(last updated 11/17/04)Jan's Bible Notes
John 2
1 The third day of what? Go back to John 1; the action begins in 19. Note the time words in 29, 35, and 43 (the third day). Where did Jesus go the third day, 43? And where is He now? It could also be the third day of the seven-day wedding feasts of those days.
1-11 Why is this miracle important, 11? Who seemed to instigate the action, 3? But did she really, or did Jesus? Doesn't God move us to do things that we think are our own idea, when really God is using us to accomplish His own purposes? John had baptized Jesus a few days earlier; now Jesus was beginning His ministry as the promised Messiah. For years Mary had thought about the events of Jesus' birth. For all those years, everyone had probably thought she had conceived Jesus out of wedlock, by Joseph. Do you think she might be anxious for people to finally know the truth about her Son, to finally have her good name vindicated? Or she may have been helping to put on this wedding and was thus concerned about the problem that has arisen. But how did Jesus chastise her in 4? Those who venerate Mary should notice that she defers to Jesus; she is not the main character, Jesus is. What does she tell the servants in 5? She points them to Jesus. We do not see her elevated to His level in the Bible. In the vernacular of modern English, calling her "woman" seems rude, but it was not at that time in that culture. Perhaps Jesus is pointing out to Mary that now their relationship has changed. Rather than relating to Him as His mother, she will now relate to Him as the Son of God.
Who besides Mary and a few servants saw this miracle, 2? It wasn't done before multitudes; it was for whose benefit, 11? Later He would say His hour HAD come, which was when? John 12:23 (compare 12:1 for the time frame--the Passover at which He would have the Last Supper), 13:1, 17:1. John 12 to the end is about the last week of His earthly life.
The concept of dispensations is alluded to in 10. The new wine is also explained in Mt. 9:16-17. The old wine was what God had previously given them, the Law. The new dispensation of grace was not being added to the Law, it was something entirely new. John has already drawn attention to this in 1:17. Now we see that not only is it new, it is better, Heb. 7:19, 8:6.
It is significant that the scene of this first miracle is a wedding, drawing attention to the importance God places on marriage. In a wedding, who is the most important person? Yet is the bride even mentioned in this account? The New Testament presents Jesus as the what, John 3:29, with His bride being whom, Eph. 5:22-33 and Rev. 19:7? Isn't it interesting that Jesus' first miracle is in the setting of a wedding, yet there is no bride or bridegroom mentioned? The bridegroom is present in the person of Jesus Christ. Perhaps the bride--the church--IS pictured here. What do we see at this wedding that is how we (the church) are pictured in II Cor. 4:7 and Rom. 9:20-21? The pots are filled with what? What does that sometimes represent in the Bible, Eph. 5:26? Is the purpose of filling the pots with water to just keep the pots full, or to give out to others? What does Jesus talk about in Mt. 9:17 that we see in John 2:9-10? Yet in Eph. 5:18 He makes clear that it is not wine we are to be filled with but what? When the Bible uses symbols, it uses them consistently; they always have the same meaning, so we can understand how they apply in other passages.
Is drinking wine a sin? Would Jesus perform this miracle if drinking wine was a sin? What does the Bible say is wrong, Eph. 5:18, I Tim. 3:3,8? Some believe that wine in those days was not fermented, but more like grape juice. However, if this were true, why forbid to be drunk with wine? Juice does not cause drunkenness, or the changed behavior that the apostles displayed in Acts 2:13. If wine should be avoided on the grounds that drunkenness is a sin, then eating should also be avoided so that we do not then commit the sin of gluttony (Rom. 16:18, Phil. 3:19). However, we must remember that self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit, Gal. 5:23.
11 John only records seven miracles, or eight if you include the resurrection. He apparently chose ones that he thought best illustrate who Jesus is.
12-17 The cleansing of the temple. Animals and money brought by travelers were often declared unacceptable and worshippers were required to buy/exchange at highly inflated prices. Does this match the soft sweet pictures and impressions we often have of Jesus? What kind of man does He seem to have been? How did He display His anger--as emotional rage, or righteous indignation against what was wrong? This is an example of how we can have appropriate anger. Surely He raised His voice. Surely His actions were not done calmly and quietly. Yet He was not sinning.
Is anger wrong? A quick check of Strongs Concordance shows many references to the anger of the Lord. What makes God angry? Sin, injustice. The Bible says God is slow to anger, and that being slow to anger is good, Tit. 1:7. The Bible speaks negatively of provoking someone to anger (NOT of the one who is provoked as then being in the wrong and needing to forgive the provoker). Is anger prohibited in the Ten Commandments? Is Eph. 4:31 talking about righteous anger? Here it is classed with bitterness, wrath, slander, clamor, and malice; that type of anger is wrong. Proverbs often mentions the folly of an angry countenance, of being contentious and angry, of being an angry person (one who stirs up strife). This is different than experiencing anger as God does, over what is unjust. In Col. 3:21, is it the child who is told not to get angry, or is it the parent who is told not to provoke anger in the child? In Eph. 4:26, anger is not the sin, but can lead to sin if we are not careful how we handle it. Does Mt. 5:22 say anger is a sin? The rest of Scripture indicates that anger at what is sinful or unjust is proper; this verse doesn’t say that the brother had done something wrong to him, just that he was angry at his brother, perhaps without a real cause (as implied by the name-calling).
Might it sometimes be wrong NOT to feel or show anger? What if sin or injustice are done and Christians involved are not angry, because they think we should always show love? To stress love to the point that we are NOT angry at wrongdoing is to leave out half of Scripture and is wrong theology--what the Bible calls false teaching.
Jesus cleanses the temple not only here, at the beginning of His ministry, but again at the very end, Luke 19:45-46.
18-22 Jesus uses a different word for "temple" in 19 and 21 than is found in 14-15. In 14-15, the word used is "hieron" meaning the whole temple. In 19 and 21, the word used is "naos" which means the inner sanctuary of the temple. (In I Cor. 6:19 "naos" is used of our body as the temple--"naos"--of the Holy Spirit.) The word for "raise up" is "egeiro" meaning literally to wake up. Each time it is used, it refers to awaking from the dead, as in Jesus' resurrection and Lazarus being brought back to life. Because Jesus was speaking to them in their language, not in English, these distinctions should be clear to them. However, we see at His trial that this claim about raising the temple in three days was brought up, Mt. 26:60-61. In 22, does it sound like His disciples understood what He meant at the time, or only later?
What does John 14:26 say about remembering what Jesus has said? Which one of John's key words do we see in 22? This is the purpose of everything Jesus said and did. What is meant by "Scripture"? How much of the Bible did they have at that time? We often think the New Testament is about Jesus and the Old Testament is about Israel. But Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, which the Jews were familiar with, and the Gospels frequently point this out. "The word which Jesus had spoken" has now become part of Scripture, the written Word of God.
23-25 Note John's editorializing in 17, 21, 22, 24-25. This gives us more insight into what was developing here than just a straight-forward account of what happened. We will see more of this in John's Gospel.
It's interesting that the same word translated "believed" in 23 is translated "entrusting Himself" in 24 (KJV, "commit Himself"). Many believed in Him, but He was not "believing in" man. The rest of 24 and 25 tell why. This also sheds a little light on what it means to believe in Him--to trust someone, entrust yourself to them. It is not just an intellectual thought. So what was the purpose of the signs He was doing? Miracles were to prove He was who He said He was--God in the flesh. Does it comfort you or make you uncomfortable to know that Jesus/God knows what is really in us? We can't fool God; He knows our hearts and thoughts. But on the other hand, He understands how weak and failure-prone we are, Ps. 103:14.
This may be saying that many of those who believed did not have true saving faith, or perhaps like those mentioned in the parable of the seed and the sower, Mt. 13:1-23, believed but quickly stumbled. 23, what was their belief based on? Was their belief also based on a recognition of their sins and their need for repentance? We don't know if 23 means they were merely impressed by the supernatural, or if it means that in seeing His signs, they realized He was truly the Messiah-God in the flesh--prophesied in the Old Testament. Rom. 10:17 says faith is based on what?
Copyright 2004 Jan Young