He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples, and said, Behold My mother and My
brethren!'53
51. Comp. the passages from the classics quoted by Wetstein in his Commentary.
52. St. John xix. 26.
53. St. Matt xii. 46-50.
And Mary did not, and yet she did, understand Him, when she turned to the servants with
the direction, implicitly to follow His behests. What happened is well known: how, in the
excess of their zeal, they filled the water-pots to the brim - an accidental circumstance,
yet useful, as much that seems accidental, to show that there could be neither delusion
nor collusion; how, probably in the drawing of it, the water became best wine - 'the
conscious water saw its God, and blushed;' then the coarse proverbial joke of what was
probably the master of ceremonies and purveyor of the feast,54 intended, of course, not
literally to apply to the present company, and yet in its accidentalness an evidence of the
reality of the miracle; after which the narrative abruptly closes with a retrospective
remark on the part of him who relates it. What the bridegroom said; whether what had
been done became known to the guests, and, if so, what impression it wrought; how long
Jesus remained; what His Mother felt - of this and much more that might be asked,
Scripture, with that reverent reticence which we so often mark, in contrast to our shallow
talkativeness, takes no further notice. And best that it should be so. St. John meant to tell
us, what the Synoptists, who begin their account with the later Galilean ministry, have
not recorded,55 of the first of His miracles as a 'sign,'56 pointing to the deeper and higher
that was to be revealed, and of the first forth-manifesting of 'His glory.'57 That is all; and
that object was attained. Witness the calm, grateful retrospect upon that first day of
miracles, summed up in these simple but intensely conscious words: 'And His disciples
believed on Him.'
54. Ecclus. xxxii. 1 2.
55. On the omission of certain parts of St. John's narrative by the Synoptists, and vice
versā , and on the supposed differences, I can do no better than refer the reader to the
admirable remarks of Canon Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 280
&c.
56. According to the best reading, and literally, 'This did - beginning of signs - Jesus in
Cana.' Upon a careful review the Rabbinic expression Simana (taken from the Greek
word here used) would seem to me more fully to render the idea than the Hebrew Oth.
But the significant use of the word sign should be well marked. See Canon Westcott on
the passage.
57. In this, the first of his miracles, it was all the more necessary that He should manifest
his glory.
A sign it was, from whatever point we view its meaning, as previously indicated. For,
like the diamond that shines with many colours, it has many meanings; none of them
designed, in the coarse sense of the term, but all real, because the outcome of a real
Divine Life and history. And a real miracle also, not only historically, but as viewed in its
many meanings; the beginning of all others, which in a sense are but the unfolding of this