JOHN 2

These are passages that are filled with more questions than answers. But first we need to set the scene to see where Chapter 2 falls into John's general scheme of things.

Most commentators divide the book into two equal parts: chapters 1-12 and chapters 13-21. The second half of the gospel is concerned only with the events of the last week of Jesus' life and his death and resurrection. On the other hand, John highlights seven miracles of Jesus, all appearing in the first 12 chapters. There are several Greek words used in the NT to denote what we usually call miracles. The one John uses the most is “sign.”

                                                       The Book of Signs (John 1-12)

1. Turning of water into wine (2:1-11)

2. Healing of the official’s son (4:46-54)

3. Cure of the paralytic (5:1-18)

4. Feeding of the five thousand (6:5-13)

5. Walking on the water (6:16-21)

6. Healing of the blind man (9:1-7)

7. Raising of Lazarus (11:1-44)

A sign is not important in itself but only in what it points to. “It has been suggested that these signs 

demonstrate Jesus’ lordship, respectively, over quality, space, time (healing on the sabbath), quantity, 

nature, misfortune, and death.”

One problem with this understanding is that it leaves out a whole lot of verses. So an alternative way of understanding John's method of organization is to assign verses associated with Jewish feasts taking place around the time of the various narrated events and teachings (see Jewish Festivals in John's Gospel). More broadly speaking, the first half of John’s Gospel is not merely organized around the Jewish feasts. In fact, the organizing principle is the fulfillment and replacement of the whole Jewish institution of worship by what Jesus says and does. Look for that replacement theme in the present lesson.

The Structure of John 1-3

    1. Introduction (1:1-34)

        a. The coming of the Word (1:1-18)

            b. The testimony of John the Baptist (1:19-34)

                2. Open followers (1:35-51)

                    3. Miracle in Cana (2:1-11)

                        4. Transition (2:12)

                    3'. Cleansing of the temple (2:13-25)

                2'. Secret follower (3:1-15)

    1'. Conclusion (3:16-36)

        a. The coming of the Son (3:16-21)

            b. The testimony of John the Baptist (3:22-36)

This is an alternative to the common view that only John 1:1-18 constitutes the introduction to the Gospel. The unity of the Son with the Father is stated in 1:1 and 3:35, serving as matching bookends for the whole of this section.

The key to understanding the first three chapters in this manner is in recognizing the strong parallels between 1 and 1'. Both end with paragraphs dealing with John the Baptist: 1:1-18 and 3:16-21. In addition, John 1:1-18 is filled with some rather heavy theology, but it turns out that most of it is repeated in Chapter 3 (unit 1'a).

    Christ sent from God 1:2,10 3:16-17

    Christ as the light 1:4, 9 3:19

    Contrast with the darkness 1:5 3:19

    “believe in/through him” 1:7 3:18a

    “The world” 1:10 3:16-17

    Christ rejected by many 1:10-11 3:19-20

    “believing in the name” 1:12a 3:18b

    Salvation for believers 1:12b-13 3:17-18

    Christ comes with the truth 1:14, 17 3:21

    Christ as the only Son of God 1:14,18 3:18

Units 2 and 2' are thematically paired mainly by contrast, demonstrating the various responses to Jesus’ 

teachings through narratives of individuals in contact with him. This leads to the logical expectation 

that the two stories that comprise Chapter 2 are somehow related to one another, either by similarity or 

deliberate contrast. So be looking for possible relationships between these two stories as we go though 

the verses.

 

John 2:1-5 What can we make out of this strange conversation between Jesus and Mary?

v. 3 Why did Mary approach Jesus with this problem when he was only a guest? (1) At this point did 

she know that he was the Christ? Probably at the least she thought he was a wonder worker. (2) Others 

have suggested that she was merely hinting that Jesus and his disciples should leave the feast so that 

there would be more wine for the others. (3) A third interpretation compares Mary to Eve (both called 

“woman”), who tempted Adam to disobey God. She is telling Jesus that he should openly reveal 

himself for who he is.

v. 4a He appears to talk to her rather sharply, calling her “woman.” But that designation is not a harsh 

term since he applies it to all women he talks to. He also uses it again at the end of the Gospel when he 

tells Mary, “Woman, behold your son,” referring to John (19:26). But it does infer that he places no 

special relationship between himself and his earthly mother. The Synoptic Gospels make it clear that 

Jesus' family consists of those who believe in him.

Then Jesus literally says, “What to you and me?” This Hebraic phrase can have two meanings: (1) why 

have you treated me in such a manner? or (2) your concern is not really my concern (I must be about 

my Father's business).

v. 4b Then Jesus makes a sort of non sequitur remark that his time has not arrived. In other words, it 

was not yet time to reveal himself fully to others. And he doesn't, only to a few.

v. 5 Next Mary appears to completely ignore Jesus' objections and assumes he will perform a miracle 

anyway. As George Guthrie has pointed out in his book on hermeneutics, a lot depends on which word 

in this sentence is stressed. If we read it, “Do whatever he says” then this seems a strange text for the 

stated point of today's lesson (obedience to Jesus' authority) since it appears to be Mary who is 

ignoring Jesus and he is the one who is obedient to her. The older Catholic view was that this is a proof 

text for why we should pray to Mary so that she will petition Jesus for us. Probably, it should be read, 

“Do whatever he says” stressing that Jesus is the authority here, not her.

John 2:6-8a At that point Jesus appears to change his mind and grant Mary's request. Why? It may 

point to Jesus' obedience to his parent in line with the 10 Commandments. It more likely shows Jesus' 

and God's graciousness in listening to our prayers. It is also somewhat similar to the moral of Jesus' 

parable about the widow who never gave up asking the judge to grant her petition, and also Jesus' 

eventually granting the Gentile woman's request to heal her daughter of a demon. There is an almost 

identical exchange in Chapter 7 between Jesus and his brothers who ask him to go to the feast and 

openly proclaim who he is. Jesus says he won't go since his time has not yet come, but later goes to the 

feast in private.

Note the little detail that John adds about the type of jars; they were for the purification rites. 

Remember the replacement theme throughout this gospel. John is probably pointing out the contrast 

between the Jewish ceremonial observances which could make one ritually clean but did not 

necessarily bring the joy of a new life. This is like Jesus' later saying about the new wine of the good 

news bursting the old wineskins. Similarly, the large quantity of wine may be a fulfillment of 

prophecies of Amos, Hosea and Jeremiah concerning the abundance of wine in the last days.

John 2:8b-11 Now we come to the miracle itself. Or was it a miracle? Some who believe in total 

abstinence have said that when the steward tasted the fresh water, he proclaimed ironically that this 

was better than any wine, etc. Very unlikely. I think we will save any further comments regarding 

alcoholic beverages until our annual temperance lesson.

What do we think about the miraculous elements; is the story credible? We accept that Jesus could 

have done it, but would he have done it? Many liberal Christians deny the miracles because they say 

that God would not counteract the very laws of nature he put into place. This may help clarify it. What 

if he made the wine by squeezing stones or had it gush out of the servants' ears? Would that have been 

believable? The apocryphal gospel stories have similarly ridiculous “miracles” performed by Jesus. 

But in this case, Jesus uses water just as it is water that is the basis of wine formation in nature. C. S.

Lewis (Miracles, p. 163) notes that this demonstrates the normal modus operandus of God himself in 

nature, only in an accelerated manner. The story rings true.

John 2:13-16 The parallel accounts in the Synoptic gospels place this event at the very end of Christ's 

ministry rather than at the start (both accounts read very similarly except that the Synoptics have Jesus 

say, “You have made my house a den of robbers.”) Don't we have a contradiction here? One possibility 

is that it may have happened twice. If it happened only once, then John arranged his account topically, 

not chronologically. Scholars usually state that either one is a possibility.

Critics use this episode and Jesus' cursing of the fig tree to show that Jesus was by no means free from 

sin. What do you think? One extreme view: I saw a panel talk show on TV years ago in which all the 

participants (psychiatrist, physician, politician, minister) agreed that we should be working on a drug to 

totally eliminate anger in people. Unfortunately, that would also eliminate righteous indignation at the 

various wrongs in the world and eliminate our drive to correct them.

Opposite extreme: The best way to get an application lesson from history stories in the Bible is to 

identify with the characters and analyze their behavior, good or bad. What character in this story do 

you identify with? I have always identified with Jesus. What are the dangers in us indulging in 

righteous indignation as Christians? The two worst are probably lack of knowledge (Only God is 

omniscient) and the danger of mixed motives (Psychiatrists say that most anger arises from fear of 

something that will interfere with our personal plans).

For a change, try identifying with the temple authorities and the moneychangers instead. The temple authorities had allowed money changers and merchants to set up shop in the courtyard. By trying to make worship convenient for some, the authorities hindered worship for others. Are we as individuals or as the church ever guilty of this same behavior? I have seen that happen when a church I was attending decided to eliminate traditional music at their services to attract a younger crowd. At the same time they ended up disenfranchising the elderly parishioners. How about putting a “Honk if you love Jesus” sign on our car but then driving so rudely that we bring discredit on Jesus' name?

Comparisons between the two stories

Some similarities: In very general terms, they are two narratives describing significant actions by Jesus 

that help reveal his identity and both involve the theme of Jesus' authority. Also (1) in both stories, 

there is a foreshadowing of Jesus' death and resurrection (2:4b: “My time has not yet come” and 2:19: 

“Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”). (2) Both end with a summary stating that the 

disciples believed and with the key word “sign.” (3) Also, in terms of themes, the place of prayer 

needed the transforming touch Jesus had applied earlier to the water in the stone jars. Like those jars, 

the temple complex symbolized an impotent Judaism, out of touch with God.

At the same time there is a major contrast in tone of both stories: Jesus' actions demonstrated God's 

mercy and justice, respectively.