John 2 - Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

2:3 Jesus’ mother. Some (e.g., Whitacre) point to Mary as a model disciple here and see similarities with the reaction of the first disciples in ch 1, for instance, in taking the initiative in coming to Jesus (Cf. 1:37) and allowing Jesus to set the agenda (Cf. 1:38). Her faith in Jesus’ ability to solve the situation is another parallel.

2:4 that’s not our problem. Some (Lagrange, Schnackenburg, Derrett, Beasley-Murray) have tried to give this a softer tone, such as, “What do you want me to do?” or “Why tell me this? I understand it.” Such renderings are doubtful. There is some aspect of rebuke or distancing in the question.

2:5 his mother told the servants. The symbolism of Mary as developed through the ages is out of keeping with her actual portrait here and in the rest of the NT. Brown calls her “the New Eve, the symbol of the church” (1966:109), not in the sense of the later developed Mariology but as an incipient emphasis in terms of “corporate personality.” Schnackenburg is closer (1980:331) when he sees the emphasis on the scene rather than on “theological presuppositions concerning her.”

2:9 the water that was now wine. Several (Brown, Beasley-Murray, Carson) also see a further theme: the replacement of the old Jewish institutions and rituals with the new life of the Kingdom in Christ. The new wine makes the old unnecessary. While this seems overly allegorical, it is certainly a possible thrust here in light of the messianic themes of John.

2:12 his brothers. Jesus’ brothers were certainly his half-brothers born to Joseph and Mary. The idea that Mary was a “perpetual virgin” and that these were actually Jesus’ cousins arose in the second century (cf. Morris 1995:187).

This begins a major section (2:1–12:50), which centers on seven signs that are carefully structured to accord with Jesus’ discourses. Thus, this section of John is frequently labeled “the book of signs” because in these signs God reveals the glory of Christ. In these chapters, the Jewish people also encounter the miraculous power of Jesus and the invitation of these sign-miracles to investigate his true identity. The discourses then demand that the people recognize Jesus’ God-sent authority and come to a faith-decision. The conflict intensifies as the Jewish people continually reject Jesus and his message. Yet his glory also becomes more and more evident for those with the eyes of faith.

The first portion of this major section (2:1–4:54) is framed by two miracles in Cana of Galilee (2:1-11; 4:46-54); these are the first two “signs.” In these and the intervening material, Jesus progressively reveals his new plan of salvation, which requires people to encounter God in him. Beasley-Murray (1987:31) thinks the primary theme is that “ ‘The old things have passed away; see, the new have come’ (2 Cor 5:17). The three chapters together present the replacement of the old purifications by the wine of the kingdom of God, the old Temple by the new in the risen Lord, an exposition of new birth for new creation, a contrast between the water of Jacob’s well with the living water from Christ, and the worship of Jerusalem and Gerizim with worship ‘in Spirit and in truth.’ ”

This reenactment motif, in which the history of Israel’s journey foreshadows Jesus and the disciples’ journey, appears throughout John’s Gospel. For example, in the first few chapters, Jesus offers himself as the new spiritual habitation for God’s people, as he is the new Tabernacle (ch 1) and the true Temple (ch 2). Furthermore, he is the source of a new corporate regeneration (ch 3) and God’s gift of life (ch 4). The same pattern continues in the rest of John (for details, see Comfort 1994:15-20).

At some time during the festivities the wine supply ran out, which was a major problem (2:3). Some think that part of the reason was the arrival of Jesus and his disciples (so Whitacre), but if that were true, it is difficult to see why Jesus reacted the way he did in 2:4. In that culture, the groom was responsible for the wedding expenses, and he would at the least face disgrace for a long time to come for allowing the wine to run out. (Hospitality was essential in the ancient world, with weddings presenting the greatest of obligations.) There might even have been legal complications, for the bride’s family could have sued them (cf. Derrett 1963:82-89; Collins 1995:103-104 for the honor/shame aspect). This was a desperate situation. Jesus’ mother, who may have had some responsibility for planning the wedding (if she and the groom were indeed relatives), brought the problem to Jesus. It is hard to know what she expected Jesus to do. If this was indeed the first of his miracles (which is likely), she could hardly have expected him to do such a thing. There is no evidence (in spite of apocryphal stories) that he had performed miracles while he was growing up, and the reaction of his townspeople when rejecting him (Mark 6:1-6) shows that he was known merely as the village carpenter. His father Joseph had likely died at some time in those years (cf. Carson 1991:292), so Jesus, as the oldest son, took over his father’s practice. There is no mention of Joseph in Matthew and Luke after the birth narratives, and Christian tradition favors the idea that Joseph was old when he married Mary (cf. Protoevangelium of James 9:2). Thus, Mary had probably learned to depend on Jesus’ resourcefulness, and she was doing that here as well.

Jesus’ reaction (2:4) to Mary is startling. On first glance, it seems rude and uncaring—yet behind it, there is unbelievable depth. The address, literally just “woman,” is not really insulting, as seen in the fact that when he gives her over to John’s care in 19:26, he also calls her “woman.” The NLT’s phrasing, “dear woman,” is somewhat valid, but in the context, Jesus was distancing himself from Mary. He was no longer just her son—the time had come to follow the path his Father had prepared for him (so Michaels, Burge). His reply is quite interesting. It is literally, “What is it to me and to you?” In the Synoptics, demons often use this expression when Jesus is about to cast them out—“Why are you interfering with us?” (Mark 1:24; 5:7 and parallels). In the LXX, it is often used of discord (“What has caused this?”—Judg 11:12; 2 Chr 35:21) or disengagement (“What business is this of mine?”—2 Kgs 3:13; Hos 14:8). Jesus’ reply is of the latter kind. In it there may be a slight rebuke: “That’s not our problem.” That is, Jesus was distancing himself from the situation and showing reluctance to get involved. Most likely the point is that he had to follow the agenda set for him by the Father rather than allow human situations to dictate what he did.

The reason for disengaging himself from the situation is in keeping with this concern for the Father’s agenda: “My time has not yet come” (2:4). Throughout John, the theme of his “time” (lit., his “hour”) always refers to the time of destiny, the passion events (7:30; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; 17:1). Jesus was saying here that he was reluctant to begin the series of events that would culminate in his passion. Carson (1991:172-173) gives three points to explain the symbolism: (1) Jesus saw the wine as symbolizing the messianic age and was saying that the hour of his glorification had not yet come; (2) Jesus was very oriented to his Father’s will rather than human schedules, and he wanted to be sure the time was right; and (3) as the messianic bridegroom, he would meet the need, but the true hour of the messianic banquet had not yet arrived. All three are likely part of the meaning.

Obviously, there is no way Mary could have understood this. She showed a mother’s trust in her son and simply told the servants, “Do whatever he tells you” (2:5). Again, she was the model disciple, humbly leaving it all to Jesus and trusting in his wisdom, even when she did not understand. Jesus’ subsequent actions show that her trust was well placed. He saw the “six stone water jars” that were “used for Jewish ceremonial washing,” each holding 20 to 30 gallons of water (2–3 measures). Jews would use these jars for washing hands (Mark 7:1-5) or utensils. It is important to realize that their purpose was to render the unclean ritually pure—they represented ceremonial uncleanness. When Jesus had them filled with water and then changed that water into wine, a double miracle occurred. First, the unclean jars were made clean. In fact, the reason they were made of stone was because the Jews would have had to break earthen jars that had been rendered unclean (Lev 11:33-35). Second, the water was turned into wine. Moreover, when the wine was distributed, the “master of ceremonies” (in charge of distributing the food and wine) called it the “best wine” of the entire wedding. His explanation (2:10) provides some interesting background. At celebrations like weddings, it was the custom to buy some expensive wine and some cheaper wine. They would serve the good wine first; then after their palates were satisfied (note that this cannot be grape juice; there is a hint of inebriation in “a lot to drink”), they would serve the cheaper wine.

Jesus gave up his reluctance and performed a powerful miracle. No wonder it “revealed his glory” (2:11); in fact, M. S. Collins (1995:106) thinks the thrust of the story as a whole is to present the true “glory” of Jesus. According to the Old Testament, at the coming of the final Kingdom there will be an abundance of wine (Isa 25:6; Jer 31:12; Hos 14:7), and this banquet is often depicted as a messianic wedding feast (Hos 2:16-23; cf. Rev 19:9-11). The message of the wine, then, is that the messianic age has started, and it is a proleptic anticipation of the final messianic age to come. The “glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (1:14) is now unveiled for those with eyes to see. This is the first “sign” miracle demonstrating Jesus’ glory. While the synoptic Gospels use “power” or “miracle” (dunamis [TG1411, ZG1539]) to describe such events, John uses “sign” (sēmeion [TG4592, ZG4956]) because the miracles point beyond themselves to a deeper reality—namely, the “unveiling” of God’s work in Jesus (cf. Schnackenburg 1980:515-528). The sign reveals the glory, and the disciples who saw it “believed in him.” This is the key moment, linked with all the other encounters to come (Cf. 20:30-31, where it is the major purpose of this book). They had experienced God revealing himself in Jesus through this first sign, and they responded with faith.

Finally, in a brief side note (2:12), John tells us that Jesus went down from Cana in the hill country of Galilee to Capernaum (about 16 miles away) with his disciples, his brothers (mentioned again in 7:1-5; Mark 6:3 names them as “James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon”) and his mother. This may have been a transition to his move to Capernaum around this time, for we know from the Synoptics that near the start of his ministry Jesus made Capernaum the headquarters (Matt 9:1, “his own town”) for his Galilean ministry. That was a natural move, for Capernaum was a central fishing village on the lake with a major north–south thoroughfare passing through it.

2:19 Destroy this temple. Jesus’ challenge to destroy the Temple was turned into a legal accusation at his trial when witnesses recounted it and claimed that he had threatened to destroy the Temple, a capital crime (cf. Mark 14:58 and parallels). Interestingly, the Synoptics do not record the original saying; only John does. As Comfort points out, “Jesus said, ‘You destroy this temple.’ (The verb is a second person, plural, aorist active imperative.) He did not say that he would destroy the Temple. But at the time of Jesus’ trial, some of his accusers twisted his statement to assert that Jesus said he would destroy the Temple (Matt 26:61; Mark 14:58). This was the only accusation against Jesus that was clearly verbalized—and the accusation was false” (1994:189-190). Though Jesus never said he was going to destroy the Temple, there are still a great number of debates regarding the meaning of this cryptic saying. Many think that Jesus was actually predicting the abolition of the Temple and of Temple worship. Several (Morris, Hoskyns, Bruce) see a double meaning here, primarily Jesus’ resurrection but secondarily the destruction of the Temple and its replacement by a “spiritual temple” (= the church), effected by Jesus’ death and resurrection. Beasley-Murray (1987:40-41) goes further and believes this is “an ironic challenge” for them to continue their behavior, which would lead to the destruction of the Temple. Others (Dodd, Lindars) take this to be the original meaning, while a prophecy of Jesus’ death and resurrection was a Johannine interpretation. Yet these views are very difficult to see in the wording here, for the “third day” motif points exclusively to the Resurrection and does not fit any spiritualizing interpretation. If one could isolate “destroy this temple,” Beasley-Murray’s view would be possible. However, it is a whole saying, and such prophetic irony is unlikely here. In fact, John himself denies this in 2:21, saying that “temple” referred specifically to “his own body.”

2:20 It has taken forty-six years to build this Temple. This is an important note for dating the life of Christ. Josephus tells us that Herod began constructing the Temple in the eighteenth year of his reign (Antiquities 15.380), and that would be 20/19 BC. Therefore, Jesus began his ministry about AD 27/28.

2:21 his own body. Some have interpreted Jesus’ “body” to be the church (cf. Eph 1:23; 4:16; Col 1:18) and taken the rebuilding of it (2:20) as a reference to his inauguration of the church. That is Paul’s metaphor, however, not John’s. The context makes it absolutely clear that this is Jesus’ physical body.

The first major issue is how to reconcile John’s placement of the clearing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry with the Synoptics’ placement of it at the end (Mark 11:15-17). The majority of scholars (e.g., Barrett, Schnackenburg, Beasley-Murray, Ridderbos, Borchert, Keener) believe that there was only one clearing of the Temple, at the close of Jesus’ ministry, which then became a major factor in his arrest. Thus, they think John took it out of order and placed it at the start of Jesus’ ministry for thematic reasons. This is possible because of the absence of chronology in the Gospel accounts. As Blomberg says (1987:127), from the “time of Augustine it has been recognized that the gospels did not set out to supply a detailed itinerary of Jesus’ ministry with every event in its proper chronological sequence, but frequently arrange passages in topical or thematic order instead.” Is this true here as well? There are some differences in the accounts, and this story occurs in a large block of material not found in the Synoptics. Moreover, unlike the Synoptic stories, this does not end in an attempt to arrest or kill Jesus. For these reasons and others, I (along with Hendriksen, Morris, Carson, Köstenberger) believe this is a separate account. In the Synoptics, the emphasis is upon the cleansing as an act of judgment for the apostasy of the nation. In John, it is messianic zeal that is uppermost. It is possible that John intended it as another of Jesus’ signs (which would explain the plural “signs” in 2:23; see Köstenberger 1995:95-101 and 1998a:70-74 for the cleansing of the Temple as a sign).

There are two parts to this section: the cleansing of the Temple (2:13-17) and the ensuing debate with the Jewish leaders (2:18-22). This is the first of three Passover festivals that frame Jesus’ ministry in John (with 6:4; 11:55), thereby breaking Jesus’ ministry into a roughly two-year period. Though found only in John, these stories make perfect sense, for Jesus went to Jerusalem regularly with his parents for Passover (Luke 2:41), and he most likely continued the pilgrimages as an adult. It also shows Jesus’ Jewish piety. He did not reject Judaism; the Jewish people rejected him. Passover was one of the most sacred of the Jewish feasts, celebrating the Exodus story of the angel of death “passing over” the homes of the Jewish people who put blood on their doorposts (Exod 12). It was celebrated in early spring (late March to early April).

When Jesus arrived, he found the usual chaos caused by the sale of the sacrificial animals and the exchange of foreign coins. The “cattle, sheep, and doves” were needed for the various sacrifices, and it was much more convenient to buy them in the Temple precincts than to go to the trouble of transporting them to the site. The Jewish authorities greatly profited from this. The number of animals needed was staggering. For a festival like Passover, when the normal population of 50,000 to 70,000 for Jerusalem swelled to 250,000 or so, an incredible number was needed. At this time, as well, the pilgrims would pay the annual half-shekel Temple tax (= two denarii or two days’ wages for a day laborer; Passover was one of three times it could be paid during the year) with coins that came from all over the Empire. The pilgrims had to pay in Tyrian silver due to the purity of the silver, and the exchangers set up a month ahead to keep up with the need (so Carson). Also, coins with images of the emperor on them or other pagan symbols were considered idolatrous and could not be used. Once again, high interest would sometimes be charged by the money changers (it was supposed to be 2–4 percent but could be as high as 12 percent; see Barrett, Bruce). The sales and the exchange took place in the court of the Gentiles, where a market was set up.

Jesus was so outraged that they had desecrated the Temple with this buying and selling that he made a whip out of some ropes, possibly by tying together the rushes used as bedding for the animals. With this whip, he then chased them all out of the Temple—the sellers as well as the animals. John emphasizes three actions: driving out all the animals, scattering the coins over the floor, and turning over the tables. The reader should note the stress on Jesus’ authority as Son of God in ridding his “Father’s house” of impurity. The descriptions in all the Gospels focus not so much on Jesus’ use of force as on his moral and spiritual outrage. If ever there were a case of “righteous indignation,” this was it! Jesus’ messianic zeal for his Father’s house probably convicted the majority of bystanders, and this may have kept the authorities from seeking legal repercussions. After the second cleansing of the Temple, Mark 11:18 says the leaders “began planning how to kill him” but were “afraid” because of the people.

To the sellers of doves (the sacrifice for the poor), Jesus gave his rationale: “Stop turning my Father’s house into a marketplace” (2:16). Note here that the emphasis is on the act of buying and selling (“marketplace”) rather than on the exorbitant interest rates (“den of thieves” in Mark 11:17). Certainly the selling of sacrificial animals and the exchange of coins was necessary but not within the Temple proper. They had replaced worship with commerce. The noise and the chaos were more than Jesus could take. Several Old Testament passages call for such a cleansing of the Temple in light of spiritual impurity (Ezek 43:7; Zech 14:21; Mal 3:3). One wonders if Jesus would do this in some of our contemporary churches where commerce and profit and entertainment have replaced true worship.

The disciples discovered the basic message of the event when they “remembered” Psalm 69:9: “Passion for your house has consumed me” (Cf. 2:17). This is one of the most frequent psalms cited regarding Jesus’ passion (e.g., 15:25; 19:28). According to Psalm 69, one of the reasons David experienced opposition was that he had zeal for God and his Temple. Carson (1991:180) says that the use of the future “will consume me” points first to Jesus as “David’s greater Son” and even more to the ultimate time when Jesus will be “consumed”—namely, at his death. Both in the emphasis on the “Passover” at the beginning of the episode (Jesus fulfilling the Passover feast, see ch 6) and in Jesus’ future here, John was preparing the reader for the ultimate destiny of Jesus in his true “passion,” his death on the cross. John’s language here also indicates that the Temple is no longer the place of God’s dwelling, for Jesus has become “the new and true dwelling place of God”; the shekinah has “taken up a new residence,” and the new age has begun (Comfort 1994:52).

The result of Jesus’ action in the Temple, needless to say, created controversy. There are three levels of understanding. First, at the level of the authorities, they (possibly the Temple leaders) were indignant and demanded a “miraculous sign” to prove that “God gave you authority to do this” (2:18). Their very reaction is telling. They do not seem to question the legality of Jesus’ action. There is no attempt to arrest him. Implicitly, they almost seem to accept the rightness of the action and only question his authority. The question itself is valid. The Messiah would give “signs” of his presence. What was invalid was their refusal to consider what Jesus had already said and done—proof that he indeed was Son of God and Messiah. They at least recognized his basic claim, for they were not treating him as a petty criminal. They understood the authority he had shown and wanted proof through a messianic miracle—but as will be seen throughout John, they rejected his heavenly status.

Jesus responded with a confusing retort: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (2:19). The statement functions at several levels. The leaders understood it literally: If they wanted a sign, Jesus would give it to them. If they were to destroy the Temple (to desecrate or destroy the Temple would have been a capital offense in both Roman and Jewish law), Jesus would restore it in just three days. Their reaction is expected: “What! . . . It has taken forty-six years to build this Temple” (2:20). Herod began building it in 20/19 BC and actually did not complete it until 64 AD, so it was still in the process of construction as Jesus was speaking (cf. note on 2:20). Still, they had asked for a sign, and that would certainly be one! In giving such an enigmatic response, Jesus was hardly answering their request. Rather, he was confirming their rejection. Whitacre (1999:83) points out that Jesus was testing their hearts, and he contrasts them to Nathanael, who listened to Jesus and waited until he understood. The leaders, who were not seeking truth, jumped to conclusions.

From Jesus’ perspective, the enigmatic saying is a prophecy of the destruction of his bodily “temple” and his resurrection after “three days” (2:21). This explanation is meant to ensure that the reader understands what Jesus meant. It is also further proof that John understood the event of the cleansing of the Temple in one sense as a further “sign” pointing to Jesus’ death and resurrection. What was hinted at there is made explicit here: all that Jesus said and did points to the Cross. This is the heart of John’s theology. The world has rejected the revelation of God in Jesus (1:10-11), but God loves the world more than it hates him (3:16), and he has sent his one and only Son to be the sacrifice for sin (1:29; 3:16). This first Passover anticipates the last Passover, when Jesus’ “temple” will be destroyed but raised three days later. That will be the final and true revelation of his glory.

Finally, from the disciples’ perspective, the saying produces confusion and is not understood until “after he was raised from the dead,” when they “remembered” the saying and “believed” (2:22). This is part of John’s “misunderstanding” theme (Carson [1982] notes 30 examples of this), used by him to point out that the true personhood of Christ can only be understood in light of the reality of the Resurrection. Note that for the second time (with 2:11) the disciples “believed.” This is in contrast to the leaders and is part of John’s emphasis on faith-decision; every person who encounters Christ is brought to decision. Note also that they believe two things: (1) “the Scriptures,” part of the Johannine theme of scriptural witness to the Christ-event (Cf. 5:39, 46); and (2) “what Jesus had said,” which shows that the disciples, unlike the leaders, were at all times seeking truth. They were confused but kept this in the back of their minds, and when the passion events corrected their misunderstanding, they were ready to believe. “Remembering” is an important motif in Scripture. Twice the disciples “remember” here (2:17, 22). In John’s Gospel, memory comes from recollecting Jesus’ teaching, and the remembrance initiates faith (2:22; 15:20; 16:4).

2:23 many began to trust in him. There is a difference of opinion as to the significance of this scene. Some (e.g., Godet, Hendriksen, Carson, Comfort, Witherington) believe it speaks of a “spurious” faith, while others (Morris, Whitacre) take it as an “immature” but genuine faith. It is probably best to take a middle position (Bultmann, Brown, Beasley-Murray, Burge, Keener) that this was a “first step” toward true faith. It was incomplete but still moving in the right direction.

This short section functions similarly to 2:11 in that it concludes the previous section but is linked even more closely to what follows. It sums up the events “at the Passover celebration” when Jesus cleared the Temple, and it also tells us that he did other “miraculous signs” (note the plural) at that time. As 2:11 ended with the disciples believing in him, we now learn that many people began to trust in him (same Gr. verb as “believed” in 2:11) as a result of these other miracles. It is common to find a series of miracles summarized in the Gospels (cf. Matt 4:23-24; 9:35; Mark 3:10-11), and here the emphasis is not on the sign-miracles but on the reaction to the sign-miracles. The difficulty comes in the next verse, for although they “believed” in Jesus, he didn’t “trust” in them. It is again the same Greek word (pisteuō [TG4100, ZG4409]), but it has double meaning. The construction indicates that Jesus did not “entrust himself” to them, but it also means he “didn’t trust them.” His reason is found in 2:25; he knew “what was in each person's heart”—namely, that their faith was not truly complete. Since miracles are “signs” that point to Jesus, the “faith” that they generate is a good first step, but it is incomplete. In a sense, the “many” here are like the second and third “soils” in the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-20); they seem to have an exciting belief in Jesus, yet when troubles or the temptations of pleasure come, they fall away. In fact, that is exactly what happens in 6:60-66, when a group of Jesus’ “disciples” complained and then “turned away and deserted him.”

There are two antitheses going on in these verses. First, the people’s burgeoning faith is contrasted with the unbelief of the Jewish religious leaders. Second, the people’s signs-based faith is contrasted with the true faith of the disciples. In the latter case, the message of this Gospel is that true faith centers on Jesus’ person and not just his works. Their belief had more to do with their astonishment at the spectacular than with a real commitment to him. True faith must come from Jesus’ words as well as his works. John notes two levels of discipleship: partial faith (here) and full faith (2:11). There is an important parallel in Christian ministry today. We often speak of two groups in the church—seekers and believers—but actually there are three: seekers, quasi-believers, and full believers. It is often said that as much as 85 percent of the people in the church attend services but do very little in the way of giving or working for the Lord. That 85 percent parallels the “many” here; they seem to believe but do not exemplify the “fruit” of conversion (15:1-8). Like Jesus, we dare not “trust” that they are true believers. Some are, but many are not. It is our task to challenge these “many” and bring them to full faith in Christ.