called his wife, but she is not linked so closely that if she sins she commits adultery. Nor is she linked so closely, (“one flesh”), that she cannot be put away lawfully.

One not betrothed is not a wife in any sense, (so is not in view here), and one who is lawfully wedded commits adultery if she is unfaithful. A single person cannot commit adultery. Only a betrothed woman can be a wife and commit fornication at the same time. So the only ground for divorce at that time was unfaithfulness on the part of a betrothed wife to her betrothal commitment. We conclude that since Jewish customs such as betrothal are not binding on the church, there is no legitimate ground for divorce today, whether of believers or unbelievers.

And whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery- this must mean that the woman in view has been put away without an appeal to the exception clause. For putting away on the basis of the exception clause, correctly understood, was, at that time, a lawful ground for putting away, and did not lead to adultery on the part of another when he married the woman concerned.

But if the putting away was on the basis of the exception clause, and if, as some teach, fornication means adultery, (with the implication that the woman is fully married at the time she sinned, and not simply betrothed), then unfaithfulness must have in some way invalidated the marriage. If then, the Lord sanctioned putting away on the basis that fornication equals adultery, then by implication He agreed that adultery invalidates a marriage. Can we not all see that this contradicts what He has just said about one flesh? And contradicts what He will later say through the apostle Paul? And contradicts His command to not put asunder what God hath joined? We have a simple choice, therefore. We either believe the Christ of God contradicted Himself, or we accept that fornication is not the same as adultery in this context.

Matthew 19:10
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry- when confronted with the teaching the Lord gave about marriage, the disciples felt that the standard was so high that it would be best not to marry. They realise that it is better to not get married rather than risk a life-time of heart-ache. But why should they think that the standard was too high, if there were easy exceptions to the marriage law, and it was not difficult to divorce? They had only to be unfaithful to their spouse, or arrange situations where she would be tempted to be unfaithful, and they could legitimately divorce. The truth is that they saw clearly that the standard was the same as it had ever been from the beginning, and man was not to put asunder what God had joined.

Marriage should be embarked upon with the thought by both parties that “This is for life, and we will strive to make our relationship work”, rather than thinking, “It may not work, but there are ways in which we can get out of it”

Matthew 19:11

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given- the “but” signals that the Lord does not agree that marriage is not a good thing. God had said at the beginning “It is not good that the man should be alone”, and now the disciples are saying the reverse. Clearly, if there are those who remain alone, it must be for good reason, allowed by God. He gives some the ability to not be lonely when they are alone, because they are taken up with the things of God.

Matthew 19:12

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men- there are those who are not able to marry, for they have either been born unable, or have been mistreated by men and so are unable to fulfil all the functions involved in marriage. The point of telling us this is to show that it is possible to live in an unmarried state.

And there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake- some believers are enabled to be so taken up with the things of God and the work of God, that the fact that they are not married is genuinely not a concern to them. Their unmarried state can be used of God to further the interests of His kingdom in some way not otherwise open to them if they were married.

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it- if a person is enabled by God to not be concerned that they are not married, (as long as it is because they are fully occupied with the things of God, and not because they are self-centred), then they should receive that situation and attitude as being from God. But those who have not been thus gifted should not force themselves to be celibate, for they have not really been enabled by God, but have imposed the situation upon themselves. The enabling to live a celibate life is from God, for the scripture says, in connection with being either married or unmarried, “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.” 1 Corinthians 7:7.

So those who are saved after they are divorced and remarried will be enabled, if they desire to act “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”, to live as single people. For we must not think that conversion alters relationships. If a man has unsaved parents, and then himself gets saved, they are still his parents. If he was born out of wedlock to those parents, nothing has changed as to his status. If a man is in a homosexual relationship, would we not expect that relationship to be discontinued forthwith? Why should we think then that if a divorced and remarried person gets saved the situation is any different? Nothing has altered as to the relationship. It is true that the sin of divorcing and remarrying is forgiven, but it is a condition of salvation that repentance is in evidence, not just at conversion, but afterwards as well. Sins are forgiven on repentance, and John the Baptist challenged men to “bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance”, Matthew 3:8, so the believer should show these fruits.

The Influence of Christ on Marriage

Not only does the account of the institution of marriage in Genesis 2 have personal implications, but it is used in Ephesians 5 by the apostle Paul to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the church.

Ephesians 5:29

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh- the flesh in this context is not the soft part of the body, but the man’s person. So the apostle is saying here that it is not part of man’s constitution to hate what he is. God’s requirement in the law was, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”, Leviticus 19:18. So it is in order for a man to love himself, but he is not to love himself exclusively. He is to love his neighbour in the same way as he loves himself. It is normal to love self, but selfishness is abnormal, and contrary to God’s will.

But nourisheth and cherisheth it- the opposite of hating one’s flesh is here described. Not only does a man care for his body, but he does that which preserves himself as a person in the flesh. Just as nourishing and cherishing of a wife means more than providing food and shelter for her, so the man is not content with the bare essentials, but seeks to make himself comfortable as a person.

Even as the Lord the church- what a man does to his flesh, Christ does to the church. And He does it as Lord, for He has total control over all that would harm and distress His people. The reason for this is found in the next verse. We should remember that one of the words for husband in the Old Testament is “baal”, meaning lord. The husband is to take control of the situation for the good of his wife, as Christ does for the good of the church.

Ephesians 5:30

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For- here is the underlying reason for the foregoing exhortations. The apostle makes a statement of New Testament truth, and then alludes to the origin of the truth as found in the Old Testament.

We are members of his body- we should not read this verse as if it said, “For we are members, of His body, of His flesh and of His bones”. In other words, we are not members of three things, but one thing, His body, and the reference to flesh and bones is an allusion in the first instance, (for the words are not a quotation), to the physical parts of Adam’s body, but the apostle is establishing a principle from them in regard to the mystical body of Christ spoken of in verse 23, and not the Lord’s personal body. Believers are clearly not formed from the literal body of Christ, but they are part of His body the church, and the closeness of that membership justifies the use of the words spoken in the first place of Eve.

Since the body is a spiritual concept here, then the nourishing and cherishing, by the Lord, and therefore by the husband, is more than mere food and clothing. It is only Paul that uses the figure of the human body to help us to understand the relationship of Christ to His people. He is head of that body, and every believer is a member of that body, and as such, may count on the care and support of the head. Notice that the apostle does not liken our relationship to Christ as that of a wife to the husband, but to the head and the body. The actual marriage of the church to Christ has not yet taken place, but our link to Him as His body has.

Of his flesh- the expression “of his flesh and of his bones” is omitted in some manuscripts, but it is easy to see it should be there, for the next verse is virtually meaningless if there has been no prior reference to Genesis 2:23.

Note the order in which the words are given here, for they are the reverse of what Adam said. And the word bone in Genesis 2:23 becomes bones here. This alerts us to the fact that the phrase is being used here by the apostle in a figurative sense, as if to say, “Just as Eve came into being, and continued, as one who derived physical existence through Adam, so believers have received, and continue to receive, their spiritual being from Christ”.

When the Lord Jesus came into manhood, He took part, extraordinarily, of the same flesh and blood we partake of ordinarily. He came in by means of conception through the Holy Spirit and birth of the virgin Mary. Nonetheless, the manhood He took was our manhood, but sin apart. The true believer confesses that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”, 1 John 4:2, so that establishes that He is a real man. But we also are real men, but sinners, and He was not a sinner. He came into flesh and blood conditions so that we could be joined to Him. So how can we still be men, and yet be of His flesh? Or, how can our bodies, which still have the sin-principle within them, be members of Christ, as 1 Corinthians 6:15 says they are. The answer lies in the expression, “he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit”, 1 Corinthians 6:17. The fact that the Holy Spirit has joined us to Christ overrides all other considerations, for He is a Divine Person. And Christ looks on His people from that high viewpoint, and sees them as men in the flesh on one level, but as joined to the Lord on another level. In this way we can be said to be of His flesh, for we have been joined to Him, and share His nature. We should remember that even in resurrection the Lord Jesus has flesh and bones, as He demonstrated to His disciples the day He rose from the dead, Luke 24:39,40.

And of his bones- Adam spoke of bone of his bones, for Eve was literally made from one of his rib-bones. So close was their relationship that his bone had become her bones, for his bone-material had become her body. The church is not made literally from the bone of Christ, but the church can be said to derive existence from what He did when He gave His entire self for us as a man in the flesh, at Calvary. Just as Adam’s rib provided the raw material for the making of Eve, so, in a spiritual sense, what Christ gave is the ground of what we have been made as believers. It is interesting to notice that in resurrection the Lord Jesus described Himself as having “flesh and bones”, Luke 24:39, reminding us that our link to Him is on resurrection ground.

When God took a rib from Adam and formed a woman therefrom, Adam was asleep. Christ was fully alert when He suffered at Calvary and gave Himself for the church. Adam gave a rib, Christ gave Himself. If Adam gave a rib and gained a wife, then Christ gave His all and gained His people. It is because we are of His flesh and of His bones that the church can be married to Christ in a future day, for she is meet for Him. She will also help Him, for the church will reign with Christ.

Ephesians 5:31

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother- the apostle now quotes directly from Genesis 2:24 to explain that it is because the woman was bone of Adam’s bone and flesh of his flesh that his marriage was lawful. The underlying concept to marriage is the fact that the woman was made from the man. Of course, in the case of Adam there was no father or mother to leave, but God established the principle at the beginning, and this justifies the use of these words.

Ephesians 5:32

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

This is a great mystery- we should notice that the apostle does not actually say that the church is the bride of the Lamb, but he certainly implies it. It is John who tells us about the Lamb’s wife in Revelation 19:7. He cannot be referring to Israel, for the nation is already married to the Lord. God says “I was an husband unto them”, Jeremiah 31:32. Now we know that Paul was entrusted with the task of fulfilling the word of God, Colossians 1:25. In other words, he revealed those mysteries that God had in reserve for the present age, so that all that God desires us to know is available to us. That which is perfect is come, 1 Corinthians 13:10. This being the case, it was not John’s remit to unfold new truth, but simply to elaborate on what had been known from the beginning. So the idea of the Lamb having a wife must be in Paul’s writings somewhere, and this is the place. The apostle hinted at this mystery in 2 Corinthians 11:2,3, when he wrote, “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” The apostle sees the assembly at Corinth as a betrothed maiden, and does not want her to be drawn away to a rival. What is true of the local assembly is also true of the church as a whole. Functioning now as a body does in relation to its head, we shall function in a day to come as a wife does in relation to her husband. But just as betrothal was a legally binding contract, so we should be aware of our commitment to Christ, and not let our affections wander.

But I speak concerning Christ and the church- the apostle is still at pains to keep the Lord and the church distinct in our minds. The working principles that operate in the case of a married couple are to be worked out with us now, just as the working principles of marriage are worked out by Christ, as He deals with us as His mystical body.

Ephesians 5:33

Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she love her husband.

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself- the apostle does not want a husband to be so taken up with the spiritual truths he is setting out that he forgets his responsibility to his wife.

And the wife see that she reverence her husband- the wife should not pretend to be so spiritual, absorbed with relationship to Christ, that she forgets her duty to reverence her husband, giving him his due; not necessarily because he is particularly spiritual, but because he has been given a position by God for her welfare.

There is a further reason why the apostle reverts back to speaking about husband and wife, and that is to emphasise the practical implications of their relationship. After all, that is the context of the passage, beginning, as it does, with the words, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands”, and “Husbands, love your wives”, verse 22 and 25. They relate to one another in the confidence that their union cannot be broken. But if their bond cannot be broken, then, since it is in principle the same bond as between Christ and the church, that bond cannot be broken either. Christ will never divorce His church, therefore Christian husbands should never contemplate divorcing their wives. Instead, they should strive to act as Christ does towards His prospective bride, and likewise, the wives should endeavour to act as the church, (ideally), acts towards Christ.

In the kingdom age which will follow the Tribulation Period, the land of Israel shall be “Beulah Land”, for God’s promise to Israel is, “Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as a the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee”, Isaiah 62:4,5. Hephzibah means “My delight is in her”, and Beulah means “Married”.

Summary of the chapter
In John chapter 2 we find that the Lord Jesus manifested Himself in a twofold way to the nation of Israel, first in a domestic scene, verses 1-12, and then in a national scene, verses 13-25. We could set out the comparisons and contrasts in the following way:

Verses 1 to 12

The marriage

Cana of Galilee

Countryside

Rustic

Marriage

Domestic

Presence invited at wedding

New beginning in life

Emphasis on grace

The disciples had real faith

Christ supplied a lack

Love and humility

Christ in the background

Spoke of “His hour”, at Calvary

Verses 13 to 25

The Passover

Jerusalem

City

Sophisticated

Festival

National

Presence required at Feast

New beginning in religious year

Emphasis on truth

The Jews had incomplete faith

Christ purged the excess

Zeal and holiness

Christ at the forefront

Spoke of His death and resurrection

Structure of the chapter

(a) 2:1-12
In Cana of Galilee for a wedding

(b) 2:13-22
In the temple at Jerusalem before the passover

(a) 2:1-12
The marriage in Cana of Galilee

Structure of the section

Verses 1-2	The glory of His grace
Verses 3-5	The glory of His gentleness
Verses 6-8	The glory of His greatness
Verses 9-12	The glory of His genuineness

Verses 1-2
The glory of His grace

2:1
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

So John links the time of this wedding with the days he has mentioned in chapter one, and in particular the day when Nathanael confessed that Christ was the Son of God and the King of Israel. The miracle he is about to record would demonstrate that Christ is indeed the Son of God, and therefore the Creator, but also that He is the destined King of Israel, able to bring in the unbroken joy kingdom conditions in a day to come. The “wine” shall never run out in that day.

The Lord had assured Nathanael that he would see greater things, 1:50, and this is the beginning. The Son of God is the creator of all things, as verses 1-3 of chapter 1 have told us, and this He is demonstrating by His first miracle. It is God who sends the rain, which falls on the roots of the vine, and it is then transformed into grapes. A further process takes place by which the ripe grapes are made into wine. Thus the long process of turning water into wine is now compressed into a moment of time as the Son of God shows conclusively that He is the creator of all things, for He is in control of the processes which He Himself had put into operation at the beginning of creation.

Near the end of His ministry the Lord cursed a fig tree, which dried up from the roots to the astonishment of the disciples, Mark 11:20,21. The fig tree represents Israel after the flesh, and as such has no future. The nation’s Creator has ensured that it will not grow again by bringing in such severe drought conditions that it dries up. Israel in the future, however, will be a true testimony to God, (the olive tree provided oil for the light), and will bring forth fruit for God as a vine, “which cheereth God and man”, Judges 9:13. One of the curses God threatened the nation with in Deuteronomy 28:23,24 was drought, as happened in Elijah’s day. The cursing of the fig tree was a warning to Israel that they were in drought conditions in their hearts. So He that provided the water for the vine can also withhold the water for the fig. In Genesis 1:1 the three things that go to make up the universe are introduced. There is the time-word “beginning”, then heaven and earth tell of matter, and then the notice of their separate positions, indicating space. Time, space, and matter are the three components of God’s creation, and the Lord Jesus in His first miracle at Cana showed Himself to be the master of time and matter. In His second miracle, again at Cana, He showed space and time was no difficulty to Him, for He healed the sick boy at a distance, and at the precise hour of His choosing. And matter was no problem either, for He dealt with the organism that caused the boy’s sickness.

And the mother of Jesus was there- the fact that the mother of Jesus was at the wedding and was not called as the Lord Jesus and his disciples were would indicate that perhaps the wedding was of someone closely connected to the family, but not one of the family. Perhaps some relative of Mary, given that she has some sort of authority at the occasion. The tense of the word “was” is the imperfect, telling us that she was already at the wedding before the Lord Jesus arrived. It is not clear whether the brethren of the Lord were present or not.

2:2
And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

The fact that He was called shows that those being married were sympathetic to Him and His teaching. When the Lord contrasted John the Baptist’s ministry with His own, He likened John’s ministry to a funeral, and His to a wedding, Matthew 11:17. John condemned man’s sin as the law of Moses did, and thus he showed why man’s stay on earth ends with a funeral. But Christ came to bring life, and it is fitting that He should perform His first miracle just when the happy couple are setting out on a new life together.
The first plague of Egypt was to turn water into blood, Exodus 7:20, the symbol of death and sorrow, but here water is turned into the symbol of joy, Judges 9:13. Such is the great change that Christ brings about, not only in the lives of men, but also universally when He comes to reign.

Verses 3-5
The glory of His gentleness

2:3
And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine- to want wine means to have a lack of wine; it was the wine that was wanting, not the guests. This may indicate that the newly-weds were relatively poor, and could not afford to provide an abundance of wine. How like the Lord Jesus to enrich the poor; and this He has done more generally as far as all of His people are concerned. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich”, 2 Corinthians 8:9. It was customary to give gifts of wine or oil to a couple when they were married, thus supplying their needs as they embarked upon life together. If the five disciples and the Lord were the extra guests at the wedding, then the Lord provided six waterpots of wine as a gift to the newly-weds from Himself and His disciples.

2:4
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

2:5
His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

Verses 6-8
The glory of His greatness

2:6
And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

In Mark 7:1-9 we learn that the Jews were very particular about handwashing, and had made it into a legalistic ritual. The complaint of the Pharisees on that occasion was not that the disciples ate without washing their hands at all, but that they did not engage in the elaborate ritual the Pharisees had devised. The Lord used the incident to not only condemn mere religion, but also to point out that defilement is within a man already, and has nothing to do with dirty hands.
Two or three firkins apiece would be about fifty-four gallons or four hundred and thirty-two pints. This is the Lord’s generous wedding present to the happy pair, but they would begin their married life by sharing this gift with others. It should always be true that we share His gifts with others.

2:7
Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

2:8
And He saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

Verses 9-12
The glory of His genuineness

Every stage of this miracle was transparent and open; there was no deceit. We see this in the following ways:

1. As we have suggested, the pots were laying on their side to start with, the water having been used up to wash the guests feet as they arrived. This means there was no water left in them.

2. The servants do not know a miracle is about to take place. All they think they are doing is filling pots with water.

3. They fill the pots to the brim, so there is no room for some substance to be added to colour the water red.

4. The Lord has nothing to do with this filling process; He does not bless the pots or the water, but is completely apart from the action.

6. The servants can testify that it started as water; the governor testifies that it finished as wine.

7. The governor calls the bridegroom, not Christ, for he is not aware of what has happened.

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.

But the servants which drew the water knew- this is John’s comment, found in parenthesis, and assures us that there was no collusion between the servants and the governor, any more than there was collusion between Christ and the servants. All is genuine and open. After all, John was present at the wedding, and he writes near the end of his gospel that the Lord did signs “in the presence of his disciples”, John 20:30, so there was no secrecy.

So we have the governor and the servants as independent witnesses of the genuineness of the miracle. The servants can testify that it began as water, and the governor can testify that it finished up as wine. The servants do not know what is going to happen. So they are not complicit in any deception. The governor does not know what did happen. So he is not complicit in any trickery such as colouring the water.

The governor of the feast called the bridegroom- it is not Christ but the bridegroom who is called, but he was unaware of what had happened, so he is not advanced as a witness. In fact it is the governor bears witness to him, and gives him the credit for the quality of the wine.

2:10
And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

The Lord is indicating by this miracle that He is about to introduce a new order of things. Later in His ministry He will liken the law to old wine skins, which cannot stand having new wine put into them, Matthew 9:17. The new wine of the gospel cannot be contained in the old “skins” of men under the law. The skins must be replaced. It is in Christ that a man is renewed, so that he may contain the new wine of the gospel. Later on the Lord will promise that his people shall do greater things than the miracles he performed 14:12. They would be able to bring out the spiritual truth behind the miracles, and disclose that there is a joy that is beyond natural joy, and He is the one who brings it in. The apostle Peter calls it joy unspeakable, and full of glory, 1 Peter 1:8.

As the governor says, the normal practice was to set on the lesser wine when men have had a good fill of the good wine, so that they do not realise the wine at the end is less good. Here the good wine has been served first, and still the last wine is thought to be better. Christ always surpasses our expectations. The wine of the law-covenant was good wine, having to do with the righteousness of God, but the wine of the gospel-covenant is better, for it is based on the work of the cross. As the Lord said to His disciples in the upper room, in reference to a cup of wine, “this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”, Matthew 26:28. The law condemned sins, but grace brings forgiveness. The law brought sorrow, but grace brings joy.

2:11
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

2:12
After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

And they continued there not many days- it seems the plan was to wait in Capernaum until it was time to go up to Jerusalem together for the passover, which was “at hand”. This would explain why His mother and His brethren travelled with Him, even though His brethren did not believe in Him. They had most likely come from Nazareth to Cana for the wedding, and met up with the Lord’s party as they came from beyond Jordan. The brothers would be going to the feast as a matter of religious duty, John 7:10. It was not compulsory for women to go to the feasts, but it appears Mary did, Luke 2:41, which shows her devotion to God. That He continued where He was “not many days” shows that the Lord did not impose Himself upon His host.

See the end of the chapter for a special and extended note on marriage.

(b) 2:13-22
In the temple at Jerusalem before the passover

Special note on the passover in John’s gospel
It would be appropriate at this point to notice the way in which John uses the feast of the passover as the basis for the new things that Christ brings in as He reveals the Father. After all, the passover was a new beginning for Israel, and even their calendar was altered to reflect that. God’s word to them was “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you”, Exodus 12:2. We learn from Exodus 34:22 that the feast of ingathering, which was to be held in the seventh month, was “at the year’s end”. It was the end of the agricultural year, when the cycle of seed time and harvest came to its end. This strongly suggests that the first week of this world’s history was in the seventh month, at the start of the Autumn equinox. But when God made a new start, he ordained that Israel begin their religious calendar with the passover.

2:13
And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

2:14
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

2:15
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

2:16
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

Note that whilst He drives out the sheep and oxen, the Lord does not scatter the doves, but only commands the dove-sellers to take them away. Sheep and oxen are used to being driven, but He will not disturb the gentle dove, even when He is taking drastic action.
In this first cleansing, the charge is making merchandise out of Divine things, and thus getting gain for themselves. In the second cleansing, the charge is more severe, that of robbing God of His due. The situation is all the more sad because it was the priestly family of Annas and Caiaphas who leased out the stalls in the temple courts, and these should have certainly known better, for “the priest’s lips should keep knowledge”, Malachi 2:7.

2:17
And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up- note that the disciples are learning to relate Old Testament scriptures to the Lord’s actions. Psalm 69, from which this quotation comes, is not especially Messianic, because it contains a confession of sin and foolishness, and this could never be on the lips of the Holy Son of God. It is significant that Psalm 69:30,31 says that to magnify the Lord’s name with thanksgiving pleases Him “better than an ox or a bullock that hath horns and hoofs”, and the Lord Jesus was indeed defending the honour of His Father’s name by His actions at this time, as ever, and as His Father acknowledged in John 12:28. He magnified His Father’s name by expelling the oxen.

The duty of the head of the Israelite houses was to purge out the leaven found there, in preparation for the feast of passover, and the feast of unleavened bread which followed immediately after. As the Son representing His Father, the Lord Jesus undertakes to purge the leaven from the House of God, the temple at Jerusalem.

2:18
Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

2:19
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

The Lord is speaking on two levels here. He is speaking of His body as a temple, but also of the literal temple where they were standing. They would destroy His body so that His spirit and soul and body were separated in death, but this would mean that the literal temple would be destroyed too. By crucifying Him, they would secure the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple, for the destiny of the temple at Jerusalem was bound up in the destiny of the temple of His body.

But Hosea had spoken of a period of three days after which God would raise up His people Israel again from the grave of the nations, Hosea 6:1,2. Together with the Messiah’s dead body would they rise, Isaiah 26:19, or in other words, they would be associated with and believe in His resurrection at long last, and gain the benefits which His rising again brings to those who believe. It was the Sadducean party which controlled the temple, and they did not believe in the resurrection of the body. They will recognise this statement by Christ as an attack upon their doctrine.

2:20
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? Not realising He was uttering a prophecy which involved the destruction and fall of the nation and its subsequent rise, they thought only in terms of physically building the temple. They contrast Herod’s labours for 46 years, with the short period of three days. Herod commenced the restoration and embellishment of the temple in about 19 BC. If the exact date when Herod began to build the temple could be established with absolute certainty, it would also establish the date of this passover, and hence when the crucifixion occurred, three passovers later. Provisionally, we may say that if Herod began building in 19 BC, then forty and six years later is AD 27, which becomes the date of the first passover in the Lord’s ministry. Three passovers later brings us to AD 30, when it is said that the passover was on Thursday, April the 6^th.

2:21
But he spake of the temple of his body.

But he spake of the temple of his body- so there is a vital link between the crucifixion of Christ, and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem in AD 70. We see the link between Christ and the temple in other scriptures. For instance, Daniel 9:26 speaks of the Messiah being cut off, and then the city and sanctuary being destroyed. Jacob prophesied of the time when the sons of Levi, the priestly tribe, would, in their anger, slay a man, and in their self-will they would dig down a wall, Genesis 49:5-7. The man is Christ, the wall is the wall of Jerusalem. The parable of the marriage of the king’s son involves the city of those who killed the messengers being destroyed, Matthew 22:1-7. There is a connection therefore between the destiny of the temple, and that of His body. Both will be destroyed, but both will rise again. In the case of Christ’s body the destruction would mean the separation of His body, soul and spirit in death, and significantly, when that happened the veil of the temple was rent, for the destruction of the temple of His body had begun! And by rending the veil God was signalling the fall of Jerusalem in due time. But it is said of Messiah that “he shall build the temple of the Lord”, Zechariah 6:12-14, so there shall be a temple in Jerusalem again during the kingdom of Christ.

2:22
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

And they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said- after the Lord had risen, and especially after they received the Spirit of God at Pentecost, they were not only able to understand what He had said to them when with them, but were also able to relate the events of His life to the Old Testament, (“the scripture”), and to do so in such a way as to recognise that His word and the Old Testament are of equal authority. In both John 17:12 and 20:9 there is reference to “scripture” in the singular, where there has not been a quotation of a particular verse, but a reference to a well-known one. So we may understand the word scripture here as referring to the prime passage that speaks of the resurrection of Christ, namely Psalm 16:10,11. The apostle Peter appealed to this passage in Acts 2:24-28 when he was announcing the resurrection of Christ. The apostle Paul does the same in Acts 13:34-37.

2:23
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

Many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did- taking the foregoing facts together, we see that the time of passover was one when expectations were raised considerably. When one came who seemed to have authority, even in the temple courts, and, moreover, was able to work miracles, the people began to wonder whether the Messiah was in their midst. Of course, the miracles the Lord Jesus did were indications that He was the prophesied Messiah, as a reading of Isaiah 35:5,6 will show. But it is not miracles alone that present this proof, but miracles accompanied by doctrine. And it is the doctrine that went alongside the miracles, and was demonstrated by the miracles, that the natural heart of man was not willing to accept.

2:24
But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

2:25
And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

Then there is insincere faith, when a person makes a profession of faith for the sake of some advantage which he believes he may gain from it, such as to please Christian parents or friends.

Special note on the three prepositions used in relation to faith in Christ:

There is the preposition “epi”, which has to do with resting on an object. In relation to faith in Christ, this indicates that Christ is the one on whom faith rests, so Christ is his foundation. This preposition is used in the Acts and the Epistles, but not in the Gospels. It is used after Christ died, rose again, and returned to heaven. Christ is rested on as one proved to be a stable foundation.

The following are the scriptures that use “epi”, meaning “upon”:

“Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?” Acts 11:17.

“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Acts 16:31.

“And whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed”, Romans 9:33.

“For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.” Romans 10:11.

“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.” 1 Peter 2:6.

Note that three of these verses quote from Isaiah 28:16.

There is the preposition “en”, which has to do with being in a place or position within an object. In relation to faith, this indicates that a person is fully surrounded by Christ, so Christ is his security. Such an one believes from within this secure place. This preposition is used seven times, but only in the Epistles, after the work and person of Christ has been fully manifested, and the secure position of the believer is set forth.