Jesus has now moved from Galilee (in the north) to Jerusalem (in the south) as the Jewish Passover feast was near (2:13). This is Jesus’ first visit to Jerusalem in this Gospel. Again John the author is highlighting belief (2:22), something that, as we have seen, is commonplace to the purposes of John’s Gospel.

As Jesus is in Jerusalem he goes to the Temple and finds people selling oxen, sheep, and doves and people exchanging money (v. 14). Jesus, dismayed at this, creates a whip and drives them all out, overturning tables and forcing out the animals (v. 15). His explanatory statement for his doing this is found in v. 16, “Don’t make my father’s house into a market!” The disciples present are said to remember that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me,” a quotation from Psalm 69:9.

Understandably the Jews present want to know by what authority Jesus can clear out the Temple. They ask, “What sign will you show us for your doing this?” (v. 18).

Jesus’ response is, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” (v. 19). Since this is said in the presence of the physical Temple it is understandable that the Jews listening would have understood him to be making a statement about that very Temple. Their response shows this and takes the cryptic nature of Jesus’ command to be about that Temple: “This Temple has taken 46 years to build, and you’re going to raise it up in 3 days?” (v. 20).

But, John tell us that he wasn’t speaking of the physical Temple in their presence, rather he was speaking about his own body (v. 21). No one properly understood it when he uttered it though. It wasn’t until after he was raised from the dead that the disciples remembered what he said “and believed the Scripture and the words which Jesus spoke” (v. 22). So in what sense is Jesus the Temple and what did it mean for the physical Temple standing in their presence at that time?

To fill in what Jesus was meaning by calling himself the Temple that would need to be destroyed and raised, it would be helpful to consider the purpose of the Temple, in very broad strokes, throughout the Old Testament period.

The Temple-proper begins with Solomon. His father, David, had in mind to build a ‘house’ for God but God advised David that his son would build it instead (2 Samuel 7). Solomon does indeed build this ‘house’ for God, what is known as the First Temple.

This so-called First Temple or Solomonic Temple didn’t come out of nowhere in Israel’s history. It was the first permanent structure but prior to this Moses was given instructions to build a Tabernacle that would move with the people in their desert wanderings. It was to be the dwelling place of God with his people. One may even move further back than this to the Garden of Eden but we’ll save that for another time (see e.g., G.K. Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission). In fact, I won’t trace it out now, but consider reading Revelation 4-5 and 20-22 for a picture of where this all eventually leads.

Back to Solomon’s Temple; it would not last. When Babylon invaded Judah in 587 B.C. the Temple was destroyed. It was subsequently rebuilt as the exiles returned to Jerusalem around 538 B.C. It was completed in 515 and known as the Temple of Zerubbabel (Wise, “Temple,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 811). This Temple would not stand in toto through its history and would need rebuilding, resulting in Herod’s building project starting in 20/19 B.C. (idem.). Herod’s ambitions were grand and while most of the Temple was built by the time of Jesus, internal adornments and continual work was being done. It so happens that 46 years had passed at the time relayed by our text in John 2. This period has come to be known as the Second Temple period (though the terminology is not completely accurate as the Temple at the time of Jesus was sort of a 4th Temple).

About this Temple, Ezekiel speaks of God’s glory leaving it (Ezek. 43:1-12), indicating that it was seen as a place where God’s glory dwelt and at a time to come (from Ezekiel’s day) would lack God’s presence. Many Jews believed in Jesus’ day that God’s presence indeed was not there as it had been in former days. But the Ezekiel text forecasts a day when God would dwell in his peoples’s midst forever.

Then Jesus shows up on the scene and declares in the Temple’s presence, “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up.” John later understands Jesus to be talking about his body declaring Jesus to be the new Temple that the Lord had envisioned. Jesus is the new meeting place with God. Jesus is the very presence of God, the one who became flesh and tabernacled (recall our study in 1:14) among us.

In making this pronouncement and then dying and rising, Jesus also made the physical Temple obsolete. And indeed the Temple would be destroyed in 70 A.D. in the Jewish-Roman war. It was no longer the meeting place with God. The new meeting place with God would be Jesus. Know Jesus and you know God.

This is the sign Jesus offers those who questioned his authority. The sign of his death and resurrection. His authority to cleanse the Temple would be the cross and the empty tomb.

The issue of glory has already surfaced in this Gospel. In the Prologue, John says that “we have seen [the Word's] glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (1:14, TNIV). We have seen that the Word would make known or reveal the Father to us (1:18). And now in this passage Jesus’ glory is said to be revealed to us (2:11).

This first sign is said to have revealed Jesus’ glory so it is fitting that John would include it in his narrative and that it would result in his disciples putting their faith in him, or believing in him (2:11). As previously seen, John’s purpose (as expressed in 20:30-31) is to show forth Jesus so that his readers would believe in him. This first sign is included for this very reason and it is the first time we see that his disciples ‘believe in him’ in that language (though belief is evidenced in Ch. 1 by the new disciples).

So, what is the sign? Jesus and his disciples find themselves invited to a wedding in Cana of Galilee. Jesus’ mother is also there. A problem arises, however; a big no-no in the ancient world (in ours too perhaps): they have run out of wine. The shame on the groom (the one responsible) would be enormous.

The mother of Jesus says to him, “They have no more wine” (v. 3). What appears to be a simple statement is understood by Jesus to be some sort of call for him to do something, as evidenced by his response, “Woman, why do you involve me?… My hour has not yet come” (v. 4). His mother next involves the servants at the wedding by saying to them, “Do whatever he tells you” (v. 5). Mary (who actually isn’t named as such) takes the mild rebuke in stride (or a rebuff as Keener calls it) by evidencing trust in what Jesus could do to remedy the situation. It is perhaps possible that Mary has approached Jesus in her first statement about the wine ‘on an inside track’ as his mother, but Jesus refuses to be approached by anyone on an inside track.

Jesus’ comment about his ‘hour’ is interesting. Jesus pushes back on getting involved since his ‘hour has not yet come.’ Throughout this Gospel Jesus speaks about his ‘hour,’ almost entirely in reference to the cross. It seems that Jesus would be hastening on the hour by getting himself involved in a way that would reveal his glory. He nonetheless does respond to his mother’s request and performs this sign. His hour is coming.

After a narrative comment about the stone water jars present, Jesus is quoted again telling the servants what to do. He takes the reigns, telling the servants to fill those jars to the brim with water and then draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet (vv. 7-8). The servants listen to Mary and thereby listen to Jesus and do just as he tells them. The master tastes it and is amazed at the quality of the wine, better than the first, though it was expected that the worse wine would be served after people had already had a little too much of the good stuff. This essentially is the story of the sign.

The narrative comment in v. 6 that I passed over may be significant. The water jars that Jesus uses for the wine are said to be the ones used by the Jews for ceremonial washing. In altering the purpose of these jars Jesus may be setting aside the purificatory rites and setting the shame of the groom needing rectification over against purificatory rites. Indeed there may be connections to the Temple narrative which follows this that I’ll explore later.

The long and short of it is that the road toward Jesus’ hour of the cross has begun and his glory is being revealed resulting in those around him believing in him.

Whereas John the Baptist would provide testimony of Jesus in his absence, he also provides it in his presence. The day after the interaction with the Jewish leaders (vv. 19, 29), John sees Jesus and announces, “Look! The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

A popular level book I read this week was quick to heap all sorts of heavy meaning into this clause, placing all our current understanding of the cross as expiatory sacrifice back into it. The result was talking about the Jewish sacrificial system and Jesus’ bloody sacrifice for our sins as the fullest understanding of “Lamb of God” in verse 29. But what did John the Baptist understand when he uttered these words? Was it a full blown understanding of Jesus coming to be a sacrificial lamb taking away the sin of the world?

In the first place, when John the Baptist said this it was pre-cross. That is, the death of Jesus on the cross had not yet occurred. And prior to the cross there is ample evidence showing that those around Jesus hadn’t understood and grasped that Jesus needed to be a suffering Messiah, a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Elsewhere Peter rebukes Jesus upon the prediction that he would be put to death (Matt. 16:22-23). In John’s Gospel, where we find ourselves, the disciples are slow to get the exact status and mission of Jesus, as in chapter 2 when he says, “Destroy this Temple and in 3 days I will raise it again.” The author tells us that it was not until after Jesus had died and raised again that they understood this had to happen from Scripture (2:22). John the Baptist, in Matthew’s Gospel, sends delegates to Jesus while in prison to ask if Jesus is the Messiah or if he should expect someone else (Matt. 11:2-3).

Having said that, I also think that the author, John, and his readers would have had a fuller understanding of what it meant that Jesus was the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. Knowing the end story (either by reading to the end of the Gospel or by knowing what historically happened) will inevitably and rightly colour a fuller understanding of Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. How did Jesus take on the sin of the world? Through his death on the cross; by being a sacrifice.

So, what then did John the Baptist mean by “Lamb of God”? Many suggestions have been offered and to be honest, I’m not quite if I’ve got this right and the delay in posting this study has been partly due to my uncertainty. While not the most pressing concern in the book, I also think it is worth thinking about since it would give us a picture of how “lamb” language was used prior to the cross of Christ in the early 1st century Jewish culture. But, I am going to admit my uncertainty on this point and move forward, maybe revisiting it later on. Given the Isaianic influence on the book, the servant of Isaiah 53:7 seems a possible allusion, and we can’t rule out undertones of the Paschal lamb being thought of as a sacrifice in this time period. Craig Keener argues such a point (John, 454). Others argue for an understanding of the Lamb in an apocalyptic sense (cf. e.g., Carson, John, 150).

What else can be profitably said to sum this section up?

John the Baptist, in vv. 29-34, is bearing further witness to who Jesus is with Jesus present. He is pointing out Jesus as the one that he said would come after him but is greater than him. He is bearing witness to Jesus being God’s Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. This is a significant claim in light of the (correct) assumption that only God could remove sin.

He further testifies (vv. 32-34) that he “saw the Spirit come down from heaven” on him and remain and this one would be the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. This one is God’s Son.* Jesus’ baptism is not recorded in the Fourth Gospel but has already happened by this point. At the baptism John saw the Spirit come down and remain on him and this is what convinced John that Jesus was the one he was looking for. Jesus was the one who would bring the Spirit to God’s people. With this, the narrative will rightly turn back to a focus on Jesus as the Baptist points him out for such focus.

*There is a textual variant here that I may deal with in a separate post.