Michael's Abbey Bible Study - Gospel of John Chapter 2

1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Now John gets fully into the story of Jesus. Jesus' mother isn't mentioned by name as it wasn't necessary. It was well known that her name was Mary. And the gospels are about Jesus. She was a guest at the unnamed wedding.
Where Cana is located isn't known other than it was located in the higher ground of the region of Galilee, west of the Sea of Galilee.
2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. It is likely that the wedding was that of a relative of Jesus and his mother. Based on how the servants followed Mary's directions, it was likely a close relative. While some have conjectured it, there is no evidence that Jesus' disciples coming to the wedding was the reason for the wine running out in verse 3. Nor is there any inference that they were an intrusion. It is likely that they were welcomed. Weddings tended to be a big affair with people coming from all around. And inviting someone meant inviting their disciples. Inviting a leader of any type would mean at least some of his subordinates would come with him.
3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus *said to Him, "They have no wine." While Mary merely states a fact in her dialogue with Jesus, His response in the next verse indicates her voice was inflected with unspoken meaning as mothers are often so good at doing. It would seem she was saying this in a way that meant, "You need to do something about it."
On a side note, the word "said" is in the past tense, but in the Greek it is in the present active indicative tense. In Greek, it is proper to use a present tense before quoting someone even though the speech took place in the past. Like most translations, the NASB changes the tense to past for proper English.
4 And Jesus *said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come." Jesus' reply shows He knew Mary wanted Him to solve the problem and save the wedding host from a deep social embarrassment. Referring to Mary as "woman" was not disrespectful. But it was distancing. The idiom Jesus uses next is normally used to refer to conflict between two parties, or at least their disengagement or desire for disengagement. Put simply, Jesus' phrasing was not a warm and fuzzy, mild reply, but bordered on a rebuke with hostile overtones. Jesus' reason was it was not yet time for his ministry to begin.
5 His mother *said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it." Ignoring Jesus' objection, Mary instructs the servants to do whatever Jesus asks them to do, then waits for Jesus to act. She did not hear a refusal to act in Jesus' reply, only a reason not to. It is clear that Mary had seen many miracles performed by Jesus, enough so she was confident that he would fix the current problem. Considering the skepticism of Jesus' brothers it is possible that they didn't see these miracles. Alternatively, they were able to explain them away as not being miracles, or they saw them but couldn't comprehend their own brother being the Messiah. It is almost certain that their familiarity with Jesus growing up as brothers made them contemptuous as brothers often are, and that would have been at least part of the reason they didn't believe He was the Messiah until after He was resurrected.
6 Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Ritual purification in Judaism is different than the washing of feet or actual washing of hands. Those are done for sanitary reasons. One's hands need to already be clean before a ritual purification. A ladle is used to pour water over the palm of the right hand two times, then over the left palm two times. The ladle is set down and the hands are rubbed together. This is ceremonial purification before eating. These stone waterpots were a good size for ritual purification of a large gathering, holding between 108 and 162 gallons in total.
7 Jesus *said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." So they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He *said to them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." So they took it to him. Filling these very large pots took a great deal of work and effort. Water had to be drawn from the town well and carried to the pots to fill them. This had to require several trips lugging heavy buckets. That the servants did what Jesus asked because Mary told them to is likely because Mary was a close relative to the host. Even if they were more distant relatives, she had been there enough they were used to following her directions.
9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter *called the bridegroom, Headwaiter is translated as head steward, banquet master, or something similar in other translations. Regardless of the translation choice, this was the man responsible for managing the servers and cooks as well as served the guests himself.
The miracle had occurred, but only Jesus and the servants who drew the water from the well knew it. Presumably, Mary knew what would happen.
10 and *said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now." The tradition is to serve the best wine first when people's palates are sharp, then to progress through the wine stock from best to worst as the celebration goes on. There are those who conjecture that this means the guests would be drunk so they wouldn't notice the poorer quality of the wine. However, that is not possible. First, wedding celebrations took days at this time making being drunk impractical. Second, getting drunk was a sin and would have been a disgrace and a major problem. In reality, this tradition was more about starting on a high note with the best.
While it is perfectly acceptable to abstain from drinking for a personal conviction, those who falsely claim all drinking is a sin cannot get around this passage without distorting or badly misrepresenting it. Jesus' first public miracle was to make 108 to 162 gallons of the best wine, which means it had a high alcohol content. Any attempt to rationalize away this fact is to mislead and deny the truth. Fermentation at this time was a matter of chance. They did not know about yeast, let alone were able to cultivate it. The wild yeast that landed on the grape skins was what fermented the grape juice. How good this would be for making wine was unknown until fermentation occurred. Today, vintners kill off the wild yeast that can have bad properties by using sulfites then add commercially produced yeast with the properties they are looking for, the most important being it's alcohol tolerance level resulting in consistent alcohol content in the finished wine. Low alcohol content wine picks up off tastes and spoils easily. And not only did Jesus make wine miraculously, He drank it like almost all Jews did. Scripture is clear that Jesus never sinned, not to mention his sinless nature is a central gospel point. Therefore, it is beyond clear that consuming alcohol is not sin. In fact, it is a gift of God to make our hearts glad, (Psalm 104:1-15). But like all things God meant for good, it is destructive if misused.
11 This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him. John makes it clear that this miracle was the first of Jesus' signs of His glory, a revelation of who He was and what He came to do. Signs, semeion in Greek, is literally a sign, sign-post, or mile marker. John uses it to refer to miracles. And that is the purpose of miracles, to be a marker pointing to God. The result was a foundation for Jesus' disciples to believe in Him. Interestingly, the primary people of the wedding seem to be unaware and uninformed a miracle had even occurred. Only Mary, Jesus' disciples, and the servants who worked so hard to fill the waterpots are explicitly in the know. This is symbolic of Jesus' relationship with Israel. The leaders are ignorant, possibly deliberately and by their own choice. Whereas those who are minor characters in the world's eye are the ones who know and believe.
12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days. Here is the first explicit mention of Jesus' brothers having been with Him at the wedding, which implies His sisters were present as well. However, it would be assumed they would be at the wedding, meaning their mention was unnecessary at that point. That they would travel with and stay with Jesus, their mother Mary, and Jesus' disciples at Capernaum would not be assumed, so they are explicitly mentioned. Jesus' brothers and sisters were not listed as knowing about His miracle at the wedding. And judging by their disbelief in chapter 7, it is unlikely they learned about it.
There is a Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary stayed a virgin until she died. There is no biblical or historical basis for this doctrine. I do not see how this is even needed for their unbiblical veneration of Mary, or what possible reason there could be to come up with this. However, it is clearly anti-biblical. Catholic apologists try to assert that any reference to Jesus' brothers is actually a reference to His disciples. However, here and in multiple other passages Jesus' brothers are mentioned separately from the disciples and even contrasted. For example, Jesus' brothers didn't believe in Him. Disciples could hardly be disciples if they did not believe in Jesus. Another assertion is that Jesus' brothers were from a previous marriage of Joseph. However, there is no historical or biblical basis for this.
13 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Jesus' family is not mentioned as going with them to Jerusalem. It is not necessary to mention that His disciples went with Him. And that is explicitly made clear in verse 17.
14 And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Using the temple as a marketplace was to defile it. This was a terrible sin. But worse, they were seeking to profit from the worship of God. Since the Jewish leaders allowed this instead of driving them out themselves, there likely was some sort of kick-back / bribery going on.
The temple tax was a half shekel per person aged 20 or more. But foreign coins with the images of pagan gods and kings were not acceptable in the temple. The moneychangers would exchange foreign coins for Jewish shekels at an exchange rate that made them a profit. The animal vendors were selling animals for sacrifices in the temple for those who didn't bring one and replacements for those animals found unfit for temple sacrifice.
15 And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; A rope scourge would be several lengths of rope tied together. The method of tying would form a handle where they joined. And the individual ropes would have tight and hard knots spaced down their length. The result was a whip that would inflict great pain with little chance of mortal injury.
There is an important point of doctrine here. Jesus was not passive. This was an act of great violence. And it was premeditated. People who will act so blatantly disrespectful of God aren't going to be motivated by any passive questioning or comments. Such have to be driven out by force. Jesus was also confrontational in his words as well. In John chapter 6, Jesus harshly confronts the wrong beliefs of the Jews. He was so hard on them that most who claimed to be His disciples abandoned Him. Paul publicly called out Peter about his sin, and was repeatedly harsh and direct with anyone who strayed from the truth. And he called for kicking out the unrepentant. But many ignore or try to explain this away. The problem is people who are of the Phlegmatic temperament, called Peace Country in The Flag Page, are the people who are predominately drawn to church service today. This personality type is all about harmony, cooperation, getting along, avoiding conflict and disturbance. These make great workers, especially if they are partly melancholic, Perfect Country in The Flag Page. However, they are so conflict avoidant they will not deal with bad behavior, even when it is destructive to themselves and/or the church. Their primary desire is for peace. But avoiding conflict results in them having the least peaceful lives of any of the temperaments. They also have a deep desire for respect. But the other temperaments are reluctant to give it because their extreme conflict avoidance is viewed as disreputable and not worthy of respect. (It is not necessarily true they aren't worthy of respect. It's just how they tend to be viewed by the other temperaments.) Thus they are drawn to church service seeking peace, but end up making things the opposite of peaceful for themselves.
What is the most destructive for the church is when they make their own desires, feelings, and false beliefs into gospel requirements, but they are actually anti-biblical nonsense. Another problematic trait is they are the temperament most resistant to change, especially in themselves. They are arrogant about their beliefs and will lash out any any who dare contradict them. Ironically people think the Choleric, Control Country in The Flag Page, are the ones who are arrogant, especially if they only look at the superficial. In reality, Choleric people are very willing to change to whatever works better, no matter who came up with it. And they are the most willing to confront bad behavior, and therefore have the most peaceful lives.
We all are wrong in something. Anyone who is unwilling to accept correction from others is putting their very soul in peril. Matthew 7:22-23 makes it clear that even casting out demons and performing miracles does not mean someone will get into heaven. If they have unrepentantly failed ethically, such as allowing the house of God to be defiled, they will not enter the kingdom of heaven. The worst part is they won't even know they were wrong until judgment day.
This is a false gospel of hyper-peace that is anti-biblical. Many who hold it falsely make it a gospel issue. And they refuse to confront others that have anti-gospel beliefs and practices in direct contradiction of the instructions in scripture. People in western churches are statistically no better than the pagans in things like divorce, pornography, sin, and moral behavior because these peace-at-any-price natured people make up so much of western church pastors and staff.
16 and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business." The synoptic gospels document Jesus cleaning out the temple at the end of His ministry, and John documents Him doing it at the beginning. The differences in the quotes and actions of Jesus make a good case for this having occurred at both times. The fact that John omits one and the synoptics omit the other is in line with the editorial picking and choosing what to document. As John writes in 21:25, there might not be room in the world for books that documented everything about Jesus.
For an unnamed reason Jesus does not drive out those who were selling the doves in this purge. However, in the synoptic gospels in Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:17, and Luke 19:46 Jesus quotes from Isaiah 56:7 and drives out the dove sellers as well, turning over their chairs. While we aren't told explicitly, it would seem that the difference was that the moneychangers and sellers of the other animals were cheating people, and the dove sellers were not. Doves were a substitute sacrifice for the poor. So it may be that this kept them from ripping them off at this point in time, or the priests in on the scam would not allow it for the poor. They were still guilty of defiling the temple with commerce, and that is the only charge he levels at the dove sellers. But at least they weren't stealing in the temple. At the end of Jesus' ministry three years later is seems they had no such scruples and were stealing by cheating and fraud just like the others.
17 His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Your house will consume me." Jesus' disciples are reminded of a Psalm of David, specifically Psalm 69:9. It seems they don't connect that Psalm with the suffering Messiah prophecies until after His resurrection.
18 The Jews then said to Him, "What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?" The Jews who speak here are those who have some authority in the temple, low ranking priests and acolytes who perform the daily functions of the temple under the chief priests. It is likely these temple officers were the same rank, or even the same people, as those sent to question John the Baptist in 1:19. What is telling is that they are objecting to Jesus doing what it right, but they don't even try to stop him. They had to know what these people being driven out were sinning against the temple and God. It is possible their objection was because knew they should have been the ones bringing discipline in the temple. This could be coupled with their superiors being the ones getting a kick-back, making it impossible to do anything about it. Or they could have been in on the bribes.
Clearly, these Jews were ignorant. They demand a sign as justification for Jesus' authority to take these actions when the actions themselves are the sign.
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Jesus' answer was a prophecy about himself. These temple officers should have understood it as they were supposed to have been studying the prophets. But they only took the parts they liked and ignored the parts they didn't like.
The word for temple here is different than that used in verses 14 and 15. The word for temple used in those verses was hieron in Greek, which specifically refers to a physical structure of a temple or sanctuary. In this verse the word is naos, which can apply to any place set apart for a deity. Thus Jesus was referring to His own incarnation as his human body was the naos temple for the Son to live among us. But the temple officers didn't understand that.
This verse is trinitarian as Jesus declares He will raise up his own body from the dead. Whereas elsewhere it is God or the Father who raised up Jesus. However, as Jesus and the Father are God, this is not a contradiction but a confirmation of the trinity.
20 The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" In response, the temple officers focused on the raising up the temple in three days, misunderstanding what Jesus was saying. Out of their misunderstanding such a claim was preposterous since the building of the second temple took 46 years. But even if they understood what Jesus was saying, resurrection from the dead was even more preposterous.
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Here John makes it explicit that Jesus was talking about his human body, not the temple structure. That this was prophetic is clear as no one had sought to kill Jesus yet.
22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. As with most prophecies, this was not clear even to the disciples until after it had come to pass. And the fact that Jesus prophesied correctly about His own death and resurrection at this early point of his ministry was confirmation of his whole ministry. For me, raising from the dead is enough. However, every additional confirmation helps quell any doubts.
23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. Despite those that confronted Jesus being unable or unwilling to connect the dots, many did see the signs, connected the dots, and believed in Him. Who these were is not explicitly stated. Jesus disciples, (meaning more than just the 12,) were certainly part of this group. And some of the people would also be among them. And at least one was a high leader as we read in 3:1.
24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man. That Jesus "was not entrusting Himself" seems odd on the surface since He was trusting His disciples earlier. And the previous verse stated that many believed, with this verse grammatically referring to the same people. What fits this best is that Jesus held back the full meaning of his prophecy in verse 19. While He was on earth to teach, His primary mission was to be the perfect sacrifice. But He withheld that at this point. Thus, He did not explain the meaning of verse 19 at the time even to the 12 as He often does in later chapters with various parables.
What is more important is these two verses affirm the deity of Jesus. He knew the inner thoughts and motives of men without consulting with witnesses who would testify regarding their character. He knew them perfectly as no mere human witness could possibly know.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB © The Lockman Foundation.

If you have a question, you can find the email address to write to on the FAQ Page under the Questions FAQ.

John 1   -   Gospel of John   -   John 3

Bible Study Page   -   Michael's Abbey