Helping at a Wedding and Cleansing the Temple - John 2

The Wedding at Cana (2.1-12).

The incident at the wedding in Cana of Galilee is said by the writer to be the first of Jesus’ ‘signs’. John is the only one who describes Jesus miraculous acts as ‘signs’. However this is not in the sense in which some would use it today as ‘proofs’. It was because they revealed something of His glory. They are ‘signs’ because they demonstrated something of Who and What He was.

In this extraordinary sign we are first faced up with the creative power of God through Jesus. By ‘creating’ wine Jesus reveals Himself as the One Who has come to bring joy to the world through His creative power. It also revealed that He could do it by a word, or even a thought. He made no move towards the jars of water. He simply determined that they should hold wine, and they did. He would later do the same in the second sign when He healed the king’s officer’s son as a distance (4.46-54).

A further stress in the account is on the fact of a change from the old truths to new truths. The water of the old rituals is turned into the wine of the new message that Jesus has brought. Behind the new wine lies the thought of the new age, for abundance of wine is a symbol of the coming age in Isaiah 25.6; Amos 9.14; Hosea 14.6-7; Jeremiah 31.5, 12; and it will be without money and without price (Isaiah 55.1). It is an important symbolic act depicting the introduction of a new era, for it will then be followed by the change He demands in the Temple whereby it ceases to be a market and becomes truly His Father’s house, the change He requires in Nicodemus as a teacher of Israel needing to be born from above, the change that He speaks of to the Samaritan woman in the way that God is to be worshipped and the change from looking to the old bread from Heaven ‘given’ by Moses, to looking to the new bread from Heaven, which is Himself. From now on all is change.

2.1-2 ‘And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there, and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage.’

Note once again the time element, ‘on the third day’ (v.1), the third day after leaving the place where Nathaniel received his call. This series of events from 1.19 onwards was imbedded in the writer’s mind as a vivid memory of a few, glorious, never to be forgotten days. ‘On the third day’ does not necessarily indicate that three days have passed. It may simply refer to a day and a half (completing one day, then a second, and the commencement of a third). Had the writer intended to point to the seventh day he would surely have mentioned it.

‘There was a marriage at Cana in Galilee.’ Jesus and His mother were clearly known to the organisers, as were possibly the accompanying disciples, for they too were locals. Thus they were all invited. Although as Nathaniel came from Cana the combined invitation to the disciples may have been due to his influence (21.20). There is no need to think that all the twelve were there. They would be appointed later. ‘His disciples’ simply refers to those who were following Him at the time. The site of Cana is not yet certain, although it was presumably not far from Nazareth.

Such weddings would be occasions of celebration and feasting which helped to make the daily grind tolerable. It was therefore a matter of honour to ensure that they went well. The marriage feast itself would usually take place in the evening, and after the marriage covenant had been signed the couple would be escorted to a specially prepared room, the ‘chuppa’. The feasting would then continue for a number of days, with much music and hilarity.

2.3 ‘And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus says to him, ‘They have no wine.’

We do not know at what point the wine failed, whether at the marriage feast or in the later festivities, but either way it was a shameful thing for the families concerned. So, when the wine ran out, Jesus’ mother approached Him and said, ‘They have no wine’.

The fact that it did run out might suggest that the family concerned were very poor and had not been able to fund the wedding fully (the ‘servants’ may well have been volunteers), but their shame would be clear to all. If their means were very limited this could easily happen as the feasting during a wedding was not restricted to close relatives, and there would be many friends and acquaintances there. But to John, and possibly Jesus at the time, the words are more poignant. John sees it as a picture of the world. The world indeed has religious ceremony galore, but it lacks that which floods the heart with joy, it lacks wine that satisfies (Isaiah 55.1). The world too ‘has no wine’.

2.4 ‘And Jesus says to her, ‘Woman, what is there to you and to me, my hour is not yet come.’

That Mary’s words are not just a quiet remark to her son comes out in the reply He made. It is clear that she hoped He would do something remarkable, revealing some of the powers she now knew He had. But she knows she cannot tell Him what to do. She can only draw His attention to the situation. It is probable that Joseph was already dead and she had become used to leaning on her eldest son. The coming of the Messiah was often described in connection with a Messianic Feast and quite possibly she saw this as an opportunity for Him to reveal Himself. As His mother she cannot wait for Him to be a success.

Jesus reply is fairly stern, but not as stern as it might appear. “Woman” is difficult to put into English because we do not have a word that means the equivalent. In Yorkshire it could be translated ‘lass’, which can be an affectionate term in the same way as this. It probably contains the sense of gentle chiding, but no more. It is, however, unusual for a Jew to address his mother in this way. We must therefore see in it a slight distancing of Himself, indicating that His ministry must not be interfered with.

“What is there to you and to me?” is what He says (literally). The phrase can be used (1) When one person is unjustly bothering another. The injured party may then say "What to me and to you?" meaning, "What have I done to you that you should do this to me?" (See Judges 11.12; 2 Chronicles 35.21; 1 Kings 17.18). Alternately, (2) When someone is asked to get involved in a matter he feels is no business of his, he may say to the one asking him, "What to me and to you?" meaning, "That is your business, how am I involved?" (See 2 Kings 3.13; Hosea 14.8).

Here then this probably means, ‘we have different concerns, lass’, rather than the harsher ‘what have we in common?’ or ‘why do you do this to me?’ It was not yet the time when He wished to reveal Himself, as He makes crystal clear when He says ‘my hour has not yet come’. Even Jesus must await the hour God has appointed for Him, the hour which will finally result in His death and glorification (John 7.30; 8.20; 12.23; 12.27; 13.1; 17.1). How much more important it is for us not to rush into things before God and we are ready.

Jesus’ words are significant. As we have seen, in John’s Gospel ‘His hour’ is regularly linked with His death. So Jesus may well already be feeling aware of what His hour will bring (compare Mark 2.20) and not be desirous of bringing it about too quickly. It was not an easy path He would be called on to tread, and He was fully aware of the consequences. Furthermore it indicates that even the preparation for that path was determined by His Father. He must not begin His revelation of Himself without His Father’s agreement. That fact having been made clear he accepted that that particular hour had come, the hour for showing His first sign of Who He Was.

2.5 ‘His mother says to the servants, “Whatever he says to you, do it.’

She did not feel His words as a rebuke, but just a reminder that she must not hurry Him into His work, and gathers from His attitude that her son will do something. So she tells the waiting servers, (possibly unpaid volunteers), ‘Do whatever He tells you.’ The words may indicate that she is expecting Him to do something unusual which may take the servers by surprise.

This incident illustrates the fact that, although like the disciples she accepts He is chosen for a special task, Mary is not fully in tune with her son’s purposes. Jesus will later re-emphasise this when He will not allow her to interfere with His ministry (Mark 3.31-35), putting her on a par, from that point of view, with all who do the will of God. Even His mother cannot be allowed to interfere in His destiny.

2.6 ‘Now there were six water pots of stone set there in accordance with the Jewish custom of purifying, each containing two or three metretes.’

Nearby Jesus sees six very large jars which were there for the purpose of Jewish cleansing rituals (compare Mark 7.3). The writer remembers clearly the number of the jars. Perhaps he sees it as indicating intensified three (twice three) signifying total completeness. (Interestingly five disciples have been mentioned and with Jesus Himself this would make six. Perhaps John saw significance in that. From them Jesus would produce new wine and they would take God’s wine to the world). Much of the water had been used already, and He tells the servers to refill the jars. It is significant that John mentions the use of the water pots and describes their significance. He wants to draw the attention of his readers to the source of the water, that it is connected with the old religious rites.

‘Metretes’, a measure containing about thirty nine and a half litres. Thus each jar contains on average about a hundred litres, (about 26 US gallons), making 600 litres in all, illustrating the fact that Jesus gives good measure and running over.

2.7 ‘Jesus says to them “Fill the water pots with water.” And they filled them to the brim.’

On the basis of Jesus’ instruction the servers enthusiastically fill them to the brim. They are probably curious as to what He will do and perhaps a little jocular. There may well have been a few humorous remarks such as ‘let’s make sure there is plenty of water there, just in case’. Again, however, John intends us to get the idea of overabundance.

2.8-10 ‘And he says to them, “Draw out now and carry it to the ruler of the feast”. And they carried it. And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from, (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast called the bridegroom and says to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when men have drunk freely, then that which is worse. You have kept the good wine until now”.’

‘Draw out now’. ‘Antlesate’. The verb is used of drawing water out of a well or baling out a ship, but can be used more generally to signify drawing out by means of some vessel, (thus the noun for ‘bucket’ (antlema) is etymologically similar).

The water was not there for drinking, it was for washing in order to remove ritual uncleanness, but now it is to be drunk because it has become wine. No longer is the emphasis to be on such things as outward ritual washing but on inward sustenance and blessing. The whole symbolism of the water has changed.

When the water is drawn and taken to the master of ceremonies, the master of ceremonies, who is not aware of what is happening, drinks it and is impressed. Indeed he calls the bridegroom and says, ‘Most people serve the best wine first, and then when people are a little merry give them cheaper wine. But you have saved the best till last’. There is not only overabundance but exquisiteness of taste, a true Messianic feast. Abundance of wine is a symbol of the coming age in Isaiah 25.6; Amos 9.14; Hosea 14.6-7; Jeremiah 31.5, 12, and it will be without money and without price (Isaiah 55.1). ‘The best wine’ emphasises change for the better, a new beginning.

In the coming of Jesus the world will be offered new and better ‘wine’, replacing the old religious ideas. Elsewhere new wine symbolises Jesus’ teaching (Mark 2.22).

There may also be in mind a previous time when water had been changed into something else, when Moses had turned water into blood (Exodus 7.14-24). Moses worked miracles of destruction, but the new greater than Moses works miracles of joy and blessing (compare 1.17), both at the hand of God.

2.11 ‘This beginning of his signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and revealed openly his glory, and his disciples believed on him.’

The whole account illustrates to John that here is One Who will take the old ceremonies (the jars of purification) and replace them with a new and vibrant reality, the wine of the kingdom. The water of the old religion will become the wine of the new, which will introduce a new and wonderful future, a time of joy and fruitfulness, a Messianic Feast of overflowing plenty. God has saved the best until last. The Messiah is here at last to satisfy men’s deepest needs, and by His actions He reveals His glory as the provider of God’s richest blessing. This is why John can call it a ‘sign’, indeed the first sign, of the purpose Jesus has come to fulfil. The incident strengthens and confirms the faith of the disciples (v.11). In one sense His hour has begun. This sense of the importance of the timing of all that He does comes out again in 7.6.

2.12 ‘After this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they remained there not many days.’

The writer now remembers vividly how, after this incident, they went to Capernaum for a few days, with Jesus’ mother and brothers, where they all stayed together. Note that John never mentions Mary by name. While respected she must fit into the scheme of things.

There are some who express surprise that Jesus should perform such a miracle when it seemed to have little purpose, but the fact is that it was an act typical of Jesus. When He wanted to impress on His disciples the bankruptcy and coming devastation of Jerusalem he cursed the fig tree, so that from it the disciples might learn a vivid message and recognise His power (Mark 11.12-25), and when He wanted to show them that their eyes were still only half open He healed the blind man in two stages (Mark 8.22-25). So here He turns water into wine to show that the days of spiritual prosperity and plenty are now here.

In 4.46 He comes again to Cana. In between He will reveal the true condition of the Temple and of those who seek after signs (2.14-22), like old water with nothing to warm men’s hearts; the true condition of the hearts of men who seek after signs (2.23-25) as exemplified in a teacher of Israel, who was satisfied with the old waters of Judaism and missed the water of the Spirit (3.1-21); a discussion about the old waters of purifying, in contrast with the new waters of the John’s baptism which pointed to the Spirit (3.25) followed by the offer of living water to the Samaritans in place of the old water of Jacob (4.4-43 especially verse 13). Then He returns to Cana to perform His second sign and find a genuine faith that does not seek after signs (4.46-54). The miracle of the water turned into wine is seen in its full perspective.

The Cleansing of the Temple (2.13-25).

2.13 ‘And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.’

John constantly tells us that Jesus went up to Jerusalem for the different Feasts of the Jews, and especially for the Passover. (1.13; 5.1; 7.10; 10.22; 11.55 with 12.12). Jesus did not ignore the traditions of Israel. This is His first Passover after taking up His calling. Perhaps John intends us to link it with the final Passover, and to have an awareness of the shadow that lies already over the ministry of Jesus. These verses emphasise that Jesus’ ministry continued over some years.

But the incident he will now describe is paralleled at the end of Jesus’ life by a what at a superficial glance looks to be a similar incident before His final denunciation (Mark 11.12-19 and parallels), and this must raise the question as to whether there were two such incidents or one. It is of course always possible that John deliberately puts the incident here in order to reinforce the message that the old is passing way and the new has come (chronology was not a major factor to the Gospel writers). But in fact he puts it in such a context that it suggests that it did occur early rather than late in the ministry, and the incidents are so dissimilar that it seems far more likely that this is a different incident altogether.

Given the fact that the trading in the Temple must always have angered Jesus this is not surprising, especially in view of Malachi 3.1-4. What is rather surprising is that He did not do something like this every time He went to Jerusalem, although we must recognise that for a time after this incident they would be on their guard, and He would perhaps realise that such repeated actions could precipitate a collision which would prematurely end His ministry. He knew, after all, that it could only be a token gesture. But by the time of the later incident the passage of years would have convinced the guards that He was no longer a danger. The young hothead had matured. Thus two incidents years apart might really be expected, the first when in His new zeal He faces up to the matter for the first time, the second occurring as a thought out policy before He is finally put to death. The first He gets away with as being the act of a zealous young man who may well hold promise for the future, the second is a seal on His death warrant.

The reason for His act here is described very differently, and fits better into the beginnings of His ministry when He was probably not quite as aware, as He was later, of the dishonesty that was going on. It is exactly the kind of reason that might well fire up a younger man without containing the thought out attitude revealed in the later incident. He enters quite innocently into the temple. But becoming aware of the commotion caused by incessant trading, He feels in His new awareness of Messiahship that He has to do something, for they are treating God’s house like a market! He may well have had in mind the words of Zechariah, ‘In that day there will be no more a merchant in the house of the Lord of Hosts’ (Zechariah 14.21), and the words of Malachi, ‘The Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom you delight in --- for he is like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap --’ (Malachi 3.1-3), and ‘zeal for your house will eat me up’ (Psalm 69.9). His concentration was on emptying the temple of the cattle, sheep and doves, although the only way He could deal with the money changers was by turning over the tables.

We should note that in the other incident He enters the temple with a deliberate aim (He had looked around earlier), His concentration is on the misbehaviour of the people, and He ignores the cattle and the sheep. He also stops those who are taking a short cut through the temple. And His words are about the total dishonesty of all involved. They have turned the house of prayer into a den of thieves. The two incidents could not be more different.

The other Gospels tell us little about His ministry in Jerusalem, concentrating rather on His itinerant ministry, thus they tend to disregard the happenings at the trips to Jerusalem, possibly even because they were not present (in John ‘the disciples’ is a vague term not necessarily always meaning the twelve). But John, who records a number of trips to Jerusalem, and who wishes to finish his Gospel on a spiritual note, perhaps did not wish to jar it with a violent visit to the Temple. He does after all leave out the physical details of the last Supper, and he ignores Jesus’ actual baptism and the transfiguration, while hinting at both. But he remembers this other incident and describes it because it fits in well with his purpose. He is well aware that the later cleansing is already well known in the Christian church, and an action like this helps to explain why in the other Gospels the leaders are so antagonistic to Jesus at an early stage (e.g. Mark 3.22).

2.14 ‘And he found in the Temple those who sold oxen, and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers sitting there.’

In the temple courts He found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others at tables exchanging currencies. This latter was necessary because the Temple tax, required of every Jew, had to be paid in Tyrian coinage which had no idolatrous images on, and many had come from afar bringing ‘tainted’ money. Conscious of His new ministry He is angered at this use of His Father’s house, which He sees as a place for prayer and worship.

2.15-16 ‘And he made a scourge of cords and cast them all out of the Temple, both the sheep and the oxen, and he emptied out the changers’ money and overthrew their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, “Take these things out of here. Do not make my Father’s house a house of business”.’

So He makes a small scourge (no weapon or stick was allowed in the Temple) and drives out the animals, tips over the tables of the moneychangers, and then says to those who were selling doves (for sacrificial purposes) ‘Get these out of here. Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace’. Even in His anger His compassion and self-control are shown for He does not act in a way that will harm the doves, and His intent is to empty the temple of the commotion resulting from the trading.

The whole picture is one of spontaneous action as a result of the impact the scene has made on Him, quite unlike His studied purpose in Mark, where He first goes in and surveys the Temple (Mark 11.11) and then later carried out His planned action, concentrating solely on those involved and ignoring the cattle and sheep, and being concerned especially about their dishonesty. (It is one thing to accuse people of making a noise in church, it is another to accuse them of stealing the collection).

Theoretically the activities of the traders might have been seen as justified, as they made it convenient for worshippers, but to Jesus it meant that concentration was diverted from the main purpose of the Temple, that of meeting with God. Do some of our church activities come under the same heading?

2.17 ‘His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘Zeal for your House will eat into me’.’

This comes from Psalm 69.9 and it is in a context where insults are being offered to God, as they were here. We are not told when they remembered, but it confirms to them and the readers that here is One Who fulfils the Scriptures.

John possibly also sees in the incident a picture of rejection of the sacrificial system which Jesus has come to replace, but that is not apparent from Jesus’ words, although hinted at in what follows. But certainly it was a sign of the old waters of Judaism that needed transforming.

2.18 ‘The Judaisers therefore answered and said to him, “What sign do you show us that you do these things?” ’

This reaction of some of the Jewish authorities is interesting and significant. Those who were not directly affected by the act because it did not eat into their profits may well have thought like this, for they also were not too happy about what was happening in the Temple, and among the Jews it was a time of expectation. So like John he is questioned about who He is. (It could not have happened at the end of His ministry when they were simply out to get Him).

After all, like others they eagerly awaited a unique figure who would aid their cause, for they too were sure that one day God would act as He had promised through such a unique figure, and the incident has done little harm. Indeed they recognise that what He has done is a direct claim to having some kind of authority from God, and being aware that He already has some popularity, and is associated with miraculous events, they are prepared at this stage to give Him a hearing. Thus rather than seeking His arrest they come to question Him. There was no love lost between the Pharisees and the Chief Priests. If He was amenable He could be useful. ‘What sign can you show us that demonstrates your right to do this?’ They are not sure how to view Him.

2.19 ‘Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy the Temple and in three days I will raise it up”.’

This enigmatic reply brings them up short. They could not be aware that within forty years the Temple would be destroyed as a result of their activities. Nor are they aware that for multitudes the crucified and risen Jesus will have replaced the Temple and its sacrifices. That the statement was generally remembered comes out in the fact that Jesus would later be charged with having said such things as, ‘I am able to destroy the Temple of God and rebuild it in three days’ (Matthew 26.61) and ‘I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands and in three days I will build another made without hands’ (Mark 14.58), both of which appear to be distorted repetitions of these words. Here is one example where the Synoptics assume material contained in John’s Gospel.

3.20 ‘The Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty six years to build this Temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’ ”

Herod’s Temple commenced being built around 20 BC and was still in process of being built. Completion would not occur until many years after, in 63 AD, just in time for its destruction. In view of the fact that it had been in process of building most of their lives it is not surprising that they found His statement about its destruction difficult to comprehend.

3.21 ‘But he spoke of the temple of his body’.

Here Jesus’ meaning is explained to the readers. By destroying Him they will in effect destroy the Temple, although the actual destruction may be delayed, but within three days of their destroying Him He will rise again, replacing the Temple and its sacrifices. This reply demonstrates that He is already aware that His acceptance among these bigoted men will not be positive.

Here we have another of John’s double meanings. On the one hand Jesus offered them a sign, a great sign. If they wanted one He would give them one. Only let them destroy the Temple, this Temple that was so corrupt, thus revealing their agreement with His verdict on it, and He would rebuild it within three days. Let them show by their actions that they were ready to follow Him in every respect, and then they would have their sign. It was a subtle reply for they could now no longer claim that He had refused a sign, nor was there any likelihood that they would take Him up on it. It prevented them from constantly pestering Him for signs, for they knew that if they did they would receive the same reply.

But it had the deeper significance that when He was raised from the dead His disciples would realise what temple He had meant, and it also contained within it the inference that the Temple was doomed once He had been crucified.

3.22. ‘When therefore he was raised from the dead his disciple remembered that he had spoken like this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.’

Although the disciples did not understand the meaning at the time, once Jesus had risen from the dead they remembered what He had said and understood, and it confirmed their faith in both Him and the Scriptures.

‘And they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken’. Note that Jesus’ words are put on a level with ‘The Scripture’. The one especially in mind may well be Psalm 16.10, ‘you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you allow your holy one to see decay’, although John may have had a number of Scriptures in mind including, among others, Isaiah 53.10, 12, where resurrection is implied.

2.23 ‘Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast many believed on his name when they saw the signs which he did, but Jesus did not trust himself to them because he knew all men, and because he did not need that anyone should testify to him concerning man, for he himself knew what was in man.’

Two interpretations are possible for these verses.

The first sees this as the completest condemnation of those who think people will believe because of miracles that we could have. That is what these people did, runs this view, but Jesus knew how unreliable such faith was. The only faith worth having is that which is based on an inner certainty of Who Jesus is and a full response to Him based on that certainty. That is what the ‘signs’ mentioned by John are meant to accomplish, understanding. These people did not understand.

‘Jesus did not trust himself to them.’ This would then mean that He would not encourage them to become disciples until He had more evidence of their genuineness. He was never concerned about numbers and popularity, and was quite happy to limit there number.

The second possibility is that their faith was genuine, but that there was a danger of them seeking in their enthusiasm to press Him into Messianic activity outside His purposes. Compare how later he withdraws from the crowd who would make Him a king (6.15). Thus He does not take them under His wing, and does not wish to be too closely involved with them.

But the fact that this comes before the incident of Nicodemus whose faith also was lacking must be seen as supporting the first suggestion, for Nicodemus at this stage illustrates one whose understanding is lacking. He too came because he had seen signs (3.2).

It is interesting that John does not mention any specific miracles here. He just assumes them. They were an important evidence of Jesus’ compassion, and of His status, but not relevant to John’s purpose. He is not citing them as ‘evidence’. He makes clear that Jesus knew men and women through and through. ‘He knew what was in man’. Jesus does not want those who merely respond to miracles. He only wants those who are genuine in seeking Him.