(12) After this he went down to Capernaum.--For the position of Capernaum comp. Note on Matthew 4:13. It was on the shore of the lake of Tiberias, and He must have gone "down" to it from any locality among the hills of Galilee. The words do not imply that they went to Capernaum direct from Cana. The "after this" allows of a return to Nazareth, and the mention of the "brethren" makes such a return probable. The place of this sojourn in the order of events belongs to the narrative of the earlier Gospels, and here, as elsewhere, questions which recur are treated when they are first mentioned. To deal with them on each occurrence would be to save the trouble of reference at the cost of much space; and this would be ill-saved; the spiritual profit arising from constant reference is one which no earnest student of the Gospels could desire to lose. He will wish to study every event in that life in every word which records it. (Comp. Matthew 4:13 et seq., and Matthew 9:1; Mark 3:21-31; Mark 6:3; Luke 4:16-30). For the "brethren of the Lord," see Note on Matthew 13:55.

Verse 12. - After this he went down - from the high lands of Galilee to the borders of the Sea of Galilee, depressed as we now know it to be below the level of the Mediterranean - to Capernaum. Three competing sites for this small town have been advocated by Eastern travellers; all of them on the shore of the lake, all near to Bethsaida and Chorazin, in "the way of the sea," combining more or less the characteristics required by the New Testament narrative and the references in Josephus ('Bell. Jud.,' 3:10, 8). Keim is in favour of Khan, Minyeh; but there is no abundant spring such as Josephus describes, nor are there any ruins which indicate an extensive town. Caspari has argued in favour of Ain Mudawarah, a mile and a half to the west of Khan Minyeh, in which, though water is abundant, there are no remains of buildings. The old travellers, and the most recent explorations, have coincided in fixing on Tell-Hum as the site; and Dr. Farrar, Dr. Westcott, Major Wilson, incline to this conclusion. Abundant ruins are found there, and, what is more than probable, the remains of the very synagogue built by the Roman centurion, and one certainly dating back to the Herodian age. Tell-Hum, or "the Mound of Hum," is an easy corruption of the Caphar, or village of Nahum. He, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples. They may have returned home to Nazareth, though some recent commentators suggest that Cana had become the home of his family in late years. This is contradicted by the express statement of ch. 1:45, and the utter obliteration of the name of Cana from the synoptic narrative. We cannot identify this possible return to Nazareth with the account in Luke 4:16-20, because it assumes a previous period of activity in Capernaum, and further, because the commencement of Christ's public ministry is expressly made synchronous with the imprisonment of the Baptist (Matthew 4:12-15), which did not take place till weeks or months afterwards (John 3:24). Consequently, this journey to Capernaum preceded the journey to Jerusalem and the return to Nazareth, of which Matthew speaks. The fact that "the mother and brethren "of Jesus accompanied him, but not "the sisters," suggests what is implied in Mark 6:3 that the sisters were married in Nazareth and in Mark 3:21-23 that they did not accompany the non-believing brothers in their endeavour "to lay hold of him." The fact that Joseph is not mentioned induces the common assumption that he was already dead. Volumes have been written on "the brethren of Jesus." The determination of their parentage is one of the most perplexing points in the evangelic history. There are three hypotheses, which are alike beset with difficulties.

(1) The view propounded by Helvidius in Rome, in the fourth century, and to which Jerome replied, that the "brothers" are brothers in the ordinary sense, children of Joseph and Mary. This supposition is sustained by the statement of Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7, each of which implies that the mother of our Lord had other children. The sentiment of the Church in favour of Mary's perpetual virginity, and in favour of the uniqueness of her maternity, has powerfully contested this supposition. Further, apart from any sentiment, it has been said that the Lord would not have commended the mother to the beloved disciple, if he had living brothers who had a previous claim. To this, however, it is replied that John, the son of Zebedee and Salome, may have been his near relative, if Salome were the sister of the Virgin; and also that, up to the time of the Ascension, there is no proof that the brethren believed in him, but the contrary. The effect of a special manifestation to James (1 Corinthians 15.) may have led to a general admission of the brethren, who are distinguished from, but yet with, the eleven apostles and the mother on the eve of the Ascension (Acts 1:14).

(2) To obviate the difficulties of a sentimental kind, it was suggested by Jerome, and it has been often assumed since, that these brothers were in reality first cousins, not the children of Salome the sister of the Virgin, but of Mary the wife of Cleophas, who is supposed to be the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus (see ch. 20:25, note), and further that this Cleophas = Clopas = חַלְפִי = Alphaeus = Chalphai for the Aramaic guttural might be omitted as in Alphseus, or turned into κ or χ in Clopas, found in John's text. Jerome, however (Lightfoot), never referred to this confirmation of his theory; but it has been hence conjectured that James the son of Alphaeus was identical with the celebrated "James the brother of our Lord," mentioned in Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18; in Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9, 12; and in ecclesiastical history. If, however, this James were the "son of Alphaeus," then Judas (John 14:22) (not Iscariot) - "Judas of James" (Jude 1:1; Acts 1:13) - was also one of the "brethren;" also Joses and Simon, sons of Cleophas, were of their number; and some have gone further, and made Simon the Canaanite the other brother. This might possibly be the solution of the puzzle, if the entire theory did not break down under the clear distinction drawn in evangelic narrative between the twelve apostles and the brethren. E.g. in this passage they are discriminated from "disciples." In John 7:5 the "brethren" are said not to believe on the Lord. In Acts 1:14 they are mentioned in addition to the apostles. Though in Galatians 1 and 2, James might seem from his great eminence to be classed with apostles in some wider sense, yet in Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18; Galatians 2:12 he seems to take precedence of all the apostles, at the Council of Jerusalem, and in presidency of the Church there. Moreover, the identification of Cleophas with Alphaeus is very doubtful. Clopas is Aramaic, Cleophas a Greek name; and the identification of his wife Mary with the sister of the Virgin is also very doubtful; while to have two sisters of the same name in the same family is highly improbable. We cannot believe, further, that so distinguished a man as James the brother of our Lord could have been designated as "James the Less" in the evangelic narrative (Mark 15:40). If the "cousin theory" holds, this must have been the case. Finally, "cousins" would hardly so persistently have been spoken of as brothers, and this would be still less likely if their mother was living.

(3) The third hypothesis, which is the suggestion of Epiphanius, is that these brothers were the children of Joseph by a previous marriage, to whom the blessed Virgin had acted the part of mother. This is based on a legend of the apocryphal 'Protevang. of James' (ch. 9. and 17.), where Joseph speaks of his "sons." The theory saves the virginity of Mary, but sacrifices that of Joseph. Such a conclusion, in some ecclesiastic circles, is almost as unwelcome as the former. Against Jerome's hypothesis the greatest number of difficulties present themselves, and it must be abandoned. Therefore the choice really lies between that of Helvidius

(1) and that of Epiphauius

(3). These are alike encumbered by the perplexity that among the twelve apostles there were two Jameses, two Judases, and two Simons; and among the "brethren" there must have been also a James, Judas, Joses, and Simon, with sisters. Moreover, there was a Joses or Joseph, who was son of Alphseus, and therefore a brother of James. This is not an insuperable difficulty, because of the frequency with which personal names recur in Oriental families. Whether this multiplicity be true or not, there are, at least, ten other Simons in the New Testament, and nearly as many Josephs or Joses; and Judas Barsabas (Acts 15:22) must be discriminated from the two Judases here supposed. We must, however, choose between suppositions

(1) and

(3). On the one side, it is said, if the brethren of Jesus were not the own sons of Mary, the language of Jesus on the cross would be entirely explicable. This is true; but, on the other side, if John were indeed a blood relation and beloved disciple (even if James was so also, but did not believe on him), the difficulty of the language is reduced to a minimum. There is no scriptural authority for the Epiphanian theory, but it is made plausible by the 'Gospel according to St. Peter' and the ' Protevang. Jacobi,' which refer to Joseph's sons. The whole history of its reception in the Church may be seen in the masterly essay of Bishop Lightfoot. The view of Alford, Mill, Farrar, Coder, and many others is in favour of a plain common sense interpretation of the letter of Scripture. Christ, who honoured marriage by his first display of miraculous power, and this at the suggestion of his own mother, and in the society of those who passed undoubtedly as his brothers, would not feel that the faintest shadow of a shade fell on the lofty purity of his mother by this hypothesis. Certainly the Evangelist Matthew had not a vestige in him of that adoration of virginity, or Mariolatry, which has led ecclesiastical historians and commentators to reject the Helvidian hypothesis. Godet and some other harmonists endeavour to find, during the residence in Capernaum, the occasion for the first miraculous draught of fishes, and the final call of the two pairs of brothers; but it is. excluded by the notes of time subsequently given. Verses 12-22. -

(2) The second sign Supremacy over the theocratic house. Illustrations of righteousness, reverence, power, and sacrificial ministry. Verses 12, 13. - They abode there not many days. And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. The narrative at ver. 22; John 3:22; John 4:1, 27, etc., shows, that some disciples were with him; but there is no reason for believing that the whole group were there. The fact is important that Jesus personally is said (ἀνέβη) to have gone up to Jerusalem, and that no reference is made to his disciples, mother, or brethren doing so. This undoubtedly assumes that he was not attended by any compact group of followers. It is more than probable that Simon and James, if not Nathanael and Philip, remained in Galilee to receive their final call in due season. One cannot doubt that John and Andrew were his auditors and witnesses. He went up to utter his prophetic summons to the metropolis of the nation, to take his place in the palace temple of his Father, in the centre of the old theocracy. After showing his perfect human sympathy, his power over physical nature, his abounding resources, and the glory of his love, he resolved that there should be no misunderstanding of his moral mission, and proceeded to institute a public demonstration of his loyalty to the theocracy, to the temple, and to its worship. Just at the moment when the One who, greater than the temple, was about to display his unique claims to a service which would outlive all the pomp of temple worship, it was profoundly significant that he should demand from it a right presentation, and not a corrupt defilement, of its true significance. Modern criticism refuses to accept the statements of the synoptists and of John as alike true, and endeavours to explain away one or the ether account. We are content to say here that a repetition of the Christ's claim to sanctify the temple was again made on the eve of that awful day when that blood should be shed which would exhaust all the significance of the hecatombs of victims slain in its precincts, and when the veil of the temple should be rent in twain. Weiss here shows that Baur and Hilgenfeld are inconsistent in repudiating the historical character of an early conflict of Jesus with the authorities at Jerusalem, and that they forget, in their eagerness to demonstrate the anti-Jewish character of the Johannine Christ, that he here is represented as a pious Jew, attending the national festivals and jealous for the honour of the temple. The chronological difficulties that arise if the two cleansings are identified amount to the grossest inaccuracy on the part either of the synoptists or John. Lucke, De Wette, Ewald, treat the synoptists as inaccurate, and John's account, being that of an eyewitness, as the reduction of the event to its proper place in the history. It is obvious that the synoptists (Matthew 26:61; Mark 14:58) knew that words which John recounts had, at an earlier period, made a deep impression upon the multitude. The thief on the cross (Matthew 27:38-44), and the insulting crowds Mark 15:27-29), and Stephen afterwards (Acts 6:14), reveal familiarity with an utterance which John alone recounts, but which had been misunderstood. An ingenious writer in the National Review, 1857 (Mr. R.H. Hutton, "Theological Essays"), believes, not only that the entire scene in the temple, but that Christ's claim to be the Head of the kingdom, the parables of "wicked husbandmen" and "two sons," and the reference to the "baptism of John," should all be transferred, together with the triumphal entry, to the period in which John has placed the first temple cleansing. He thinks that the reference to the "baptism of John" was more reasonable at that period than two years after the death of John, and that (Matthew 21:11) the reference to "Jesus of Nazareth" was more appropriate at the beginning than at the close of the ministry. But, on the other hand, the inscription on the cross, "Jesus of Nazareth," and the numerous references to the "baptism of John" at a much later date, quite refute this argument. There are those who strenuously assail the historicity of St. John's account, and plead for the greater accuracy of the synoptists (Strauss, Baur, Hilgenfeld, etc.). But, seeing that the synoptic tradition takes no notice of this preliminary ministry, in which our Lord gives specimens of all his powers and glory, no reason presents itself why they should have singled out one narrative and misplaced it. So long as John's Gospel is held to have a genuine historicity, his narrative cannot be suffered to be a romantic transposition to meet a preconceived idea of chronological development. The early foreshadowing of the Lord's death and resurrection, coupled with the reference to Ms being "lifted up" like the serpent of brass, and the cruel treatment received from the people at Nazareth and from scribes and Pharisees at Capernaum, are in living harmony with one another, and combine to refute the idyllic reproduction of the public ministry, which Renan and many others have attempted to fashion, by which the early life is represented as enacted in one blaze of sunshine, and that its close alone was shrouded in clouds and darkened by the Lord's reckless and suicidal rushing on his fate. We therefore conclude, with numerous critics, that there is

(1) no reason to believe that John misplaced the temple cleansing; and

(2) that he does not preclude the second act of the like kind recorded in the synoptists;

(3) while the synoptists imply occurrences which are detailed in John, but omitted in their narrative, yet the character of the proceeding differs on both occasions.

2:12-22 The first public work in which we find Christ engaged, was driving from the temple the traders whom the covetous priests and rulers encouraged to make a market-place of its courts. Those now make God's house a house of merchandise, whose minds are filled with cares about worldly business when attending religious exercises, or who perform Divine offices for love of gain. Christ, having thus cleansed the temple, gave a sign to those who demanded it, to prove his authority for so doing. He foretells his death by the Jews' malice, Destroy ye this temple; I will permit you to destroy it. He foretells his resurrection by his own power; In three days I will raise it up. Christ took again his own life. Men mistake by understanding that according to the letter, which the Scripture speaks by way of figure. When Jesus was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered he has said this. It helps much in understanding the Divine word, to observe the fulfilling of the Scriptures.After this he went down to Capernaum,.... After he had been at Cana, and at the wedding there: after he had wrought the miracle of turning water into wine; and after he had manifested forth the glory of his deity thereby, and had confirmed the faith of his disciples, he departed from thence, and went lower into the country of Galilee, to Capernaum, a city near the sea of Tiberias; and which, from henceforward, he made the more usual place of his residence, and whither he frequently resorted, and therefore it is called his city, Matthew 9:1. This refers not to the same journey recorded in Matthew 4:12, for that was after John was cast into prison, whereas this was before; see John 3:24; the company that went with him, are as follow,

he, and his mother; who had been with him at Cana, and was a principal person at the wedding: and she now returning home, he accompanies her, to see her to her own habitation; or to settle her in Capernaum, whilst he went about discharging his public ministry.

And his brethren; or near kinsmen, according to the flesh, the sons of Alphaeus, or Cleophas, and Mary, sister to the mother of our Lord; whose names were James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, three of which afterwards became his apostles:

and his disciples: as many as he had yet called, which were Andrew, and the disciple that followed Jesus with him, and Simon Peter, and Philip, and Nathanael,

and they continued there not many days; not because of the impenitence, unbelief, and wickedness of the place, but for the reason following.