top of page

John 2

Read the Text.


John 2:1-12

So here Jesus and his disciples all attend a wedding feast in Cana of Galilee. Mary seems to have been anxious for Jesus to declare Himself. Jesus warns His mom that she is not to lead Him but to follow Him. 

It is unknown why Jesus was at the wedding/who was invited. It could’ve been Nath or Mary or Jesus. We don’t know. But, regardless, the point was for Jesus to show His glory to His disciples so that they would believe Him. 

According to the customs of the time, it would’ve served as an embarrassment to run out of wine or food in the middle of a wedding banquet. We don’t know what Mary expected Jesus to do. Its speculated, based off of his answer in v 4 that she expected Him to show Himself as the Messiah to all. But Jesus declines to do so because ‘his hour hadn’t come’. 

What does that mean \”his hour hadn’t come\”? 

it referred to His time of suffering and death. Thus, Jesus is asserting that His Father must determine the timetable of His earthly ministry. 

“Woman” holds no rebuke or disrespect here but it is how Jesus referred to Mary in John 19 at the cross as well most tenderly. But there is rebuke in the following when he basically says “This is my affair, not yours.” He had to follow His Father’s will. Not His Mothers. Mary, at the rebuke, recognizes this and submits to Jesus and tells the other servants there to do as He says thus fully trusting Him fully.

What do y’all think this sign might mean? Whats it symbolizes?

John makes note that this jar was to be used for cleansing before and after a meal. (This was a rule that was added by the Pharisees and was not prescribed by the law of Moses.) They did this in a religious ritual.

This miracle signifies the transformation of the old order associated with Moses (symbolized by the stone waterpots used for ceremonial washing and the new (wine standing for joy, eternal life in God) thru Jesus. The abundant fruitfulness of food and wine was to be characteristic of the coming new creation of the latter days. Those at the wedding celebration who knew that the wine came from Jesus and who had eyes to see would have realized that the end-time new creation was breaking in thru Him. 

Here is an illusion of the Law. The old Law of Moses is about to be filled and a new joy and new Law is about to take its place. And this one is to sweeter, more joyful than the last. Jesus\’ blood is the wine and by giving of the wine we share in his death and in His death we are brought life and that life is sweeter than anything. A new law here the religious rites of old are done away with and replaced with a fuller sweetness of life and joy found in the new law of loving like Jesus did. 


So what happens here? Why is Jesus so upset?

Jesus goes up to the Passover to worship. He finds the Temple being desecrated and he manifests His wrath at such hypocrisy. His disciples interpret it as a fulfillment of messianic prophecy. 

Notice the placement of these 2 stories. John offers an important key to the whole of Jesus\’ ministry. In these events are signaled replacement of the old order (water of ceremonial cleansing) with the new (the wine of salvation, the risen Lamb as the new temple). That is a new temple and a new sacrifice are about to take the place of the old rituals via Jesus\’ death. 

Passover? why is that significant to the chapter?

it was the most important of all the festivals because it commemorated the Israelite deliverance from Egyptian bondage and, moreover, the passing over of the angel of death in Exodus. It is believed that about 3 million Jews were in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. 

Basically: The priests sold the animals for sky-high prices and make a business out of worshipping God rather than being concerned with doing their priestly duties. 

Application: Do we have a zeal for God? Do we angry/response when God is used for personal ends? Do we hate that which drives others from God?

Paul writes that we are temples of the HS. Given Jesus\’ reaction of anger to a lesser physical temple, what would JC’s reaction be to have you treat your temple? Is it used in a God-honoring way? etc. 

[Explanation of \”Son of Man\” from Desiring God

Son of Man: John uses this phrase to show Jesus’ “Son of God”-ness and His “Son of Man”-ness 

Daniel 7:13-14 “As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.\”

The common understanding is that \”Son of God\” implies his deity—which it does—and that \”Son of Man\” implies his humanity, which it does too.

He was a son of man, that is, a human being. And he is the Son of God, in that he has always existed as the Eternally Begotten One who comes forth from the Father forever. He always has, and he always will. He is the Second Person of the Trinity with all of the divine nature fully in him.

He is born of a virgin. He had a human father but he didn\’t have sex with this virgin until Jesus was conceived. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary. Thus he is human—fully human. The Bible wants to emphasize that he is fully human.

So that\’s a common understanding: he is both divine and he is human—two natures, one person.

If you do a study of the term \”Son of Man\” in the Gospels you\’ll see that he didn\’t refer to himself most often as Son of God but as Son of Man. He said things like, in Mark 10:45, \”The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.\” So he calls himself Son of Man very often.

I think the reason he did so is that, on the face of it, Son of Man is an ordinary phrase for \”human being.\” He was born of a man. And there\’s no offense there: who isn\’t a son of man? But those with ears to hear could hear Daniel 7, in which he was claiming a very exalted role in the history of redemption. And he meant to do it.

Jesus was very subtle in that he was always opening his identity to those with eyes to see, but he wasn\’t opening it so blatantly that everybody would come and make him king. He had to steer a very narrow course in disclosing his identity, not just openly saying, \”I\’m the Messiah, I\’m the King of the World. Come and acknowledge me as King.\” He didn’t talk like that. So I hope that helps. \”Son of Man\” has the double meaning of human being and, according to Daniel 7, the exalted heavenly one. And Jesus means to communicate both of those.]


0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


Questions: “Therefore” if you could summarize Romans thus far in a sentence or two what would you say? Why is there no condemnation for those in Christ? Is there condemnation for those outside Christ?

Post: Blog2 Post
bottom of page