Comments on John 2 This chapter expounds upon the replacement theme introduced in the last verse of the previous chapter. Two examples from Jesus' early ministry are put forward that show this theme: the wedding feast of Cana (v. 1-11), and the purging of the Temple (v. 13-22). Both of these two examples employed by John address two of the major OT messianic themes: the Wedding Feast, and the Messianic Temple. The chapter then closes with a segue setting the stage for the next chapter (v. 23-25). v1-11. John weaves a mosaic of OT messianic symbols together in this account. This is not to say the account is fictional at all, it is to say John recognized the symbolic aspects of the events and carefully presented them to the exclusion of extraneous material. v1-2 The stage is set with the events surrounding a wedding. In the OT, weddings are repeatedly used as a messianic symbol, cp. Isa. 54:4-8, Isa. 62:4-5, Ezekiel 16, Hosea 1-4, as well as Matt. 22:13, Matt. 24:14, Rev. 19:9. John uses this to establish the backdrop to the symbolism at work. v3-7 The lack of wine at the marriage is fortuitous as the abundant providence of wine is a messianic attribute, cp. Amos 9:13-14, Hosea 14:7, Jer. 31:12, Isa. 25:6, Isa. 55:1-3. According to the Anchor Bible (AB) the tradition at that time was that guests were to provide the wine. That Mary asked Jesus to have wine was probably no big deal as he was a guest. v3 The lack of wine among the Jews could easily be interpreted as them being a barren vine, cp. Isa. 5:1-7, John 15:1-8. v5 The servants are present and witness the miracle, the leaders or rulers of the feast are not involved and do not witness the miracle v6 The purifying after the manner of the Jews is identified and shown to be superceded by the messianic wine. The Law of Moses purification rituals are set aside in favor of the messianic gospel. Six water pots of stone at two or three firkins apiece yields approximately 120 gallons of wine. v8 The servants obedience results in their witnessing the miracle and recognizing the true source of the wine. v9-10 The ruler of the feast is ignorant of the source of this superior wine and calls the bridegroom who in fact did not produce the wine at all. The ruler is symbolic of the Pharisees and the failure to recognize/identify the true source of the wine is indicative of their ignorance of the gospel (misidentified the true "bridegroom"). v9 definitely excludes Jesus as the bridegroom at this wedding. Some persons speculate that this was in fact Jesus wedding as a result of Mary's prominent place at the wedding. But, the fact that the ruler of the feast addresses the bridegroom, who is not Jesus, shows that this speculation is incorrect. v10 Introduces a first-last, last-first theme with the wine, and it also show's Jesus' willingness to diverge from man's uninspired traditions. v12 Note how little text John dedicates to matter of fact issues. Indicative of his austerity in presenting these facts that are irrelevant in favor of presenting gospel topics. Informs the reader that those details given are deliberately included and have meaning attached to them. v13-22 The literal temple, the messianic temple (1:51, Ezek. 40- 47), and the perfected temple (i.e. the resurrection) are all presented. The Passover theme is presented as symbolic of Jesus purging the leaven (their merchandise) of the Pharisees from his house (the literal temple). v15 The temple guard would not allow sticks or weapons into the temple precinct (per AB), hence the use of a scourge of cords which was possibly even smuggled in. v16 As Jesus is YHWH of the OT this is his temple, yet he defers to the Father. v18 While the other gospel writers use specific titles of "chief priests" and "pharisees", John employs a more general term of "the Jews". I consider his usage of this term to be based on Isaiah's coinage and application of the term. v19 Here Jesus challenges the Pharisees to destroy his temple. From v. 21-22 we know that Jesus was referring to the resurrection. But, here the Jews are favoring a literal interpretation. They are in all likelihood referring to the messianic temple spoken of by Ezekiel. Jesus references a miraculous temple built in three days, and the Jews recognized that Jesus had been making a lot of authority claims. The Jews also badger Jesus over this claim repeatedly later on as proof that he is not the messiah (Mark 14:58-61, Matt. 26:61, Matt. 27:41, Acts 6:14). Simply mocking Jesus on this point would have no staying power, but connecting it with the Ezekiel prophecy would be fuel for them against Jesus' claim to be the messiah, and it would be an observable one that provided physical evidence against him. That Jesus cited "three days", need not be taken literally by the Jews as that was a common semitism for "a short time", cf. Hosea 6:2, Luke 13:32. v20 The Jews are obviously favoring a physical literal interpretation. v21-22 John presents the correct interpretation of what Jesus says, but this does not preclude the Jews' misinterpretation of Jesus referring to Ezekiel's messianic temple. v23-25 presents a segue into the next chapter. Jesus cultivates followers as a result of miracles, but he refuses to commit himself to them because he knows they are only transiently impressed by miracles. Notice that the chapter closes with "he knew what was in man" and the next chapter starts with a reference to Nicodemus that says "There was a man...". John draws a connection between the men referred to in v. 23-25 and Nicodemus. Copyright © 2001 by S. Kurt Neumiller . All rights reserved. No part of this text may be reproduced in any form or by any means for commercial gain without the express written consent of the author. Digital or printed copies may be freely made and distributed for personal and public non-commercial use.