The Glory of Weddings, Wine, and WorshipJohn 2:1-259/28/14

What I want, what I need more than anything is to see the glory of Jesus. And, even if you don’t know it, that is what you want and what you need more than anything else. Fortunately for all ofus, John’s Gospel is designed precisely to show us the glory of Jesus. I was listening to John Piper preach recently and he made a really helpful observation about John’s Gospel: seeing Jesus’s glory results in faith. He gets that principle primarily from John 2:11, where John says that Jesus manifested his glory. And the disciples believed in him. Piper said, “There’s the dynamic: glory is revealed; faith is born!”1

Piper also made the connection between seeing Jesus’s glory and receiving grace, and he points back to the Prologue, in John 1:16, which says, For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. In context, the “fullness” points back to verse14: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full ofgrace and truth. It is the fullness of glory, the fullness of Jesus’s glory, that provides “grace upon grace” for us. Piper explains it this way: “When God the Holy Spirit opens the eyes ofyour heart, in reading the Gospel, or listening to the preaching of the Gospel, to see the glory of Christ...that’s like a laser; that ‘sight-line’ to the glory is like a laser along which grace streams into your life: the grace of faith, the grace of love, the grace of peace, the grace of life everlasting, streams into your life along the laser of sight. It doesn’t come any other way. If you don’t see Christ as glorious, grace doesn’t come intoyour life. It comes along the spiritual ‘sight-line’ of glory.”2

1 John Piper, “Obedient Son, Ultimate Purifier, All-Providing Bridegroom,” sermon preached December 14, 2008, at Bethlehem Baptist Church inMinneapolis, MN. Video downloaded and viewed from http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/obedient-son-ultimate-purifier-all-providing-bridegroom

2 Ibid.1

So, I feel a burden this morning to show you Jesus’s glory. In fact, I feel that burden every time I preach. If you want grace from God, if you want growth in your Christian life, if you want help for enduring suffering, you need to see Jesus’s glory. And, as I already said, John’s Gospel is particularly designed to showyou Jesus’s glory, and the primary way John does this is through what he calls “signs.” As Pastor Barry introduced John’s Gospel, he indicated that John 1:19 through the end of chapter 12 is often called “the Book of Signs,” and he mentioned that there aretypically recognized to be seven signs recorded in these chapters.

Look at the chart in your sermon notes, and you can see the sevensigns.

Location Sign Verses

Referred toas

“Sign”

Public Resultsin Faith

Galilee

Water to wine in Cana 2:1-11 2:11 2:9 2:11

Jerusalem Cleansing the temple 2:13-

22 2:18 2:13-20 2:22-23

Galilee

Healing official’s son

4:46-54 4:54 4:48,

51 4:53

Jerusalem Healing lame man 5:1-16 7:31 5:3,

10-16 7:31

Galilee Feeding multitude 6:1-15 6:14,

306:2, 5-14 6:69

Jerusa Healing man born 9:1-7 9:16 9:8 9:35-38

2

lem blindBethany

Restoring Lazarus tolife

11:1-44 12:18 11:31-

45 11:45

Now, there’s some disagreement among students of Scripture as to which deeds of Jesus are supposed to be “signs.” Part of the confusion comes, I think, from the assumption we have about what the word “signs” means. When we hear that word, we automatically think “miraculous signs.” But, in the Old Testament, the term “sign” doesn’t always refer to a “miracle,” and I think John is using the word as it was used in the Old Testament.3 So, as you can see on the chart, I think Jesus’s action in the temple in ourpassage this morning should be understood as Jesus’s second sign.4 And, as the chart indicates, if we include the temple cleansing, there’s an alternation between a sign in Galilee, thena sign in Jerusalem, through the sixth sign; then the seventh sign occurs just outside of Jerusalem.5

The chart also helps you see what I think John’s criteria are foridentifying “signs.” They must be public actions; John must identify the action with the word “sign” somewhere in his narrative, and the action must result in faith for someone. Those

3 Cf. Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John (Black’s New Testament Commentary; London: Continuum, 2005), pg. 130, who writes, “In the LXX σημεῖον, sign, was used of visible phenomena, not necessarily miraculous, that conveyed further knowledge or meaning.” Likewise, see George R. Beasley-Murray, John (Word Biblical Commentary 36; Dallas: Word, 1999), pg. 33, who writes, “The concept of sign is familiar in the OT...; it is used especially of events, both normal and supranormal, that demonstrate the truth of God’s word through his prophet (e.g. Exod 3:12; 1 Sam 10:1-9) and so authenticate the prophet himself (e.g. Exod 4:1-9); it also denotes events that herald things to come, especially in relation to the eschatological future (e.g. Isa 7:10-16).”

4 For the most detailed defense of this understanding, see Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Seventh Johannine Sign: A Study in John’s Christology,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995): pgs. 87-103. Cf. also C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1953), pg. 303, who writes, “To sum up: it seems clear that both the Miracle of Cana and the Cleansing of the Temple are σημεῖα which signify the same fundamental truth: that Christ has come to inaugurate a new order in religion.”

5 Also pointed out by Köstenberger, “Seventh Sign,” pg. 102.3

criteria eliminate the other event that is sometimes said to be one of Jesus’s “signs”: his walking on water in John 6.6 The purpose of identifying these actions as “signs” is because they signify something;7 they have symbolic significance.8 Six of themare “miracles,” in the traditional sense of that word, but their miraculous quality is not the point. These signs reveal Jesus’s glory9 and fulfill what he promised to Nathanael in 1:51: Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.10

Well, that’s more than enough introduction; let’s jump in to John2. Last week, Pastor Barry showed us how the beginning of chapter2 concludes a week of Jesus’s activity. In 2:1, the reference to “the third day” sets us on the seventh day of this week, and, as Pastor Barry pointed out, this is probably intended to reflect the week of creation in Genesis 1.11 Jesus is starting up a new

6 The possibility that Jesus’s walking on water might not be a sign is noted by Frederick Dale Bruner, John: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), pg. 133.

7 As Pastor Barry noted in his introduction to John’s Gospel, this Gospel contains no parables from Jesus. It’s possible that the signs should berecognized as functioning similar to Jesus’s parables in the Synoptic Gospels.Cf. Beasley-Murray, John, pg. 33, who writes, “Our evangelist goes one step further in viewing the miracles as parables of the kingdom which comes through the total work of the Son of God” (emphasis original).

8 Alan Kerr, The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 220; New York: Sheffield, 2002), pg. 86, who writes, “But the Johannine σημεῖον is more than a miracle. It has symboliccharacter. The σημεῖον carries a deeper meaning than the actual happenings.”

9 This is suggested by the fact that the first and last of the signs areexplicitly connected to the revelation of Jesus’s glory. As a literary inclusio,it’s likely that John intends for us to recognize that all the signs in between the first and last are also intended to reveal Jesus’s glory. So suggests Lincoln, John, pg. 131.

10 N. T. Wright, John for Everyone, Part 1: Chapters 1-10 (London: SPCK, 2004), pg.21.

11 There are multiple ways of construing the days mentioned in John 1. Pastor Barry pointed out how it’s possible to perceive an additional day in verses 40-42. This is reflected in the chart produced by Andreas J. Köstenberger, “John,” in The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), pg. 2020, and explained more fully by Carson, John, pg. 168. However, it’s also possible that Andrew went to “find” Peter on his way to the place where Jesus was staying. In that case, there are only four days mentioned in chapter 1,

4

creation in his ministry. And, like the original creation, the first week climaxes with a wedding.12

Normally, when we hear the phrase “on the third day,” we think ofreferences to Jesus’s resurrection. It’s interesting that when weget to the resurrection in John’s Gospel, he doesn’t use that phrase. The fact that Paul writes in 1 Cor. 15:4 that Jesus “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” pointsus back to the Old Testament to find the importance of that phrase, “on the third day.” Two Old Testament verses may be in view. The prophet Hosea summons God’s people to repent and returnto their God after the judgment of exile. Then he says in Hos. 6:2, After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. Thus, Hosea envisions God resurrecting the people of Israel “on the third day.” Now, Hosea is referring to the people of God in his context, and he’s using resurrection language in a metaphorical way to refer to therestoration of God’s people. But, since Jesus represents and embodies faithful Israel, this may be a verse that Paul had in mind when he referred to Jesus’s resurrection “on the third day” as being “according to the Scriptures.”13

But perhaps a more important passage can be found in Exodus 19,14

where God summons the people to approach Mt. Sinai where he will appear to them and offer the covenant relationship to them. Exod.19:11 says, Be ready for the third day. For on the third day Yahweh will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. Verses 16-20 tell what happened on the third day: On the morning of the third day there were thunders and lightnings and athick cloud on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast, so that all the people in the camp trembled. Then Moses brought the

and “on the third day” of 2:1 sets the situation on the sixth day, which mightbe what John intended, to highlight the parallel with the wedding on the sixthday of creation. Others suggest that “on the third day” may not need to be counted inclusively, so that it means “three days later,” which would put the wedding at Cana on the seventh day. See Kerr, Temple, pg. 70.

12 Pointed out by Bruner, John, pg. 127.13 See the helpful discussion of Duane A Garrett, Hosea, Joel (New American

Commentary 19A; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997), pgs. 158-159.14 Following the lead of Lincoln, John, pg. 126.

5

people out of the camp to meet God, and they took their stand at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke because Yahweh had descended on it in fire. The smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled greatly. And as the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him in thunder. Yahweh came down onMount Sinai, to the top of the mountain. And Yahweh called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up. So, on the third day in Exod. 19, God shows up in power and reveals his glory. What we’re about to see in John 2 is God showing up and revealinghis glory for the first time in the person of Jesus. This moment is as significant as the moment in Exod. 19 when God revealed hisglory and terrified the people. But here, God’s glory doesn’t repel; it begins to attract!

Let’s see what happens. Look at verses 1-4: On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” The little village of Cana was hosting a wedding celebration. As Pastor Barry mentioned last week, Cana and Nazareth are very close to each other, so it’s easy to imagine how Jesus’s family would be invited to this wedding. Jesus’s disciples were also invited, and this probably refers specifically to the five disciples attached to Jesus in chapter 1: Andrew, Peter, John, Philip, and Nathanael.15

15 Cf. R. Kent Hughes, John: That You May Believe (Preaching the Word; Wheaton,IL: Crossway, 1999), pg. 61, who suggests that the presence of these discipleswith Jesus may have “caused Mary to speculate that it was time for his ministry to begin.” That is probably reading more into what’s written than is warranted. Also, see Carson, John, pg. 169, who observes, “‘The Twelve’ are mentioned in 6:67, but John provides no information as to how or when the other seven became followers of Jesus.” This is probably due to John having anexpectation that his original readers were familiar with Mark’s Gospel. See Richard Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark,” in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (edited by Richard Bauckham; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), pgs. 147-171.

6

Jewish wedding celebrations in the first century are known to have lasted, at times, up to a week, and it was the primary responsibility of the groom to ensure that there would be enough wine and food for all of the guests, who would come and go, throughout the week. In verse 3, we’re told that the wine ran out. This is not good.

Mary observes that the wine’s gone, and she comes to tell Jesus about it. Why? Well, while it is the responsibility of the groom to ensure that there is enough food and wine for the festivities,it was normal for him to do some delegation and to involve the friends of the family in providing some supplies.16 We can probably infer, here, that Mary and her family are very close to the groom and his family. Thus, Mary takes responsibility to attempt to get her friend out of a potentially disastrous social faux pas.

She simply tells Jesus about the problem, but clearly she wants him to act, to do something to fix the problem. But, what is she expecting him to do? It’s pretty clear that she doesn’t expect him to do some miracle; in verse 11, John is going to refer to what Jesus does here as “the first of his signs.” So, to this point in his life, Jesus hasn’t done anything that could be called a “sign.”17 That means that his mother isn’t expecting a miraculous display of any kind. She’s probably simply expecting him to take responsibility for the problem and figure out the best solution. She’s probably counted on Jesus, her eldest son, to act on behalf of the family many times in the past. Maybe she thinks he’s got business connections who will hook him up with some wine really quickly to supply for the rest of the wedding celebration.

Whatever she expects, Jesus’s response to her is certainly unexpected. In fact, Jesus’s response to her is down right weird!Look at verse 4 again: And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does

16 Charles H. Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, (Reading the New Testament Series; Macon, GA:Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2005), pg. 88.

17 Cf. Dan Lioy, “Jesus as Torah in John 2:1-22,” Conspectus 4:1 (March 2007): pg. 26.

7

this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” Let’s make three observations. First, he addresses his mother as “woman.” This is very strange. It’s not culturally normal in their day; this is weird! Why does he address her this way? Is he being rudeor disrespectful? Of course not!

The word “woman” in Greek was not a disrespectful way to refer tosomeone. But it was unheard of for a son to address his mother this way. So, what’s he up to? Well, certainly, the term implies some distance; it’s a bit impersonal.18 It’s not a term of endearment, so that it means something like “dear woman.”19 In fact, I don’t think there is an English equivalent that gets the right tone and force across. But, I do think there is a way to communicate the idea in English; the best way to think about it in English is addressing your mother by her first name. That’s kind of odd, but it’s not necessarily disrespectful. To call yourmother by her first name does not reflect the nature of your relationship with her. You’re treating her as a woman without a specific relationship implied. That’s what, I think, Jesus was communicating. He was addressing her as “woman” because she couldno longer relate to him as his mother. She didn’t have any motherly authority over him.20

By her approach, telling him of the problem, clearly expecting him to do something about it, she’s attempting to influence him as a mother would a son.21 Jesus distances himself from her, and,respectfully but forcefully, indicates that she can’t do that anymore.22

18 Cf. Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), pg. 105.

19 See the discussion of Carson, John, pg. 170.20 Cf. Lioy, “Jesus as Torah,” pg. 27, who writes, “Jesus’ words

indicate that He was no longer under His mother’s authority.”21 Cf. Gary M. Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan, 2000), pg. 91, who writes, “In some sense, Mary is presuming onher relationship with him as her son (Luke 2:51), yet Jesus is redefining this: He cannot act under her authority but must instead follow the course that has been determined for him by God.”

22 This must have been difficult for Mary. Cf. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), pg. 171, who writes, “But she, like every other person, must

8

Second, consider the question he asks her. The ESV translates it as, “what does this have to do with me?” This question reflects aparticular Hebrew idiom that is common in the other Gospels, but the only times outside of this verse that it appears it is being spoken by demons addressing Jesus. Demons aggressively question Jesus’s rights and authority to be stepping into their “territory” and “interfering” with their business.23 Here, Jesus is not being aggressive with his mother, but he is issuing a bit of a gentle rebuke. He’s asking her, essentially, “Why are you raising this problem to me? You don’t have any right to bring this problem to my attention and expect me to do something about it.”24

Third, he tells her why she doesn’t have any business attempting to get him to act. He says, “My hour has not yet come.” This is areally, really important statement. It’s important because the word “hour” is going to appear several times in John’s Gospel. I want to take a moment and help you see what this refers to because the term “hour” is used a couple of different ways in John’s Gospel. First, like here, there are references to “Jesus’shour.” Jesus speaks of “my hour” or John the narrator speaks of “his hour.” If you remember the outline of the Gospel, after the Prologue, you’ve got “The Book of Signs,” which is usually understood to be chapters 1-12. Then, chapters 13-20 is “The Bookof Glory.” Chapter 12, in some ways, serves as a transition between “The Book of Signs” and “The Book of Glory.” In “The Bookof Signs,” there are three references to Jesus’s hour which has not yet come. We see that here in 2:4 and then John will make this comment twice in 7:30 and 8:20. But, at the end of chapter 12, Jesus says that the hour has come (12:23, 27). John will

come to him as to the promised Messiah, the Lamb of God who takes away the sinof the world. Neither she nor anyone else dare presume to approach him on an ‘inside track’—a lesson even Peter had to learn (Mk. 8:31-33). For no-one could this lesson have been more difficult than for Jesus’ mother; perhaps that was part of the sword that would pierce her soul (Lk. 2:35). For this we should honour her the more.”

23 Cf. Bruner, John, pg. 129, who describes the demons’ perception that “Jesus interfered with their lives.”

24 Cf. the discussion of Carson, John, pgs. 170-171.9

repeat this in 13:1, and then Jesus will repeat it again, a thirdtime, in 17:1, at the beginning of his great prayer.

When we put all of these verses together, we can summarize what is to happen at Jesus’s hour. John 12:23 says that it is the hourfor Jesus “to be glorified.” John 13:1 says that it is the hour for Jesus “to depart out of this world to the Father.” So, Jesus’s hour is a way of referring to his death and resurrection,when he is glorified most peculiarly, and when he returns to heaven with his Father. In John 16:32, Jesus connects his hour with the hour of the scattering of the disciples. And in 16:25, Jesus points forward to a “new hour for revelation,” where he will reveal things plainly to the disciples. This presumably is the “hour” after his resurrection, when he gives the Holy Spirit to them.

But, within the Gospel of John, there are other references to “anhour,” particularly an hour that “is coming and is now here.” We see these references in 4:21, 23, and in 5:25. This is the “new hour for God’s people.” As he tells the Samaritan woman in John 4, the hour is coming and is now here when God’s true worshipers will worship him in Spirit and in truth. In John 5:25, Jesus indicates that the hour is coming and is now here when Jesus gives life to spiritually dead people by speaking his word, calling them to life. This is the “new hour for God’s people.” Just a few verses later, in 5:28, Jesus speaks of a future hour that is still to come, when he will raise all of the dead physically. Finally, in 16:2, 4, Jesus also speaks of a “new hourfor the world” that is coming, in which the people of the world will oppose the followers of Jesus violently.

So, with all that in mind, why does Jesus respond to his mother the way he does? “My hour has not yet come.” If Jesus’s hour has to do with his death on the cross, what does that have to do withhelping deal with a wine shortage at a friend’s wedding? Well, here’s my answer: I think it all has to do with revealing Jesus’sglory. If dying on the cross is the primary, climactic way Jesus will reveal his glory to his people, and all of the “signs” Jesusdoes in his ministry are supposed to reveal his glory to his

10

people, the only one who can tell Jesus that the hour has come toreveal his glory is his Father. His earthly mother has no right to attempt to jump-start Jesus revealing his glory.25

But his mother wasn’t really asking him to reveal his glory. But I think Jesus knew what he was going to do. I think he said this to his mother to help her, and everyone else, see that she had no“inside track” with Jesus; she had no special influence with Jesus because she was his mother. She had to come to him in faith—not as family—just like everybody else must come.26 That’s actually really good news for us.27 It doesn’t matter what kind of family you come from. It doesn’t matter if your parents never went to church a day in their lives. It doesn’t matter if your parents aren’t married, or have been divorced multiple times. It doesn’t matter if your family is filled with crooks and liars. That’s not a hindrance or an obstacle for you to trust Jesus.

And it doesn’t matter if your family is rich, or if your parents have gone to church every time the doors were open throughout their lives. It doesn’t matter if your parents have given millions of dollars to the poor or to the church. They and you still must trust Jesus to get close to him. Getting connected to Jesus happens only by trusting him and no other way. Even Jesus’sown mother had to learn this lesson. Well, Jesus is going to do more than she asked. He’s going to deal with the wine-shortage ina way she could never have imagined.

25 Cf. Rodney A. Whitacre, John, (The IVP New Testament Commentary 4; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), pgs. 78-79, who writes, “The word woman does not necessarily connote coldness, but the idiom ‘what [is there] to me and to you?’ does express either a harsh rejection or a mild form of detachment, depending on the context. Here it expresses distance but not disdain. It is part of the larger theme that Jesus is guided by his heavenly Father and not by the agenda of any human beings, even his family (cf. Jn 7:1-10; Mk 3:33-35; Lk 2:49).”

26 Cf. Lioy, “Jesus as Torah,” pg. 27, who writes, “Jesus wanted Mary tothink of Him not so much as the son whom she had parented, but rather as the Redeemer of Israel. Jesus used a social situation to point to a spiritual reality.”

27 Cf. Piper, “Obedient Son.”11

From his response, his mother somehow perceives that he will act.Look at verse 5: His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever hetells you.” Doesn’t that express her faith that Jesus will act onher behalf and on behalf of the wedding party? She doesn’t get huffy about Jesus’s rebuke of her; she submits humbly and instructs the wedding servants to do likewise; “obey whatever he tells you.” She leaves the matter to Jesus and expresses her confidence that he will do what is best.28

Let’s see what he does; look at verses 6-8: Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, eachholding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the masterof the feast.” So they took it. Here’s the sign; if you blink, you’ll miss it. John helps us see the significance of the sign, what the sign points to, how it reveals Jesus’s glory, but if we’re not paying attention, we’ll miss it. John points out these six water barrels, sitting off to the side, completely empty. John tells us what they’re normally used for; they’re used for bathing, ritual purification. They’ve been set out for this wedding ceremony. As guests enter the place, they would wash their hands and their feet and their faces in these huge water barrels. Also, the dishes and utensils used at the wedding would probably have been purified from the water in these barrels.29 They’ve already served their purpose for the day, as all of the guests have arrived, so they’ve been emptied out, and they’re just sitting there, waiting to be filled the next day. Jesus spots them and tells the servants to fill them with water now.

Can you imagine what the servants are thinking? “How does this help the wine shortage?? These barrels are for bathing, not for

28 Cf. Whitacre, John, pg. 79, who writes, “So she continues her request for him to do something about the problem, but she does so in a way that leaves him entirely free to respond as he will. So a key element in Jesus’ mother’s character, as in that of the first disciples, is her leaving of the initiative with Jesus. In this openness to Jesus’ will, we see her humility.”

29 Cf. Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), pg. 96.

12

drinking!”30 But, as servants, they obey orders, even when they probably think the orders are ludicrous. So, they fill these six water barrels, probably drawing water from the well outside, filling them up to maximum capacity. We’re talking about somewhere between 120-180 gallons of water. I think the average bathtub in our houses can hold about 40 gallons of water. So, we’re looking at three or four bathtubs filled with water. And, that’s what it is: bathwater!

Then, Jesus tells them to draw from these newly-filled barrels and take what they draw out to the head waiter, the master of thefeast. Did you see it? Nah, you blinked, didn’t you? We’re not told if Jesus touched the water, raised his eyebrow at it, prayed, or commanded the water to transform. It’s just there. Andthen, surprise! It’s wine! “There are no fireworks; only a deep satisfaction. We learn of the miracle through nothing visual but,as often, through a human conversation.”31

Look at verses 9-10: When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master ofthe feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone servesthe good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” Ha! John simply describes what the servants are carrying in their ladles or buckets or glasses as “the water now become wine”! How did it happen? He doesn’t say. Jesus willed it to change! The servants knew where it came from, but they didn’t tell the head waiter. That’s actually a running theme you can watch for in John’s Gospel, people not knowing where Jesus came from or where his power or authority came from.32 The head waiter simply assumes that the groom had an extra store of wine that he now brought outfor the partygoers to enjoy. The quality of this wine is extraordinary, far better than what they had been drinking

30 Cf. Piper, “Obedient Son,” who makes much of this contrast.31 Bruner, John, pg. 132.32 Bruner, John, pg. 140, points this out. See John 3:8; 4:1; 7:27-28;

8:14; 9:29-30; and 19:9.13

earlier in the week. And, they surely won’t run out now! 120-180 gallons left to go!

Verse 11 summarizes for us: This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. John tells us that this was the “firstof his signs.” Actually, that phrase could better be translated “the beginning of his signs.” There’s more where that came from!33 Signs in John’s Gospel reveal Jesus’s glory, and people are supposed to believe in response to seeing Jesus’s glory. That’s what signs are for, you see. Seeing glory results in faith. Then, faith enables one to see more glory! Notice that thewedding guests, the head waiter, the groom, remain completely ignorant of what Jesus has done.34 This sign was for his disciples alone. We’re not even told that the servants who knew what happened believed in Jesus. In fact, we’re not even told what Jesus’s mother thought about what he had done. The focus is entirely on his disciples, and they believed in him.35

So, what is the significance of the sign? What does it reveal about Jesus? Well, we can see at least four things. First, Jesus acts in place of the groom. He is the one who provides the abundant and super-high-quality wine for the wedding guests. That’s the prerogative and responsibility of the groom, but the actual groom here failed to provide for his guests. Jesus steps in as the successful groom and provides more and better than any human groom could ever provide.36 Jesus never fails to provide what we need, so we ought to turn to him when we have a need.

33 Cf. Ridderbos, John, pg. 113, who refers to this as “the foundation and pattern for everything that follows.”

34 Cf. Bruner, John, pg. 132, who writes, “The head-waiter didn’t know hewas talking about a miracle, nor did the bridegroom, nor, apparently, did any of the guests.”

35 Cf. Lincoln, John, pg. 134, who writes, “Only the disciples, who have not been involved in what happened and whose understanding of it is not explained, are said to have believed in Jesus as a result.”

36 Cf. Robert H. Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), pg. 356, who writes, “Though Jesus and his disciples are invited guests, he will turn out to be more the true host than a guest. For he’ll provide wine when the supply runs out.”

14

Second, the abundance of wine probably is intended to depict the abundant life that Jesus offers.37 God had often promised throughthe Old Testament prophets that the restoration and salvation of God’s people would result ultimately in a kingdom of rich abundance, depicted as overflowing amounts of wine.38 Wine in theOld Testament is sometimes symbolic of experiencing pure joy. Jewish rabbis even developed the saying, “Without wine, there is no joy.”39 They’re saying that the joy to be experienced by citizens of the kingdom of God is depicted as the provision and drinking of unlimited amounts of the best wine.

Third, Jesus does this sign at a wedding, which also connects to Old Testament expectations about the coming of God’s kingdom as agreat wedding feast. Jesus himself, in a few parables, compares the kingdom of God with a wedding celebration.

Fourth, Jesus’s wine replaces the purification rituals of the OldTestament system. Just as those purification barrels were empty, so also with the coming of Jesus, the purification rituals connected with the sacrificial system of the Old Testament have run their course.40 They are now replaced by Jesus with a greater, permanent purification that will be accomplished by his death on the cross.41 There is no other way to be clean before God; Jesus’s death alone provides the permanent cleansing that we

37 Cf. Gundry, Commentary, pg. 357, who writes, “To abundant quantity is added superior quality, then. Such is the eternal life that Jesus brings.”

38 Cf. Duane F. Watson, “Wine,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (edited byJoel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), pg. 873, who points to Gen. 49:11-12; Jer. 31:12; Joel 3:18; and Amos 9:13-14, as well as a few Jewish texts outside of Scripture.

39 Cf. Hughes, John, pg. 59, who points to Ps. 104:15; Isa. 55:1; and Judg. 9:13, and he adds, “We could very well translate Mary’s words, ‘They have no joy.’ At this precious time of life that should be filled with everything good, joy had run out.”

40 Cf. David J. MacLeod, “The ‘Year of Obscurity’: Jesus in the Shadow of John the Baptist,” Emmaus Journal 10:2 (Summer 2001): pg. 174, who writes, “The stone waterpots were filled to the brim suggesting that the ceremonial observances of the Jewish Law had run their course.”

41 Cf. Piper, “Obedient Son.”15

all need.42 The hour for this to happen has still not yet come, the hour when the Lamb of God will take away the sin of the world, but Jesus perceives that the time has come to begin revealing his glory and pointing toward that great revelation of glory in the cross. That’s what the seven signs are for.

Well, verse 12 shifts the scene and summarizes some movement, transitioning into the next story,43 and, as I mentioned earlier,I believe that we should recognize Jesus’s actions in the Temple as his second sign. Let’s dive right in; look at verses 13-14: The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen andsheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. Don’t miss the timing note. It is significant that Jesus heads to Jerusalem for the Passover feast. Now, John calls it “the Passover of the Jews,” and I think he describes it just that way as a reflection of his own time and audience, because, as Christians, they no longer celebrate the Passover festival, recognizing that Jesus has fulfilled all that the Passover festival celebrated and looked forward to.44 John will specifically highlight Jesus going to Jerusalem at Passover season, three times. One of John’s great purposes in this Gospel is to show how Jesus fulfills all of the Jewish festivals, especially Passover.45 He’s already shown how John the Baptist pointed Jesus out as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, which probably has some connections to the Passover lamb among others.

So, Jesus arrives just before Passover and finds an unpleasant situation in the temple courts. The word translated temple in

42 Cf. 1 John 1:7; Rev. 7:14.43 Cf. Köstenberger, John, pg. 100, who writes, “‘After this’ (μετὰ

τοῦτο, meta touto; the same phrase recurs in 11:7, 11; 19:28) indicates transition from one narrative to another, marking sequence but not tight chronology.”

44 So suggests Ridderbos, John, pg. 114.45 For a very helpful article on this subject, see Paul M. Hoskins,

“Deliverance from Death by the True Passover Lamb: A Significant Aspect of theFulfillment of the Passover in the Gospel of John,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52:2 (June 2009): pgs. 284-299.

16

verses 13 and 15 is a word that refers to the whole temple complex, and helps us see that these animal-sellers and money-changers are set up in the outer courts of the temple complex. Historically, we know that these things were set up in the Court of the Gentiles, specifically. Why are they here? Well, this was actually a service provided for Jews who traveled a long distanceto come to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices and celebrate the Passover festival. Think about how hard it would be for a Jewish pilgrim to bring his own sheep, having to travel maybe over 100 miles on foot. How are you going to keep the sheep clean and unblemished so that it can be accepted for sacrifice? That would be pretty hard, I think.

So, in years past, the Jewish leaders had established a market for buying and selling sacrificial animals, and a currency exchange so that the right kinds of coins could be brought into the temple treasury. Originally, this market was set up on the Mount of Olives, just outside of Jerusalem. But, according to some historical records, it seems that Caiaphas, the high priest during Jesus’s ministry, moved the market into the temple courts,into the Court of the Gentiles46 specifically, in order to gain some profit from the business. It’s possible that this Passover that John records was the first year that Caiaphas began doing this.47

So, what does Jesus do about it? Look at verses 15-16: And makinga whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changersand overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house ahouse of trade.” That doesn’t sound like “Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild” from the old hymn.48 In fact, it seems kind of violent.

46 Cf. Köstenberger, John, pg. 106, who writes, “Jesus faulted the merchants for disrupting Gentile worship in the only place that was open to them—the so-called court of the Gentiles—which was insensitive at best and evidence of religious arrogance at worst.”

47 For discussion and references, see R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (The New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), pgs. 443-444. See also Carson, John, pg. 178.

48 Charles Wesley, 1742.17

Some commentators try to soften the blow; don’t do that. We need to feel the weight of this moment.

Jesus finds some rope or some leather straps lying around and carefully twisted it together, to make his own makeshift whip. The word for whip is the word used for the instrument of flogging, which he will experience just before he is crucified. So, he makes one of those with his bare hands (the carpenter of Nazareth could craft a whip quite easily, I suspect), and then hegoes to using it. He chases the sellers and the animals out of the Court. He uses the whip, striking at them to get them all moving. He yells at the pigeon-sellers to get their birds and be gone!

Then he makes the key statement to understand the significance ofwhat this was all about. “Do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” These people had turned the temple into Canton. Y’all ever go to Canton Trades Days? I hate that place. My grandparentstook me there almost every month when the weather wasn’t bad whenI was a kid. The alleys with those booths are too close together.And there’s so many people crowded all around! Everybody’s talking and laughing and making racket! And then there’s the animals. They stink, and they’re barking and lowing and bleating!And I can’t stand it!

It’s hard to worship at Canton. That’s the picture of what’s going on in the temple,49 and that’s why Jesus is so enraged at what they have done. Their marketplace activity is preventing worship, particularly the worship of Gentiles who would come to the one true God. Jesus doesn’t like that.50

49 Cf. Carson, John, pg. 179, who describes the situation like this: “Instead of solemn dignity and the murmur of prayer, there is the bellowing ofcattle and the bleating of sheep. Instead of brokenness and contrition, holy adoration and prolonged petition, there is noisy commerce.”

50 Cf. Lioy, “Jesus as Torah,” pgs. 33-34, who writes, “Tragically, the presence of all this commercial activity prevented Gentile converts to Judaismfrom being able to worship and pray in the only approved spot of the temple area.”

18

This is the first reference on the lips of Jesus to God as his Father. You can miss it in the midst of Jesus’s rage. He calls the temple “my Father’s house,” and by so doing he recalls something in the Prologue that will become a major theme through the Gospel of John: Jesus’s identity as the Son of God. In this action, which I think we should see as one of Jesus’s signs (not miracles, remember), he reveals his glory, “glory as of the only Son from the Father,” as John said in 1:14. Jesus cleans out, empties his Father’s house. He gets rid of all the marketeers, all the traders. This might be the fulfillment of a prophecy, thevery last sentence of the book of Zechariah: And there shall no longer be a trader in the house of Yahweh of hosts on that day.51

But, of course, after this little demonstration by Jesus, this “act of prophetic symbolism” as Don Carson calls it,52 everythinggoes back to “normal.” Presumably, the sellers will return at thenext Passover, and Jesus won’t make a fuss again, at least for a few years.

Here we can raise the question about the other account of Jesus making a big ruckus in the temple, which Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describe as happening during Passion week, the last week of Jesus’s earthly ministry. Many students of Scripture believe thatJesus only did this kind of thing once during his ministry, and either John or the other guys have moved it chronologically for topical or theological purposes. Personally, I think that’s severely unlikely. And the most compelling detail that tells me that what Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe is a different event from this one in John’s Gospel, is the reason Jesus states for his actions. Here, he accuses the sellers of turning the temple into a marketplace; in the other Gospels, Jesus quotes two passages of Scripture to indicate that the Jewish leaders had turned the temple into a “den of robbers,” a headquarters of villainy, a place where wickedness is plotted and hatched.53

51 So suggests Dodd, Interpretation, pg. 300.52 Carson, John, pg. 179.53 This contrast between the two accounts is also observed by Whitacre,

John, pg. 82.19

I think it’s much simpler to recognize that Jesus actually did this kind of thing twice, once at the beginning of his ministry and once right before he was crucified.54 The Jewish leaders don’t try to come arrest him here probably because, at this point, he’s not known. He’s only done one “sign” at this point way out in Galilee, as far as John tells us. And the way the Jewish leaders respond here suggests that they’re more curious than anything, and they wonder whether he could be a legitimate prophet, since prophets were known to do this kind of thing, makepublic displays that have symbolic, prophetic significance.

But, before we see their response, we need to look at verse 17: His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” So, as Jesus’s disciples watch him do this,55 surely with their jaws dropped open, they recall Ps. 69:9, which is a psalm written by King David, calling out to God to rescue him from his oppressors. David’s suffering was because of his righteousness, and he calls on God to punish his oppressors. And then he notes that his suffering is a result of his zeal for God’s house, the tabernacle of David’s day, and he’sconcerned that the opposition he’s facing will reflect negativelyon God’s house, God’s presence, and God’s reputation.56 But it ishis zeal, his passion, that eats him up, and he won’t let it go. The disciples see this same kind of passion reflected in Jesus’s actions here; the words of the psalm are even more appropriate for Jesus to sing than for David!57 But, in making the verb

54 For a full discussion and support for this conclusion, see Carson, John, pgs. 177-178.

55 Some students of Scripture suppose that the disciples remembered thisScripture later, perhaps after the resurrection. But on other occasions when the remembrance occurs after the resurrection, it seems that John makes that explicit. Cf. Ridderbos, John, pg. 116, who writes simply, “The idea that we have here a later reflection (as in vs. 22 and 12:16) is not suggested by the text itself.”

56 Cf. Hughes, John, pg. 70, who writes, “David and our Savior identifiedso closely with God that when someone defamed the Lord, they too were defamed.What a wonderful thought for all of us—to be so identified with God and so in love with him that when his name is defamed or his glory somehow tarnished, wefeel it and experience that same holy anger.”

57 Cf. Lincoln, John, pg. 141, who writes, “With regard to the Scripture,it is not just that a proof-text, whose detail fits later Christian belief,

20

future tense, they actually speak better than they know, because it is zeal for God’s house, God’s presence, and God’s reputation that will ultimately result in Jesus being consumed in death. Butthey don’t know that just yet.58

Look at verse 18: So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you showus for doing these things?” Here come the Jews, which probably means the Jewish leaders in the temple, asking Jesus for a sign. They’re probably not opposing him here;59 rather, they want to see if he can demonstrate what authority he has to be sending themarketplace out of the temple, because this effectively stops thesacrifices from being offered, at least for a short amount of time. “How can this man do this? He’d better have some pretty amazing powers to prove that he’s got the right to judge what we’re doing in here as wrong.” And so they’re probably looking for a miraculous sign, specifically.60 But, Jesus just gave them the sign,61 but they don’t see the glory it signified,62 as it points forward to Jesus’s own death as the true Passover lamb which will permanently render animal sacrifices null and void andunnecessary.63

can be found, but that in the light of his resurrection Jesus can now be seen as the speaker of the psalm, as the righteous one, whose zeal for God’s cause leads to his suffering but later vindication.”

58 Cf. Whitacre, John, pg. 85, who also points out the “double meaning ofconsume.”

59 Cf. Whitacre, John, pg. 83, who writes, “Their request for a sign is not hostile; indeed they appear genuinely open to the possibility that Jesus might be able to defend his audacious activity.”

60 Cf. Lincoln, John, pg. 139, who writes, “Whereas for the evangelist a ‘sign’ is revelatory of the presence and glory of God in Jesus’ actions, for the opposition a ‘sign’ is a warrant whereby Jesus has to justify himself.”

61 Cf. Dodd, Interpretation, pg. 301, who writes, “In the words ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,’ Jesus is not promising a significant event yet to come, but inviting His questioners to see in the actual occurrence of the Cleansing of the Temple the σημεῖον they desire.”

62 Cf. Köstenberger, John, pg. 108, who writes, “True to the Jews’ spiritual blindness, they had missed the sign performed right before their very eyes.” This same kind of thing happens in John 6, where Jesus performs the “sign” of feeding the 5,000, but then the crowd who actually ate the meal come asking for a sign the next day, entirely missing the significance of the sign they had already seen and experienced.

63 Lincoln, John, pg. 137.21

Let’s see the rest of the dialogue; look at verses 19-20: Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” This is the first occasion of something we’ll see many times in John’s Gospel. A misunderstanding occurs because Jesus’s listeners take him too literally and completely miss the meaning of his words. Jesus consistently chastises people in this Gospel for taking him too literally. It will happen with Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, the crowd he feeds in chapter 6, and others.

Jesus plays their game, but on his terms. He says, “Alright; I’llgive you a sign. Set it up for me. If you destroy this temple, I’ll raise it up in three days.” You see, he’s commanding them, ironically, to destroy “this temple.”64 The term he uses for temple is a word that specifically refers to the temple building,the sanctuary, and not the outer courts. Jesus is speaking at twolevels; this, too, will happen many times in John’s Gospel. On the one hand, Jesus is referring to the temple building, and he seems to be indicating that they are already in the process of destroying the temple building because of their marketeering. They’re using the temple for purposes other than what God intended. So, Jesus says, essentially, “Keep on doing what you’redoing; you’ll destroy this temple. But, don’t worry; I’ll raise it up in three days.”

The Jews only pick up on this level of meaning, and, perhaps understandably, they are left scratching their heads. The ESV footnote is probably a better translation of verse 20: “This temple was built forty-six years ago.” The temple building had been standing for 46 years,65 so they’re confused that Jesus

64 Cf. Kerr, Temple, pgs. 87-88, who gives as examples of ironic commandsin the Old Testament prophets Am. 4:4 and Isa. 8:9-10, as well as Matt. 23:32 from Jesus’s encounters with the Pharisees.

65 There is significant debate about the proper translation of this verse and what it refers to. The most natural translation of this verse would indicate that the temple had been completed 46 years before. How one understands this verse influences how one dates the ministry of Jesus. With this conclusion, according to information from Josephus, the primary part of

22

would even tell them to destroy the building just so he could provide a sign for them. No way would they give him the opportunity to do this!66 However, incidentally, this temple building would be destroyed 40 years after Jesus makes this statement, and, in many ways, the Jews were responsible for that as God’s judgment.67

John helps us see what we otherwise probably wouldn’t get either in verses 21-22: But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scriptureand the word that Jesus had spoken. The disciples were listening to this conversation, but they didn’t understand Jesus’s words either until after the resurrection. This, too, is a theme that appears multiple times in John’s Gospel; Jesus’s true disciples will only recognize the truth of certain things Jesus says and does after the resurrection, when he has given the Holy Spirit tothem. This is primarily what Jesus is referring to in John 14:26,when he tells the disciples, But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.John’s Gospel is a product, as are the other Gospels, of the HolySpirit bringing to remembrance all that Jesus said and did in their midst, so that they could write it down accurately and provide the true meaning and significance of these events. The

the temple building (not the outer courts) was completed in the year 18 B.C., so this event takes place in the year 30 A.D. For a clear and helpful discussion of all the issues, see Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Date of Jesus’ Crucifixion,” in The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), pgs. 1809-1810.

66 Cf. Köstenberger, John, pg. 110, who writes, “The logic underlying Jesus’ statement may become clearer when his opponents’ question is understoodas containing an ellipsis: ‘This temple was built forty-six years ago—and has stood all that time ever since then—and you want us to destroy it just so you can raise it up again in three days?’ To be sure, they had demanded a sign, but to ask them to tear down the temple just so Jesus could provide the requested sign by rebuilding it within three days—an obvious impossibility—wasclearly beyond the pale of what they were willing to do.”

67 Cf. John Piper, “Destroy This Temple, and in Three Days I Will Raise It Up,” sermon preached December 21, 2008, at Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN.

23

Spirit enabled the disciples to believe the Scripture, perhaps specifically Ps. 69:9 and how it applied to Jesus, and the Spiritenabled the disciples to believe Jesus’s words, so that they understood that he was speaking of the temple of his body, and not only the temple building in Jerusalem.68

Thus, on the second level of meaning, Jesus tells them that they will destroy his body, they will kill him. Thus, as Ps. 69:9 hinted, zeal would consume Jesus all the way to death.69 As the sacrificial Lamb of God, the application of Ps. 69:9 to Jesus is even more appropriate because the verb “consume” is often used todescribe what happens to a sacrificial lamb on the altar, consumed by fire as an offering to God.70 But, Jesus himself willrise as the new and final temple.71

This sign highlights Jesus’s replacement of the temple in Jerusalem, just as the wine signified Jesus’s replacement of the ceremonial purification required under the Mosaic Law. Jesus is bringing “grace in place of grace,” as John said in the Prologue (1:16).72 Jesus spoke of himself like this in Matt. 12:6: I tell you, something greater than the temple is here, and Jesus’s demonstration shows that he has authority over his Father’s houseto define what is appropriate in worship and in the presence of God. Jesus emptied the courts of these sellers and of all the sacrificial animals, so that only he, the Lamb of God who takes

68 Cf. Lincoln, John, pg. 141, who adds, “It is significant that for the narrator Scripture and Jesus’ word can be spoken of in the same breath as the object of belief.”

69 Kerr, Temple, pg. 67.70 Kerr, Temple, pg. 85-86.71 Cf. Beasley-Murray, John, pg. 41.72 Cf. Bill Salier, “The Temple in the Gospel according to John,” in

Heaven on Earth: The Temple in Biblical Theology (edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Simon J. Gathercole; Carlisle, England: Paternoster, 2004), pg. 129, who writes, “The paradigm established by 1:17 [sic] leads to the view the statementhere is one of replacement in the sense implied by ‘charis anti charitos’. Jesus can therefore be presented as positive about the Temple as his Father’s house and, at the same time, point towards its replacement in his own body.” His reference to 1:17 is surely a typo, whereby 1:16 was intended.

24

away the sin of the world, and the needy, sinful worshipers remained.73

What was the temple for? It was a place where God met with his people, where people could pray to and worship God, where people offered sacrifices to God, and where people learned God’s Word. It was the place where God dwelt with his people, the place wherehis glory resided. Jesus is everything that the temple was supposed to be, and when the Son of God comes into the world, there is no more need for this physical building.74 Jesus is the person in whom people meet with God, in whose name people pray toand worship God. Jesus offered the final sacrifice for sins, so that people no longer need to offer animals to atone for their sins. Instead, God calls us to offer our whole lives as living sacrifices, constantly engaged with God in worship, wherever we go and whatever we do; “all aspects of life [are now] sacred” forthose who trust in Jesus.75 In the Prologue, John had said that the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. Jesus replaced the tabernacle as the dwelling place of God, and so here he replaces the temple as the permanent dwelling place of God.76

73 Salier, “The Temple,” pg. 123. See also Piper, “Destroy This Temple,”who observed, “And there is no reference here to the people who needed the animals—the pilgrims who were buying the sheep and pigeons. The anger is all directed at those who were selling and handling the currency.”

74 Cf. Lioy, “Jesus as Torah,” pg. 33, who writes, quoting Hoskins, “[T]he Son, as the ‘true Temple’ of God, ‘fulfills, surpasses, and replaces’ the shrine in Jerusalem, along with the religious festivals associated with it, namely, the Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, and Feast of Dedication. It isthrough the death, resurrection, and exaltation of the Son that the Father replaces the old temple order with the new temple order. Jesus, as the antitype of the Jerusalem sanctuary, has become the ‘locus of God’s presence, glory, revelation, and abundant provision.’”

75 Cf. Lincoln, John, pg. 138, who writes, “The trading previously associated with the sacrificial system will not be necessary, because in the end-time worship of Yahweh as king all aspects of life will have become sacred....The saying of John’s Jesus underlines the significance of his action. It constitutes a prophetic gesture pointing to the end of the present temple order and its sacrifices in the expectation of their replacement by thenew arrangements appropriate for God’s eschatological presence in Jerusalem.”

76 Cf. Kerr, Temple, pg. 82, who writes, “John’s narrative contains intimations that Jesus himself, as the new Temple, will be destroyed and raised again. There is therefore no future for the old Temple and its sacrifices. God no more dwells within its walls, and its sacrifices have been

25

Ironically, that glory is going to be most clearly revealed when the temple of his body is destroyed in death.77

In telling the Jews that he would raise up the temple in three days, he was claiming to be the prophesied Temple builder from the Old Testament. Zech. 6:12-13 refers to “the Branch” “who shall build the temple of Yahweh and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne.” That “branch” was to be the great descendent of David, the King who was to come. Jesus is that temple builder!78 This is how this sign revealed Jesus’s glory, the glory of the temple-builder who replaces all that traditional Jewish worship had to offer with himself.79 Jesus will continue to participate in Jewish worship in the Gospel of John, but he only does so to show that he himself fulfills every aspect of it.80

What do you need today? Do you need forgiveness of sins? Go to Jesus; no other temple will do. Do you need cleansing? Do you feel dirty, ashamed of your past, or maybe even your present? Go to Jesus; no other temple will do. Do you want to worship the living God? Go to Jesus; no other temple will do. God commands nopilgrimages to Jerusalem; you don’t have to go to any particular place to worship the living God.81

Let me make one crucial point of application right here.82 This building that we’re sitting in is not “the house of God.” Church replaced by Jesus, the Passover sacrifice. Jesus is now the house of the Father. God dwells in Jesus.”

77 Cf. Whitacre, John, pg. 85.78 Cf. G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament

in the New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011), pgs. 632-633, who writes, “He would be the end-time temple-builder by raising it up in the form of his body, in line with OT prophecies that predicted that the Messiah would build the latter-day temple (again, see 2 Sam. 7:12-14; Zech. 6:12-13).

79 Cf. Talbert, Reading John, pg. 95, who summarizes traditional worship like this: “Proper worship is in sacred space (a temple), using sacred means (a sacrificial cultus), at sacred times (e.g., festivals), and is presided over by sacred people (priests). This was traditional worship.”

80 Talbert, Reading John, pg. 96.81 Cf. Piper, “Destroy This Temple,” who paraphrases Jesus as meaning,

“I am the new temple. When I raise my body from the dead, everywhere in all the world, people may come to God through me. There will be no pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There will be no hajj to Mecca.”

26

buildings are not temples. So, when you’re teaching your kids that they shouldn’t run in church, don’t tell them that it’s because “this is God’s house and you ought to respect God’s house.” This building does belong to God in the same way that your house belongs to God or in the same way that the White Housebelongs to God. It’s his property. But there is nothing particularly sacred about this building. Or this room. I think itwould be good if we stopped calling this room the “sanctuary.” This room is not God’s holy space. Jesus is the only sanctuary! Jesus is the house of God! And we Christians are God’s temple, because we’re connected to Jesus Christ, the final temple.83

The last few verses of this chapter provide a transition to Jesus’s encounter with Nicodemus. These words of John, however, are difficult. Let’s take just a few moments and see if we can untangle them a bit. Look at verses 23-25: Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew whatwas in man. Many believed in Jesus’s name...but Jesus didn’t “entrust himself to them.” What is going on here? It seems that there is a faith, that is not genuine faith. “Some belief is not saving belief.”84 That’s a terrifying thought. So, let’s explore what is apparently deficient about this believing that causes Jesus to recoil, not to give himself over to these people.

82 This point was stimulated and stirred up by Piper’s sermon, “Destroy This Temple.”

83 Cf. Gundry, Commentary, pg. 359, who puts it so well: “Jesus is the Word that became flesh, and the Word is God. So his body is the dwelling placeof God that outmodes the sanctuary in Jerusalem just as his being the lamb of God outmodes the animal sacrifices. He’s both the new temple and the new sacrifice.” Also, cf. Beale, New Testament, pgs. 633-634, who explains why there are no good biblical reasons to anticipate another physical temple beingbuilt in Jerusalem with any prophetic significance. Ultimately, as he points out, Jesus as the final temple fulfills all the prophetic anticipations of a future temple.

84 A phrase borrowed from John Piper, “He Knew What Was in Man,” sermon preached January 11, 2009, at Bethlehem Baptist Church

27

John says, “many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing.” Now, let’s remember the purpose of John’s Gospel, recorded in John 20:30-31: Now Jesus did many signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus isthe Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John has written down these seven signs so that hisreaders may believe in Jesus and have eternal life in his name.85

So, the goal of the signs is that people would truly believe thatJesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and would experience eternal life in Jesus’s name. Remember what we said at the beginning of this sermon: seeing glory produces faith, and Jesus does these signs to reveal his glory. The problem is that people may believe in Jesus only because of the sign and not because they see the glory of Jesus.86 Do you see?Jesus’s disciples saw Jesus’s glory when he turned the water intowine and they believed in him. That’s the kind of faith that Johnand Jesus call for. But, many people saw Jesus’s signs and “believed in him”—maybe concluded that he was a prophet, or a teacher, or a strong leader who could conquer the Romans—and theydidn’t see the glory of Jesus, who he really was as the Messiah and Son of God who was sent to suffer and die for their sins. They didn’t see that! And so Jesus isn’t pleased with their believing.

Nicodemus is probably a good example, and these verses are intended by John to introduce Jesus’s encounter with Nicodemus. This “ruler of the Jews” comes to Jesus saying, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these

85 Cf. Lincoln, John, pg. 131, who writes, “Here the disciples have been shown to have already a considerable measure of belief in Jesus (cf. 1:35-51) and so presumably the sign strengthens and confirms them in that belief. More generally, the evangelist will be concerned neither to advocate a faith that is merely dependent on signs nor to devalue such signs. Instead the self-disclosure of Jesus through the signs is seen as creating the conditions whichcan initiate or reinforce the response of faith (cf. e.g., 10:37-8; 11:15; 20:31).”

86 Cf. Köstenberger, John, pg. 116, who writes, “Although it is through his signs that Jesus reveals his glory (2:11; cf. 1:14), and though they are the occasion for his disciples’ faith (2:11), the seeing of signs does not necessarily lead to faith.”

28

signs that you do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). We’ll let Daniel unpack the story for us next week, but we’ll see that Nicodemus is an example of a man whom Jesus knows everything about, and he knows that Nicodemus doesn’t know as much as he claims to know!

We will encounter this difficult reality again in this Gospel. John speaks of disciples who don’t believe. For example, John 6:60 indicates that Jesus is addressing his disciples, and then in John 6:64, Jesus says, But there are some of you who do not believe. John then adds a parenthetical note: For Jesus knew fromthe beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him. Then, in verse 66, John writes, After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. Sad. So, John’s Gospel has a category for people who follow Jesusaround, who claim to be his disciples, who are even called his disciples, but they are not genuine believers.

The reason John gives in verses 24-25 that Jesus would not “entrust himself” to these people is that Jesus knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man. Let me issue a loving warning. Jesus knows if you’re just “playing church”; he knows if you’re just giving lip-service when you come to this building and sing songs about him. He knows if hearing about what he’s done for you means absolutelynothing to you; he knows if reading his Word or hearing it preached bores you to sleep. You can’t fool him. We might be fooled; you might even fool yourselves, and that should be one ofthe scariest truths of all. But, you can’t fool Jesus. And...he loves you, even when you’re uninterested. He loves you, even though you can’t see him. This morning even, he is calling to you, inviting you to see his glory in these signs and to believe in him, with a true faith, that sees him as he really is.

There is a Rabbinic tradition that says, “Seven things are hiddenfrom man—the day of death, the day of consolation, the depths of judgment, one’s reward, the time of the restoration of the Kingdom of David, the time when the guilty kingdom will be

29

destroyed, and what is within another.”87 John has already clued us readers in on Jesus’s identity as “the Word” who “was God.” Fullyhuman, but also more than human. Jesus knows everything about these disciples, and he knows everything about you and me. He knows everything about our weaknesses, about our failures. And the beautiful thing about that is that he still loves us, still invites us to come close to him. He’s the only person in the universe who knows you completely and totally. No one needs to introduce him to you; he already knows everything about you. And he loves you.88

87 Cited by Talbert, Reading John, pg. 101 (emphasis Talbert’s).88 This point was stressed by Piper, “He Knew.”

30