John 2:1-25: Believe the Signs 2:1
And on the third day a wedding took place [3S 2 Aor Mid Indic ginomai] in Cana in Galilee. And the mother of Jesus was [3S Impf Act Indic eimi] there. 2But also Jesus was invited [3S 1 Aor Pass Indic kaleo] and his disciples unto the wedding. 3And lacking [Gen MS 1 Aor Act Part hustereo] wine, the mother of Jesus says [3S Pres Act Indic lego] to him, “They do not have [3P Pres Act Indic echo] wine.” 4 And Jesus says [3S Pres Act Indic lego] to her, “What is that to me and to you, woman? My time is not yet come [3S Pres Act Indic heko].” 5His mother says [3S Pres Act Indic lego] to the servants, “Whatever he may say [3S Pres Act Subj lego] to you, do it [2P 1 Aor Act Impv poieo]. 6
Now sitting [Nom FP Pres Mid Part keimai] there were [3P Impf Act Indic eimi] six stone water jars after the manner [kata] of ritual purification of the Jews, containing [Nom FP Pres Act Part choreo] twenty or thirty gallons1 each. 7Jesus says [3S Pres Act Indic lego] to them, “Fill [2P 1 Aor Act Impv gemizo] the water jars with water.” And they filled [3P 1 Aor Act Indic gemizo] them up to the brim. 8And he says [3S Pres Act Indic lego] to them, “Now draw out [2P 1 Aor Act Impv antleo] and bring [2P Pres Act Impv phero] to the master of the feast. And they brought it [3P 2 Aor Act Indic phero]. 9Now when the master of the feast tasted [3S 1 Aor Mid Indic geuomai] the water having-become-wine [Acc NS Perf Pass part ginomai], and he did not know [3S Perf Act Indic eido] whence it is [3S Pres Act Indic eimi] (but the servants knew [3S Perf Act Indic eido] who had drawn [Nom MP Perf Act Part antleo] the water), the master of the feast calls [3S Pres Act Indic phoneo] the bridegroom. 10And he says [3S Pres Act Indic lego] to him, “Every man first the good wine sets forth [3S Pres Act Indic tithemi], and whenever they have drunk freely [3P 1 Aor Pass Subj methusko], the worse. You have kept [2S Perf Act Indic tereo] the good wine until now.” 11This, the first of his signs, Jesus did [3S 1 Aor Act Indic poieo] in Cana in Galilee, and he manifested [3S 1 Aor Act Indic phaneroo] his glory, and his disciples believed [3P 1 Aor Act Indic pisteuo] in him. 12
After this he went down [3S 2 Aor Act Indic katabaino] to Capernaum, and his mother and his brothers and his disciples also there remained [3P 1 Aor Act Indic meno] not many days. 13
And it was [3S Impf Act Indic eimi] on the verge of the Passover of the Jews, and Jesus went up [3S 1 Aor Act Indic anabaino] into Jerusalem. 14And he found [3S 2 Aor Act Indic heurisko] in the temple [en to hiero] those selling [Acc MP Pres Act Part poleo] oxen and sheep and doves and money changers sitting [Acc MP Pres Mid Part kathemai]. 15And he made [3S 1 Aor Act Indic poieo] a scourge from small cords, all of them he drove out [3S 2 Aor Act Indic ekballo] of the temple, and also the sheep and the oxen, and the money-changers' money he poured out [3S 1 Aor Act Indic ekcheo] and the tables he overthrew [3S 1 Aor Act Indic anastripho], 16And to the dove-selling-ones [Dat MP Pres Act Part poleo] he said [3S 2 Aor Act Indic lego], “Take [2P 1 Aor Act Impv airo] these things hence, do not make [2P Pres Act Impv poieo] the house of my Father a house of trade!” 17His disciples remembered [3P 1 Aor Pass Indic mnaomai] that it is [3S Pres Act Indic eimi] written [Acc MS Perf Pass Part grapho], “The zeal of your house has consumed [3S 2 Aor Act Indic katesthio] me.” 18Then the Jews answered [3P 1 Aor Pass Indic apokrinomai] and they said [3S 2 Aor Act Indic lego] to him, “What sign do you show [2S Pres Act Indic deiknuo] to us that these things you do [2S Pres Act Indic poieo]. 19Jesus answered [3S 1 Aor Pass Indic apokrinomai] and he said [3S 2 Aor Act Indic lego] to them, “Destroy [2P 1 Aor Act Impv luo] this temple [ton naon] and in three days I will raise [1S Fut Act Indic egeiro] it. 20Then the Jews said [3P 2 Aor Act Indic lego], “Forty-six years this temple was in building [3S 1 Aor Pass Indic oikodomeo], and you in three days will raise [2S Fut Act Indic egeiro] it? 21But that one was speaking [3S Impv Act Indic lego] concerning the temple of his body. 22Then when he was risen [3S 1 Aor Pass Indic egeiro] from the dead, his disciples remembered [3P 1 Aor Pass Indic mnaomai] that this he said [3S Impf Act Indic lego], 1 From ESV Bible footnotes. Also: “Greek two or three measures (metretas); a metretes was about 10 gallons or 35 liters.”
and they believed [3P 1 Aor Act Indic pisteuo] the Scripture and the word that Jesus spoke [3S 2 Aor Act Indic lego]. 23
But as he was [3S Impf Act Indic eimi] in Jerusalem during the Passover during the feast, many believed [3P 1 Aor Act Indic pisteuo] in his name, seeing [Nom MP Pres Act Part theoreo] his signs that he was doing [3S Impf Act Indic poieo]. 24But himself, Jesus did not entrust [3S Impf Act Indic pisteuo] himself to them, because he knew [Pres Act Inf ginosko] all men, 25and because he did not have [3S Impf Act Indic echo] need that someone should bear witness [3S 1 Aor Act Subj martureo] concerning man: for he knew [3S Impf Act Indic ginosko] what was [3S Impf Act Indic eimi] in men. Comment: I always find Lenski's introductory summaries helpful: By the power of his personality and by his divine knowledge and words Jesus had attested himself as truly being the Messiah of whom the Baptist had testified, as the Son of God and the Son of man. To the attestation through the word is now added that of the deed, which was made evident in the first miracle.2 First Sign: Water into Wine – John 2:1-12 “My Time Has Not Yet Come” – 2:1-5 There are several options as to what “On the third day” could mean. This phrase could refer to the third day within the series of four consecutive days in John 1:19-51, or it could mean the third day after that series of days. Possibly, it could also refer to the third day of the week, Tuesday. There is no doubt, however, that there are overtones of the Easter “third day,” when Jesus rose from the dead—especially so when Jesus himself predicts it later in the chapter (John 2:20-22). Lenski opines that “John counts from the day (1:43) when Philip and Nathanael became his disciples. The third day after that day means that two nights intervened.”3 The setting of this first sign is a wedding at Cana in Galilee. Jesus, along with his disciples have been invited to attend, and Jesus' mother is also there. In the course of this wedding, the wine runs out. Mary's first instinct is to go to Jesus for help, saying “They have no wine” (2:3). Jesus' response is interesting: “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come” (2:4 - ESV). A fascinating translation issue is that very few Bible translations (ESV included) include the soi: “What to me (emoi) and to you, woman?” Both of the pronouns are in the emphatic forms (notice the accent above the iota, differentiating this as an emphatic soi).4 Jesus, at first, protests helping with the situation because “my hour has not yet come”—probably a reference to the hour when his ministry would be revealed to Israel. Lenski takes an interesting approach to what Jesus says. He writes: The literal thought is, “What is there for me and thee?” i.e., [page] in common for us in this matter. Yet not, “This is not my concern but thine”; but the opposite, “This is my affair not thine.” 2 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 183. 3 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 183. 4 William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar: Second Edition (Grand Rapidis: Zondervan, 2003), 91.
Thus already in this question a hidden promise is included. The other thought is that Jesus thrusts his mother away—gently but firmly. She comes to him with the expectation that in the present difficulty he will show his Messianic powers by doing something very much out of the ordinary. This he does not refuse to do but he declares that it is his own affair entirely, and that even his own mother must leave it altogether to him. Having entered on his great office, the old relation obtaining at Nazareth when he obeyed all her wishes like any ordinary dutiful son, is forever at an end. He has assume his higher position, and even his mother must recognize this fact.5 Calvin inquires along the same lines, understanding Jesus to be insisting that this thing is his alone, and that it in no way belongs to his mother: Why does Christ repel her so rashly? I reply, though she was not moved by ambition, nor by any carnal affection, still she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ. Though it ought also to be observed, that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of others. Her modesty and piety were too great, to need so severe a chastisement. Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the danger, that no improper use may be made of what his mother had said, as if it were in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle. The Greek words (Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ) literally mean, What to me and to thee? But the Greek phraseology is of the same import with the Latin — Quid tibi mecum? (what hast thou to do with me?) The old translator led many people into a mistake, by supposing Christ to have asserted, that it was no concern of his, or of his mother’s, if the wine fell short. But from the second clause we may easily conclude how far removed this is from Christ’s meaning; for he takes upon himself this concern, and declares that it belongs to him to do so, when he adds, my hour is not yet come. Both ought to be joined together — that Christ understands what it is necessary for him to do, and yet that he will not act in this matter at his mother’s suggestion. It is a remarkable passage certainly; for why does he absolutely refuse to his mother what he freely granted afterwards, on so many occasions, to all sorts of persons? Again, why is he not satisfied with a bare refusal? and why does he reduce her to the ordinary rank of women, and not even deign to call her mother?6 Calvin continues, assessing Jesus' explanatory statement: My hour is not yet come. He means that he has not hitherto delayed through carelessness or indolence, but at the same time he states indirectly that he will attend to the matter, when the proper time for it shall arrive. As he reproves his mother for unseasonable haste, so, on the other hand, he gives reason to expect a miracle. The holy Virgin acknowledges both, for she abstains from addressing him any farther; and when she advises the servants to do whatever he commands, she shows that she expects something now. But the instruction conveyed here is still more extensive that whenever the Lord holds us in suspense, and delays his aid, he is not therefore asleep, but, on the contrary, regulates all His works in such a manner that he does nothing but at the proper time. Those who have applied this passage to prove that the time of events is appointed by Fate, are too ridiculous to require a single word to be said for refuting them. The hour of Christ sometimes denotes the hour which had been appointed to him by the 5 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 188-89. 6 John Calvin, Commentary on John, vol. I .
Father; and by his time he will afterwards designate what he found to be convenient and suitable for executing the commands of his Father; but in this place he claims the right to take and choose the time for working and for displaying his Divine power.7 Lenski takes a similar approach to Jesus' statement: What the question tells Mary the additional statement makes still clearer, “Mine hour has not yet come.” In he hora mou the possessive must not be overlooked. This expression is not a mere reference to time, as though Jesus only bids Mary wait a little. Nor is it only like kairos, the time proper for something, the season for it. We often meet the expression with reference to Christ, his death, his resurrection, [page] etc. His enemies cannot triumph over him as long as his hour has not yet come; not until then will be their hour and the power of darkness, Luke 22:53. Note the similar expression he hemera tou Kuriou. Jesus' hour is the one appointed for him by the Father; it may be the hour for this or for that in his Messianic work. When it comes, he acts, and not until it comes. So Jesus never hurries, nor lets others hurry him, he waits for his hour and then meets it. He is never uneasy or full of fear, for nothing can harm him until his hour comes; and when it comes, he gives his life into death. Here the hour is the one arranged for the first miraculous manifestation of his glory. In performing this miracle he will not be importuned even by his mother. In “not yet come” lies the promise that his hour will, indeed, come. Mary also thought that hopo, “not yet,” intimated that the hour was close at hand.8 It may be that Jesus wants to draw no attention to himself whatsoever before “his hour” comes; however, if that were the case, then why would Jesus have gone to the wedding in the first place? Jesus understands that by helping, he would necessarily be manifesting his glory (2:11) to some degree, and he tries to avoid doing so until “his hour” comes. Jesus' mother, however, simply instructs the servants to follow Jesus' instructions. “But You Have Kept the Good Wine Until Now” – 2:6-12 Jesus makes use of six stone water jars which were there “for the Jewish rites of purification” (2:6), and he tells the servants to fill those jars to the brim with water. John includes not a single extraneous detail in his writing, and by telling us the purpose of these stone water jars, he has highlighted the significance of Jesus' ministry: Jesus came to transform the Jewish rites of purification. There are so many angles that we might look at concerning this transformation! By changing water inside these purification water jars: ● Jesus has transformed a disaster into great joy ● Jesus has made tasteless water into rich wine ● Jesus has kept continuity with the old (water in Jewish purification rite jars) while he transforms it into the new (wine of his own creation) The bottom line is that Jesus has purposefully utilized and transformed Jewish purification rites for his own greater purposes. We should not overlook the faith of the servants in this passage. At the very least, they would have looked foolish to serve the master of the feast a ladle of water; at worst, they might have been severely punished for doing something so foolish. Yet, they followed the instructions of Jesus' mother and did “whatever he 7 John Calvin, Commentary on John, vol. I . 8 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 189-90.
tells you.” Their faith is rewarded, however, as they were the only ones who knew the miracle that Jesus had done (1:9). In other words, according to 1:11, they were the only members of the general public to whom Jesus “manifested his glory” in this first sign. The resulting wine catches the master of the feast completely by surprise, so that he calls the bridegroom and remarks that “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” Could there be a better description of the ministry of Jesus? Everyone of his day prized what was ancient over what was novel. In many ways, this is a good philosophy, as our own culture's inverse obsession with the new over the old has led to deep materialism, shallow thinking, and many other sins. Yet, the goodness of Jesus has been kept “until now”—until that moment when Jesus was revealed. John does not in the least downplay the significance of what Jesus has done. This was not a cheap party trick, nor a well-intentioned but poorly thought-out effort to help a friend at his wedding. This was nothing less than a manifestation of Jesus' glory: “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him” (2:11). Lenski writes the following concerning these signs: To designate these deeds John uses semeia (semeiaino, to make known by a sema), “signs,” deeds that indicate something, that convey a great meaning to the mind and to the heart. The translation “miracles,” deeds which produce wonder, is inadequate; for it loses the ethical force of “signs.” These point beyond themselves to something which they accredit and attest, first of all to the person who works these signs and to his significance; by that, however, also, in the case of Jesus most directly, to the new era he is ushering in. The ethical side, then, is that signs always require faith in what is signified, coupled with obedience on the part of those who see the signs. Unbelief and disobedience thus become the great crime against the signs. The term as well as its sense were well known to the Jews from the Old Testament, were constantly used in the apostolic church, and, doubtless, were used by Jesus himself to designate his own works. John's Gospel naturally uses this term in the sense of the strongest and most tangible testimony for Jesus' divinity, always counting those guilty who meet the signs with unbelief.9 But at the same time, John wants us to know something of the humility of Jesus through this first sign. If any is inclined to think that Jesus was just showing off because he could (that he was simply “putting on the ritz,” according to the Rich Mullins song), bear in mind the following: ● Jesus tried to avoid doing anything when first asked (2:4). ● Jesus revealed himself only to his mother, his disciples, and the servants at the party, even though he could have performed a parlor trick for the master of the feast. ● Jesus never does get credited for what he has done—the bridegroom gets praised! ● Jesus retreats to Capernaum with his mother, brothers, and disciples (1:12), rather than building on the momentum here. He has his own purposes and timetables, and he will not be distracted from his mission. Second Sign: “Destroy this Temple” – 2:13-22 Although we are not told about the extent of the intervening time between this new passage and the wedding at Cana in Galilee, we are told that 2:13-22 takes place during “the Passover of the Jews” and in Jerusalem. We should not forget what exactly Jesus' action signifies, as Lenski reminds us: 9 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 199.
The great Paschal Lamb, of whom the Baptist had testified to his disciples, attends the [page] great Paschal Feast and there foretells his own death and sacrifice.10 In the temple, Jesus finds merchants of oxen, sheep, and pigeons, along with money-changers who would offer exchange rates to travelers from different countries. This scene infuriates Jesus, and so he makes a whip of cords to drive them out of the temple, and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers. Now, commentators are generally thrown into panic because of the fact that this story of Jesus' cleansing the temple occurs at the beginning of John's Gospel, rather than during Passion Week, as each of the synoptic gospels report (Matt. 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-46). The chronology doesn't really bother me, however, because John never tells us that he is handling everything in chronological order, and it seems silly to posit two temple cleansings, when the stories are so similar. No, it is much better to believe that John has a purpose for how he structures his Gospel, and that his purpose does not always run according to the chronology of the events. In v. 16-17, we get the only textual explanation for why Jesus does what he does: 16
And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” 17His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” Two interesting points come to light when we compare these verses with the explanations given for Jesus' temple cleansing in the synoptic gospels: 1. The three synoptic gospels describe Jesus insisting that his Father's house should be a house of prayer (prayer for the nations, in particular), but that these merchants and moneychangers have made it a den of robbers; however, John's Gospel describes Jesus as simply insisting that they “not make my Father's house a house of trade.” 2. John's Gospel is the only to cite Psalm 69:9: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” The emphasis in John's Gospel is on Jesus' Father's house itself, while the emphases of the synoptic gospels is on Jesus' Father's house being devoted to prayer for the nations. While I don't have any particular thoughts right now on what the synoptic gospels were attempting to do by focusing on prayer for the nations, John seems clear as to why his focus is on the “Father's house”: because Jesus is the Father's true temple! But notice that, even though Jesus speaks of his own body as the temple (2:19), he nevertheless is passionate and zealous for “your house.” He is infuriated to see his Father's house made into a house of trade, and he is willing to go so far as to make a whip and drive out the merchants and the moneychangers in order to cleanse that house. Here we see one clear thread between the this story and the wedding at Cana: Jesus keeps continuity with the old, even as he insists upon the primacy of the new. At Cana, he utilized the Jewish rites of purification in order to make his new wine. In Jerusalem, he cleansed his Father's temple, even as he insisted that he himself is the temple that will be raised up in three days. It is interesting that the Jews seem to sense this tension—or, at least, they sense Jesus' insistence upon the primacy of something new, even if they do not understand how he is relating to the old. So, they demand 10 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 203-04.
from him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” (2:18), to which Jesus responds with his enigmatic question concerning destroying the temple for it to be raised in three days. We should note that Jesus uses a different word for “temple” (naos) in v. 19 than John uses in v. 14 (hieros) to describe the physical temple in Jerusalem. Although John likely means something significant by this wordplay, the word Jesus uses goes right over the Jews' heads. They retort with incredulity, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” (2:20). They did not understand that “he was speaking about the temple (tou naou) of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken” (2:21-22). Jesus Knows What is in Man – 2:23-25 At this point, the popularity of Jesus begins to rise. We read in v. 23 that “many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing.” Doubtless, this refers to many different kinds of beliefs, in addition to describing many people who believed when they saw the signs that he was doing. There would have been rabble looking for a rabble-rouser; there would have been cause-driven people looking for the next big leader; there also, of course, would have been broken, hurting people who were looking for a savior. Calvin takes an interesting approach toward evaluating the nature of the faith of those who believed here, neither completely disregarding it, nor seeing it as a full-fledged kind of faith: When the Evangelist says, therefore, that those men believed, I do not understand that they counterfeited a faith which did not exist, but that they were in some way constrained to enroll themselves as the followers of Christ; and yet it appears that their faith was not true and genuine, because Christ excludes them from the number of those on whose sentiments reliance might be placed. Besides, that faith depended solely on miracles, and had no root in the Gospel, and therefore could not be steady or permanent. Miracles do indeed assist the children of God in arriving at the truth; but it does not amount to actual believing, when they admire the power of God so as merely to believe that it is true, but not to subject themselves wholly to it. And, therefore, when we speak generally about faith, let us know that there is a kind of faith which is perceived by the understanding only, and afterwards quickly disappears, because it is not fixed in the heart; and that is the faith which James calls dead; but true faith always depends on the Spirit of regeneration, (James 2:17, 20, 26.) Observe, that all do not derive equal profit from the works of God; for some are led by them to God, and others are only driven by a blind impulse, so that, while they perceive indeed the power of God, still they do not cease to wander in their own imaginations.11 One of the strengths of this view is that it explains where Nicodemus comes from in John 3. Certainly, he must have been one of those who believed in the name of Jesus because of the signs he saw, but who had not yet been born again of the Spirit. For this reason, Jesus did not entrust himself to him. John tells us that Jesus did not “entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man” (2:24-25). In other words, because of what Jesus knew to be in man, he did not trust man—regardless of the fact that many of these men were believing in his name after they saw the signs that he was doing.
11 John Calvin, Commentary on John, vol. I .
