After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brothers, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
Capernaum.
John 6:17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.
Matthew 4:13 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
Matthew 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
and his brethren.
John 7:3-5 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest…
Matthew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Matthew 13:55,56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? …
He went down to Capernaum
Capernaum was a significant location in Jesus' ministry, often referred to as His "own city" (Matthew 9:1). It was a prosperous fishing village on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee. The phrase "went down" reflects the geographical descent from the higher elevation of Cana to the lower elevation of Capernaum.
with His mother and brothers and His disciples
This indicates the close-knit group accompanying Jesus, including His family and followers. The mention of His "brothers" has been interpreted in various ways, with some suggesting they were His half-brothers or cousins. The presence of His disciples shows the early formation of His ministry team.
and they stayed there a few days
This brief stay in Capernaum suggests a period of rest or preparation before Jesus' public ministry intensifies. It highlights the itinerant nature of His ministry, moving from place to place. This time may have been used for teaching and building relationships with His followers.
• John marks a clear sequence: the water-into-wine miracle at Cana (John 2:1-11) is completed, and “after this” Jesus takes the next purposeful step in His public ministry.
• The phrase underscores the trustworthiness of the Gospel record; events unfold in real time, not in myth or legend. See also John 3:22 “After this, Jesus and His disciples went into the Judean countryside,” and John 6:1 “After this, Jesus crossed to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.”
• By noting each transition, the Spirit shows how Jesus moves deliberately toward His larger mission (John 4:34).
• “Went down” reflects actual geography: Cana sits in the hill country; Capernaum rests on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, literally lower in elevation.
• Capernaum becomes Jesus’ ministry hub (Matthew 4:13; Luke 4:31). From its synagogue He teaches with authority (Mark 1:21; John 6:59) and performs many miracles (Matthew 8:5-13).
• The move fulfills prophecy that light would dawn in “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Isaiah 9:1-2; Matthew 4:14-16).
• Mary is specifically named, showing the continued honor Jesus gives His earthly mother (Exodus 20:12; Luke 2:51).
• “Brothers” refers to Jesus’ half-brothers—actual sons of Mary and Joseph such as James, Joses, Judas, and Simon (Mark 6:3). Later, they come to faith and serve in the church (Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19).
• The presence of both family and disciples illustrates Jesus’ two circles of relationship:
– Family by birth, who witness His life at close range.
– Followers by faith, who will carry His message worldwide (John 17:6-8).
• Bringing them together models how the gospel weaves household ties and spiritual fellowship into one community (Ephesians 2:19).
• The brief stay offers rest and private instruction before the demanding journey to Jerusalem for Passover (John 2:13).
• Jesus often balances public ministry with quieter moments (Mark 6:31; Luke 5:16), showing that rhythms of work and rest are God-honoring.
• “A few days” also signals that the Gospel writers preserve even small chronological details, reinforcing the historical reliability of Scripture (Luke 1:3).
John 2:12 shows Jesus deliberately relocating from Cana to Capernaum with family and followers, pausing only “a few days” before the next major feast. The verse highlights the orderly unfolding of His mission, the importance of Capernaum as ministry headquarters, the integration of natural family and spiritual disciples, and the healthy pattern of brief rest amid active service. Every detail—time, place, companions—confirms the trustworthiness of God’s Word and points to Christ’s purposeful advance toward the cross and resurrection.
(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 . . .
Parallel Commentaries ...