1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
In the world of Judaism, the third day was the standard term for Tuesday. In the Scriptures however, the third day virtually always refers to a counting forward of days. Jesus rose again the third day, on Sunday, not Tuesday. Almost certainly then, the Apostle continues the counting of days begun at the time of the Baptist’s spontaneous declaration at the Jordan (John 1:29) which also marked the first meeting of at least six of Twelve Apostles.
- Thursday, the Pharisees interrogate John the Baptist (John 1:19-28).
- Friday, the next day (John 1:29), John the Baptist goes on record to identify Jesus the Nazarene as the Son of God (John 1:30-34).
- Saturday, the next day after (John 1:35), the Baptist again identifies Jesus as the Christ, causing Andrew and John to find their brothers, Peter and James, and follow Him home. This day marks the sabbath, which Jesus kept with Peter, James, John and Andrew in His abode (John 1:36-42).
- Sunday, the day following (John 1:43), Jesus adds Philip and Nathanael to His group and the seven of them depart for Galilee.
- Wednesday, the third day after leaving the Jordan, Jesus and His disciples go to the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, which was a good three day’s journey from Bethabara (about 70 miles).
These details were engraved in the young mind of John the Beloved, for they were momentous events that changed his life forever. Some of these very first events are not even found in the Synoptics, or are related later in topical rather than chronological fashion. It is remarkable however, that Jesus’ baptism is not mentioned in John, while all the other gospels place it prominently at the beginning of His ministry (see Mat 3:13-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22). Why would John have omitted His baptism? Perhaps because it did not take place during this “week” that commences John’s gospel, but earlier in time. This would explain the Baptist’s answer to the Pharisees that he had seen (past tense) the Spirit descending upon Jesus like a dove (John 1:32-34). Of course, that happened when John baptized Jesus, leaving him convinced that He was the Messiah. But Jesus had disappeared after that stunning event and John could only stay and wait for Him to return.
An earlier baptism also seems to be required by the testimony of the other gospels which say that immediately after His baptism, Jesus traveled alone into the wilderness for forty days (Mark 1:12; Mat 4:1). Finally, about six weeks later, and right after the Pharisees had sternly questioned John, Jesus reappeared. And John was immediately ready to recognize Him. In the foregoing succession of events, Jesus’ departure for Capernaum after having chosen at least half of the Twelve is chronologically correct.
2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
This must have been a socially important marriage, for not only was Jesus’ family invited, but all of His disciples too. To run out of wine at a wedding of this magnitude would have been a catastrophe of poor planning, for a typical Jewish wedding feast lasted seven days. Apparently however, they ran out of wine early on, perhaps upon the first day. Then again, we do not know all the circumstances. Maybe they were expecting a shipment to arrive, maybe there was a miscommunication about who was to ensure the wine was in store. Whatever the case, it became suddenly known that there would be nothing to drink with the meal.
Some think that the reason Mary was concerned about the lack of wine was because this wedding involved a relative, perhaps one her sister’s children, such as James the Less (see note John 19:25). Others speculate that this was John’s own wedding. Most commentators also think this was a small, family wedding, but my reading is of a large social gathering of several hundred people. There were 6 water pots for the purpose of hand cleansing only, there were servants and a governor, all of which were expecting to be well fed. Moreover, it it were just a small family wedding, would it have been such a disgrace if they ran out of wine?
It would be erroneous to take this miracle as an affirmation of alcoholic drinks, for there were several types of wine in those days. Grapes do not contain alcohol, but by the fermentation process the grape sugar is converted into alcohol. In ancient times, fermentation was by exposure to air, which might produce a 3-5% alcohol content. The alcohol acted as a preservative allowing the wine to be bottled and stored. So this wine was nothing like the distilled wines of our day that can reach 20% or more. It could have been nothing more than fresh grape juice.
Jesus did not abstain from the fruit of the vine as John the Baptist did (Mat 11:18-19). And Paul advised Timothy to use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities (1Tim 5:23). Nevertheless, the inherent danger of alcoholic drinks cannot be over-emphasized. Most crimes are committed by people who are drunk. Even in the era of other drugs, alcohol is by far the most dangerous. The headline of a recent news article says it all, “Alcohol is still the deadliest drug in the United States, and its not even close” (Washington Post). The article goes on to show how alcohol affects the brain, giving it a sense of invincibility, loosening the tongue and erasing inhibitions. A drunk person is literally not in his right mind.
Why would Christians even come close to such a dangerous mind-altering drug? It has been the source of uncountable sins and wickedness. With the many other drink options available (juices, soft drinks, teas, coffees), why dabble with a dangerous one? Unfortunately, many will not take warning. They will certainly smart for their foolishness. The only reason that I can think of for drinking alcohol in a social setting is to fit in and because it tastes good. Those excuses are invalid. Certainly for illnesses there is a place, but not in a social setting. By partaking of alcoholic beverages, the Christian is telling the World that what they are doing is okay.
The interaction of Jesus with His mother is interesting. Mary knew from the beginning that Jesus was someone special. A virgin just doesn’t become pregnant – but she had. And then the message of the angel to her, that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). She didn’t understand, but she kept them pondered in her heart (Luke 2:19). Perhaps she was concerned that He had done nothing to act upon those messianic prophecies and circumstances of birth. Now 30 years old, Jesus was still living at home and yet unmarried. Many mothers would be mightily concerned! This condition was viewed very poorly among the Jews of that day, where in order to advance socially one needed to contract an early, strategic marriage. Jesus, however, seems to have lived happily at home, subject always to His parents wishes, until the appointed hour had fully come (Luke 2:51).
Jesus’ words seem to contain a slight rebuke, because Mary is pushing Him, even presuming His action by telling the servants to obey His orders when He had not even agreed to do anything. Mine hour is not yet come. But oh, it was very near. He had been baptized and commissioned. He had chosen most of the Twelve, but not all. Yet, the real event that would finally announce Jesus as Lord was the next Jewish Passover (v13) It was then that Jesus broke upon the scene in an astonishing act of authority that nobody could doubt. The Gospel of John seems to particularly point to the cleansing of the Temple as the official beginning of Jesus ministry. Then His ministry of preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and working the corroborating miracles spread His fame to all parts of land.
6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
The basins of water were placed for the washing of hands in accordance to Jewish custom (Mat 15:2; Mark 7:3-4). Many commentators believe that each basin contained about 5 gallons of water, although the NIV does not agree. The Greek word for firkin corresponds to a bath or measure in the Septuagint (1Kings 18:32; 2Chr 4:5; Hag 2:16), a size which varied among the societies in which it was used. Probably the waterpots had been filled with water so that the guests could wash their hands, but Jesus asks that they be refilled with fresh water.
8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
The symbolism in Jesus‘ inauguration miracle is remarkable. It parallels the meaning of His parable of the wineskins, in which the first wine represents the Old Covenant and the best wine the New Covenant (see note for Mat 9:17). It also draws from Isaiah’s analogy of the spiritual remnant of Israel being like the last pressing of the grapes (Is 65:8). Wine often represents blood in the Bible, which is why Jesus used wine to represent His blood at the first communion service. The failure of wine at this wedding represents the failure of the Old Covenant to provide a means for redemption. And that the new wine was better correctly represents the the contrast, for the Old did have “wine,” and lots of it, but it was not “good” – it could not save.
It is appropriate that Jesus’ first miracle be at a wedding, because the marriage bond is used throughout the Scriptures to represent the relationship of God with His people. The Old Covenant people of God were often unfaithful and so the prophets often spoke in terms of adultery and divorce, but the symbolism remains unchanged in the New Covenant, where the husband/wife relationship is likened to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:21-33). A wedding is a time for rejoicing and happiness. It marks the beginning of the marriage relationship, just as Jesus’ ministry marks the beginning of the relationship between Christ and the Church. This mystery was foretold by the prophets, in words of rejoicing and singing (ex. Is 51:11).
Jesus’ words, Draw out now, confirm further the symbolic meaning of this miracle when we compare them with the prophet’s words in speaking of the New Covenant, With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation (Is 12:3). The blood of the New Testament is truly effective unto salvation.
How interesting that Jesus’ very first entrance on the Jewish scene did not happen politically at the palace, nor ecclesiastically at the temple, but socially at a wedding. Marriage is probably the most sacred, and certainly the oldest, type in the Scriptures. While Jesus never married, He spoke approvingly of the marriage bond. Some have misconstrued the Apostle Paul’s epistles to the Corinthians about singleness and marriage to mean it is better for Christians not to marry. That does not conform well with this passage.
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
This was the first public manifestation of Jesus the Messiah and it was a powerful sign to all, especially the disciples. From the previous chapter we know at least six of the Twelve were with Him and had professed to believe that He was the Messiah. The gospel of John does not relate the callings of any of the others, but it is possible that several others became disciples at this beginning of miracles. James the Less, a cousin of Jesus, was probably in attendance along with some of the others: Thomas, Judas Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanite and Judas Iscariot. Matthew, however, seems to have been the last Apostle to be chosen (Luke 5:27).
12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.
Although Nazareth of Galilee was Jesus’ childhood home, Capernaum of Galilee was his home during all His ministry (Compare Mark 2:1-3 with Mat 9:1-2). The Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus went to Capernaum after hearing that John the Baptist had been cast into prison (Mat 4:12-13), but that took place several months after the events of this chapter (see John 3:22-24). His visit was short, they continued there not many days. A few weeks at most, I infer, for in Acts 1:5, Jesus promised the disciples that they would receive the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Only ten days elapsed between the Ascension and Pentecost.
It is not entirely clear who is included in the term, His brethren. Some say these were His true brothers (His mother’s sons), but others think they were half-brothers (sons of Joseph but not of Mary). A third position is that the word brethren means relatives, which would include his brothers and cousins like James the Less (John 19:25; Mark 15:40). The fact that Jesus asked John to take care of His mother while hanging on the cross makes me doubt that Mary had any sons besides Jesus (John 19:26-27). If that be true, then His brethren would refer to His relatives, His cousins and half-brothers. Jesus did have brothers according to Mat 13:55, whether they were also sons of Mary is not certain.
13 And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
John’s Gospel records three passovers during Jesus’ ministry John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55. Additionally, most scholars take the feast mentioned in John 5:1 to be the Passover. Thus, about three and one-half years elapsed from the time of His baptism unto His death.
Interestingly, the Scriptures always describe people as “going up” to Jerusalem (Mark 10:33), or coming down from Jerusalem (Mark 3:22; Acts 25:7). It is true of the Old Testament as well. No matter one’s point of origin, you always “went up to Jerusalem.”
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
Only the Gospel of John gives the account of Jesus cleansing the temple at the beginning of His ministry. The other three evangelists describe a similar scene, but during the last week of His life. However, to begin His earthly mission by throwing out of His Father’s house the merchantmen and money-changers is fitting. Jesus came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but for judgment (John 9:39; Mat 3:10-12). When Judgment does come, it is appropriate that it begin at the house of God (1Pet 4:17).
Temple commerce was a booming enterprise. People came from long distances to perform the sacrifices and offerings that the Law required. It was much more convenient to buy their animals and offerings in Jerusalem rather than bring their own. However, the bartering, price gouging and greed at the temple shops was a thing of renown. Even today the Jews are famous for their rude greed for money, such that Jesus called them a den of thieves (Mat 21:13). To be clear, the shops were not in the temple sanctuary (naos), but in the outer courts (hieron); specifically, in the Court of the Gentiles.
Here is one time that Jesus acted in passion and violence; that is the position of Protestants and Catholics, who use Jesus’ example to justify for themselves the actions of force, self-defense and even killing. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin all used the arm of their civil governments to enforce adherence to their churches’ doctrines. Yet the response of the early Anabaptist on the topic of non-retaliation was sublime and convincing. The establishment churches alleged, “Jesus used violence when He threw the money-changers out of the temple. We are following His example by beheading heretics.” Anabaptists like Michael Sattler replied, “Yes. But Jesus used a whip, not a sword.” Not many days later, Sattler was horribly tortured to death for daring to contradict the teachings of the state church. The true example that Jesus provides for all peace-Christians is that we ever stand firm and denounce error and evil by the authority and power of the Word and the Holy Ghost (1Thes 1:5). Never in violence, vengeance and brandishing the sword, but fearlessly standing as earnest contenders of the Faith (Jude 1:3).
I marvel at the picture of a single Man armed with only a scourge of small cords driving away several dozen men away from their sheep, oxen, doves and money tables. Is it possible? Clearly they did not flee from the visage of a natural man armed with a whip, but from the unnatural visage of and power of God Himself. They didn’t run from a violent man, but from an authoritative Man. This One could command the demons and winds of nature with His spoken word; from whose face the very earth and heaven flee away, never to be found again (Rev 20:11); Of course the fled away! No man can stand before that power. The situation is similar to the Pharisees sending officers to arrest Jesus in John 7:45-46. When the officers returned empty-handed, the Pharisees demanded in exasperation, Why have ye not brought Him? The officers’ lame excuse is amusing; they gulped and said, Never man spake like this Man.
Surely Jesus did not intend us to take His example of scourging these men who were desecrating God’s house as a precedent for His followers! He was acting in the authority and power of God, demonstrating His zeal to perform the mission that the Father had given Him to do. The real example we should take from this scene is that Jesus is passionately against the wicked. So often churches and pastors speak eloquently and long of Jesus’ deep and great love, but fail to recognize that His face is set against the sinner. This example is a reminder. At the end of time, Jesus is coming again and He will thoroughly cleanse His Church. He is called Faithful and True, and he will judge and make war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on His head are many crowns. Out of His mouth goes a sharp sword and He will tread the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS is His name (Rev 19:11-16).
Some believe that John’s account and the Synoptics’ account are describing the same event. In my mind, they are significantly different. First, the sequence of events in both cases is highly integrated and time-specific to their separate eras. In John, we read that Jesus was baptized at the Jordan River and then traveled immediately to the wedding in Cana of Galilee where He performed the first miracle. Then he went to Capernaum for a few days, waiting for the feast of the Passover, and finally went up to celebrate the feast. While there, He publicly proclaimed His mission to cleanse His Father’s House and after speaking with Nicodemus, He returned to Galilee (John 4:3). On the other hand, Matthew’s gospel describes Jesus entering the city of Jerusalem at the beginning of the last week of His earthly accompanied by a great multitude shouting hosannas and waving palms; the next day He returns to Jerusalem, enters the temple and throws out the money changers, provoking the wrath of the Jewish leaders. That event lead to a whole week of disputing with rabbis, Pharisees, Sadducees and even the Herodians (Mat 21:1-17). The two events are not only different, they are reasonably complementary. Jesus announces the purpose of His ministry by cleansing the temple and at the end He proclaims it to be finished by a second cleansing.
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.
My Father’s house. The Jews took great offense at Jesus’ claim that God was His Father (John 5:18), but that did not stop Him from repeating it, I and My Father are one (John 10:30; Luke 10:22). Years earlier He said to His parents, Wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business? (Luke 2:49). And one the dearest promises Jesus ever made to His followers contains the same expression: In My Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also (John 14:2-3).
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
The quote comes from Psalms 69:9, one of the clearest of the messianic psalms and presents Jesus as the suffering servant. The word eaten (katephagen) is usually translated “devoured.” Did the disciples remember the words of this prophecy immediately following Jesus’ zeal? Or later, thinking back?
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
A single man drives a bunch of greedy men out of the sacred grounds and the Jews simply ask Him for another sign? All of His teaching and actions were signs! It was either accept those or refuse them (John 14:11). The Jewish leaders were particularly concerned that He tell them by what authority He worked His miracles. See Jesus’ remarkable interaction with them on that subject in Luke 20:1-8. Here, Jesus answers their request for a sign in much the same way that He answered the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 12:38-40, by giving them an enigma, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
The Jews were masters at purposely misunderstanding/manipulating Jesus’ words. Then again, neither did He stop to correct their erroneous inferences (i.e. Mat 15:14). Jesus often spoke in veiled language, figures of speech, parables and symbolisms. By this temple, He meant His body (v21), but they took Him to mean Herod’s Temple. Now, the word temple (naos) in used in a figurative sense quite frequently in the New Testament (1Cor 3:16; 6:19; Eph 2:21; Rev 3:12), but that is not true of the Old Testament. So we might forgive the Jews for misunderstanding…but how could they miss the next key word, I will raise it up (egero). This common Greek word is used dozens of times in the New Testament for raising the dead, or rising from sleep, but never once in connection to raising up a building or any other material object (i.e. Mat 11:5; Mark 16:6; Luke 8:24; John 5:8; Rom 13:11).
Coupled with naos, which is used exclusively in reference to the sanctuary which the priests only could enter, Jesus’ little riddle was not entirely obscure. It certainly made sense to the disciples a few years later! Instead of asking Jesus to clarify, as a sincere seeker would do (see Nicodemus), the Jews immediately sneered at Him. What’s more, they later twisted these very words at His trial, claiming that He had purposed to destroy the temple, when in truth He said that they were going to destroy it (Mat 26:61).
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
The Apostle John, who surely was with Jesus when the Jews confronted Jesus, recalls their exact response: “This temple was forty-six years in building, and you will build it 3 days?” We can practically hear the sarcasm dripping from the words. But what do they mean by forty-six years? There are at least three possibilities:
- They are referring to the initial building of the temple by Ezra after the Jews returned from Babylon. Daniel’s prophetic 70 weeks is broken up into three phases: a beginning seven-week period (49 years), a central sixty-two week period (434 years), and the ending 1 week (7 years) period (Dan 9:24-27). Many eminent Bible scholars believe that the initial period covers the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the last week covers the time of Christ’s ministry. Note that Daniel’s prophecy uses weeks as the counting units, not years. We convert to years only for the sake of making a point of reference with the 46 years that the Jewish sages affirm. Notice that the time-frame falls nicely within the seven-week period of rebuilding just as Daniel had said. Another indication that this is indeed the intent of these verses is obtained by noticing that Jesus and the Jews agreed upon the usage of the word naos. If the Jews had been referring to Herod’s temple, they should have used the word hieron, which is used to refer to the temple building complex as opposed to the temple sanctuary (see v14).
- They are counting the years from the time that Herod began his temple renovations right up to the time that Jesus cleansed the temple. For by many accounts, temple-ground improvements continued all the way into the reign of Nero. According to Josephus’ dates, Herod the Great began to rebuild the temple in his 18th year and he ruled for 37 years. Now, the exact year of Herod’s death is disputed, but many historians believe that he died 2 days before the new year of 1 A.D. (see my note Mat 2:1). As for the beginning year of Jesus’ ministry, the best calculations are that the first Passover of His ministry was in A.D. 30 and the last Passover of His death was in A.D. 33 (see notes John 18:31; Luke 3:23). If all those dates are correct, we count 48 years from the 18th year of Herod unto this clash with the Jews. The two years discrepancy can be accounted for in a variety of ways (not counting the first year, counting a part of a year as a full year, etc).
- They counted the temple as finished two years prior to their present moment. The temple renovations under the Herods were accomplished in sporadic episodes. Much of the work involved expanding the area of the Temple Mount and in erecting new outbuildings. It is not unlikely that the Jews thought on more than one occasion, “Finally! The work is finished,” only to hear that a new project was being planned. Note that the statement under question (the 46 years) originated with the Jews, not with the Apostle John, who is only writing down what he recalled them saying.
There is a remarkable but independent correlation in Luke’s Gospel, which records that Jesus’ ministry began in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1), which is generally dated at A.D. 29. Remember that John seems to link the start of Jesus’ ministry with the Passover of A.D. 30, while others fix it several months earlier when He was baptized by John.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
The disciples did not immediately understand Jesus’ sign either, but after He had risen from the dead it all made sense. It was intended to be temporarily hidden from the eyes of the world (Mat 13:13). It would later prove to be a powerful testimony of Christ’s omniscience. It was not uncommon for His disciples to misunderstand Him (Mat 16:5-12).
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. .
Jesus did not need the affirmation nor counsel of men. He did not need associates to tell Him what was going on elsewhere, nor did He need help understanding the thoughts and intents of others. He knew all men, and He knew what as in man. The Gospels confirm in action what John says in word, that the Son of God fully knew each man’s heart. This is not so for all others that followed, including even the Apostles. In order to judge rightly, they needed to hear testimonies of the situation, notwithstanding, at times the Spirit did (and still does) reveal things hidden, like Peter knowing that Ananias and Sapphira were lying. However, that is the exception and not the rule in regards to human insight. Jesus was not so bound. He knew all things, even as God also knows all things.
Jesus did not commit Himself unto them. Meaning that He did not openly reveal His identity to them. Why? Because He knew all men. He knew that it was too early; it was not the time. Second, He knew that they were not ready to receive Him; and the vast majority never would.