[Transcript represents full sermon's text]

       John chapter 2, starting in verse 1: “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.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you” (ESV).

       Three days later from where we left off last time, and that was the calling of Philip and Nathanael, we find ourselves Cana. This area is supposed to have been about nine miles to the north of Nazareth. So, in the days prior, those days which aren’t recorded in the record, Jesus’ and his disciples were traveling. The dedication of these early disciples becomes apparent in how they immediately left John the Baptist behind and went with Jesus. Demonstrated too is their commitment to John the Baptist, as they took him at his word and went with this guy, Jesus, whom they didn’t even know. Now, this wedding would not of had the same kind of setup we think of in twenty-first century America when it comes to a celebration of marriage. Of course, in our day, a wedding event usually just lasts a few hours. You know, an hour or so at the church, and then maybe an afterparty which lasts two or three hours. It’s a pretty quick event, if you stop and think about it. All that preparation and deliberation over basically three hours. Back in the first century Jewish culture, a wedding would last around a week. And before this, when the couple was engaged, they were basically legally married. Only a divorce could break the engagement. They didn’t live together, but the union was a legally binding one.

       Now marriages back then took place at the groom’s house. Both Jesus’ and his mother’s presence at the event suggests that there were probably family connections with this wedding, and Jesus simply wasn’t a friend of the bride or groom. And not only that, but also we can suppose that Mary, the mother of Jesus, likely had some kind of role in the wedding since she points out to Jesus the problem of the wine having run out. Yet, it’s an interesting social scene, as Jesus shows up to the wedding with his two new friends, both Philip and Nathanael, including others like John. A definite good look for Jesus. Though, as an aside, and the mind has wondered about this from time to time, for one has to wonder, with Jesus being about 30 years old at this time, what people thought of the fact he wasn’t married? It is presumed he was at least a relatively attractive guy. His physical condition was likely pretty good, as he had been working as a carpenter. Nevertheless, this mystery to many may have caused him problems. It seems that this would likely have been the case. For one, there had to be a lot of ladies who thought he would be the prefect match for them. And a lot of those ladies would be disappointed, and it probably made him feel bad at the same time. And too, people might have suspected some kind of immorality in him, like that he was promiscuous or even worse. All this is said to help anyone out there understand that Jesus faced the same kinds of problems some of you may be facing. He understands them.

       Misunderstanding and misapplication can set in when trying to understand Jesus’ response to his mother about the wine. It is true that Jesus does give his mother Mary sort of a tone in calling her “Woman” instead of “Mother.” The point, though, he was making was the he had now begun his earthly ministry, and was in the process of fulfilling the call of God on his life. In effect, he was stating now a difference existing between him and her. No longer would she simply be his mother, but like the rest of the people around, one who would have to depend on him as her Lord for the sacrifice for her sins. He was changing the status of that human relationship, in a sense, though this doesn’t mean he still didn’t think of her as his own mother. The point comes in every person’s life, whether we are talking about a man or a woman, where that relationship changes. That’s normal; there’s nothing wrong with that. A lot of times it occurs when a person goes off to college, moves out by themselves, or gets married. But this action by Jesus, in how he addresses his mother, is not likely something that we ourselves, here in twenty-first century America, are supposed to put into practice. Sure, we put into practice that natural separation that occurs with everyone, but we have to remember that Jesus was the Messiah, and he had a whole other mission altogether of being here on the earth. He wasn’t simply just Jesus, the carpenter, who was the son of Mary. He was God in human flesh, walking the earth.

       Kind of ironically, even after Jesus makes his point of the difference in relationship, she still seems to tell him what to do, and he still does what she says. Perhaps it’s that human side of Jesus, that compassion, that comes forward at this moment. He obviously loves his mother. He had just basically said that he didn’t want anything to do with the situation, and that the time of displaying his power among the people hadn’t quite come.

       Verse 6: “Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding 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 master of the feast.” So they took it.”

       It would seem, and it’s likely a good guess, that Mary was aware of Jesus’ ‘power,’ if you will. That would clearly explain why she asks him to take charge in this situation. Perhaps he had demonstrated his power at home in some way, shape, or form in the past. The scene brings to mind, during the college years and thereafter, of a popular T.V. show that used to watched called ‘Smallville,’ which had its run from 2001 to 2011. For those who have seen it, you remember these types of circumstances that the main character, Clark Kent (that is, Clark before he was Superman) would find himself in. He had this secret that he possessed this great power—which in his case was the fact that he had great strength and speed, and not to mention he wasn’t even from the planet earth. And most didn’t know about these abilities, save his parents. All of us can probably relate to this type of situation at one point in our lives or another. But the point is that Jesus’ circumstance seems similar to Clark’s, and that’s why it came to mind.

       The image that comes to the mind also when considering these jars are giant glass jars—like giant cookie jars. And while that might seem humorous, and while it would be nice to have cookies in that kind of abundance, it’s more probable that these “jars” as the text calls them, were of a stone basin variety. Made of stone—tuff and durable. The “Jewish rites of purification” mentioned had to due with ceremonial cleansing in seemingly trying to stay true to God’s law prescribed in the Old Testament. Now, a lot of this kind of stuff (these practices) had been added by the Jewish religious leaders, and really weren’t part of God’s original law. This may explain the lack of hesitation on Jesus’ part in using these ceremonial jars for the wine. It was as if he was taking a stab, howbeit in a covert manner, at the additions or extra rules that had been overlayed upon God’s law. This will be one of Jesus’ personal pet-peeves if you will, if we can call it that, over the course of his ministry. There is not great caring on the part of Jesus for ‘religious’ practices that only build up pride and do not help a person become more devoted to God from the heart.

       Verse 9: “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 of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.”

       The cat gets let out of the bag, so to speak, about Jesus’ capabilities. The verses tell us that two groups of people became aware of what he had done. We have the people who drew the water, “the servants,” and also Jesus’ disciples. The first group, obviously, was outside his inner-circle, and that meant that the word was going to spread. People who weren’t following Jesus had just seen what he did. Now the question may come to mind as to why God would turn water into wine? It seems that in our-post prohibition mindset in America, if that may be said, that would be a thought that could come to the mind of some Christians, those who abstain from any alcohol in all manners and forms. To what degree people drank at this wedding ceremony, that cannot be ascertained. Logic presumes that at least some people would have drank too much, since the Jewish society was affected by the sin-nature like everyone else, and not everyone would have followed Judaism to perfection anyway. Yet, God doesn’t seem too concerned about controlling whether or not people drank too much. At the end of the day, that’s on them. That’s their responsibility. But it’s also unlikely to presume that most at this wedding party were in fact ‘drunk’ so to speak.

       Moving on. Verse 12: “After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days.”

       The reason behind the journey of Jesus, his mother and brothers, as well as his disciples, to Capernaum isn’t clear. Historically, Capernaum was a village located on the sea of Galilee, on the northwest part. Nevertheless, the journeying of the collective group together shows that, unlike the impression some may have picked up in the last section, that Jesus’ isn’t against his mother, or no longer associates with her or anything like that.

       A couple more things can also be observed by the last verse. First, we can note the lack of Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, in this picture. Most theologians have supposed that Joseph had passed away by this point in time. That means, given that Joseph was probably anywhere from 15 to 25 years old when Jesus was born, that he must have passed away by the time he would have reached 45 to 55 years old, which seems within common experience for that time-period. It could also be that he was killed in accident or something of that nature. We just don’t know. But it does appear likely that he had passed away by this point in time. The second thing to be noted, and this is not really an issue for most Evangelicals, Protestants, or Anabaptists, is that the verse notes Jesus as having “brothers.” So, this would be “brothers” in the flesh, as the verse also lists the disciples separately. Technically, then, his half-brothers. This clearly demonstrates for us that the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the idea that Mary remained a virgin her whole life, is shown to be incorrect. Yet, this is the belief to this day of the Eastern Orthodox Christians, Catholic believers, and some Protestants. It was also a predominate belief among the early church fathers.

       Verse 13: “The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a 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-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

       The reason for the journey to Jerusalem is clear. The purpose was to celebrate the Passover feast. Even though Jesus was changing the way people would worship God, he still observed Jewish traditions. And this Passover was one of three Passovers that would occur annually in Jewish culture. This particular one, which John identifies as “The Passover of the Jews” was a remembrance of when God saved the Israelites from their bondage of slavery in Egypt, and we recall that the homes were passed over which had the blood on the doorposts. That event is found in Exodus chapter 12. This would have been a big deal for the Jews, probably on the scale of what Easter is like nowadays for Christians.

       Upon Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem, John records Jesus’ cleansing of God’s Temple, as we have come to call it. Now what is this all about? Did Jesus’ have a bad moment and lose it, or go crazy or something? Well, we can start our understanding by looking at the people that Jesus was dealing with. And really, the issue was that some Jewish folks had set up shop in on the Temple grounds in order to sell people, all the travelers coming into Jerusalem, animals for their sacrifices. Journeying with those appropriate animals would have been difficult, so the dealer folks thought they would provide them with a service. The second group of people on the Temple grounds were the money-changers. People needed the correct kind of currency that would be accepted by the Temple for people’s Temple Tax (yes, indeed, a tax was charged when going into the Temple; probably wouldn’t go over well here in the United States).

       Nonetheless, these services being provided weren’t necessarily the problem. That they were doing that on the Temple grounds, that was the real problem. In the Old Testament, the Temple of God was where God’s presence would come and go. It was literally the House of God. This was the way God would return to the earth, if you will, during that old setup. Second to be considered is the whole spirit behind the coming of the people to worship God. This problem lies in the loss of meaning of it, that they lacked any mindfulness or heart to the occasion. People were just ‘going through the motions’ and didn’t have any ‘real’ heart in what they were doing. Journey would be made for the Passover, an animal purchased, money changed out, and they would keep it moving. The true meaning around the whole thing had been lost. And, this scene really points to the heart of God, how God doesn’t want things to lack mindfulness and heart. We can evaluate what is behind our own worship today, and whether that worship has become stale and routine, and lacks any real substance.

       So, quickly, and the question may be arising from some, is it wrong for churches to have shops inside them today? We certainly see it from time to time. The short answer is, probably not. With the heart in focus, it all depends on that aspect of the practice. From the personal experience, churches attended, have stores inside them were for the betterment of the church-goers. That is, they were generally book and audio stores, selling the latest Christian self-development or theological books, and sermons of that particular church, or even Christian music. So, in that case, it doesn’t seem it would be wrong. Now, if a church thinks it would be wrong and doesn’t want to do it, they shouldn’t do it.

       What modern-day equivalent to what happened on the Jewish Temple grounds could we bring to mind? We might imagine items being displayed for sale while waiting on a church service to begin, on those screens on the walls, or even during a church service. Commercials within the service. Perhaps for items that have nothing to do with the core-essence of church. Like, if it was advertising coffee or soda, or clothes or something else, that would be a bit off base it would seem, and may make God unhappy. The closest thing witnessed in the church-going experience would probably be three different churches attended at which secular music was played before or during the service. That really brought surprise to the mind when it occurred. The potentiality there to make God unhappy seems possible, especially if done on a regular or routine basis. Jesus had a serious tone in the Temple, and it doesn’t hurt for us, at the beginning of service or during service, to try to at least, at times, have a similar vibe and expression.

       Verse 18: “So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 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?” 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 Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.”

       Jesus displays a covert way of speaking at times. It is really exemplified when he gives his parables, those found in the other Gospels, and here it is put before us. Indeed, this, at times, used to be a personal practice when speaking to people. Something would be said that was a little cryptic, which had a double-meaning. And it was found that it often times led to confusion, and people did not understand what was meant. So, generally speaking, it’s not something that is practiced anymore. Seemed like it caused more harm than good. Anyway, Jesus had good reason for not speaking plainly about the matter. If he had spoken plainly as to who he was, and what he was doing, they certainly would have stoned him or at least arrested him. Many of their hearts were too hardened to hear the truth that plainly. So it was a wise course of action that the Father had him take during these times.

       Regardless, at one point it is settled, and we don’t know when exactly that time was, of which Jesus understood that his mission was to die on the cross, to be a sacrifice for sins. That conclusion could have come from a supernatural ‘inner’ knowing from his communion with the Father, or it could have been learned from reading the Old Testament Scriptures about the Messiah, and realizing that he was indeed that Person. Anyhow, the disciples understanding of this fact did not come until after it all came to pass, as John makes clear in the text. Yet, it demonstrates that God was planning from long ago how to deal with the sin problem. Why, we can even find reference to it in Genesis 3, where it says in verse 21 that God killed an animal so that he could make Adam and Eve clothing from its fur. Paul even tells us that God “chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Ephesians 1:4, ESV). Thus, God knew from the very beginning what he might have to do—that we might mess things up, and mess things up we did. The Scripture John references in the text is likely Psalm 16, verses 8 through 11. Verse 10 states, for instance, “For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption” (ESV). That statement, then, has a double-meaning, both for David and for the Christ.

       Verse 23: “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 what was in man.”

       Interestingly, there is no record for us of what signs or miracles Jesus did when he was at the Passover Feast. The imagination can take a guess that it was similar to what John is going to be covering, or what the other Gospel writers detail. These likely healings and exorcisms resulted in many believing in him—that he was the Christ. Belief sprung forth on account of the miracles, as Jesus alludes to later. In fact, in John 14, to fast-forward ahead, he will say, “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves” (John 14:11, ESV). That was often the way it went for the Jews, in that they had believe based on the signs. The Words weren’t enough for them. The Apostle Paul made note of this fact to the Corinthians, when he said, “For Jews demand signs” (1 Corinthians 1:22, ESV). While God permitted this form of belief from people, it isn’t what he truly wanted. That understanding comes to us by what Jesus says in Matthew 12. If we look over there, at verse 38, we read: “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:38-39, ESV). Knowing this, it can bother the mind when a sign is sought in the personal experience, because a sign actually demonstrates a lack of faith.

       Now, in wrapping up for today, what is all this about Jesus not entrusting himself to people? What does John mean by what is stated in the verse? It seems there are two things we can note about it. First is that due to what was just said, about the Jews needing to see a sign to believe, means that their hearts weren’t as good as they could be. It relays there were some un-surrendered things floating around in them, and that leads to the conclusion that it would have been unwise for Jesus to entrust himself totally to them. They weren’t exactly on the up-and-up, at least as pertained to religion. Confirmation of this fact would come later in various ways, one of which, we can bring to mind, that the Jews wanted to crown him as king after he fed 5,000 men. This event is in upcoming John chapter 6. It says there, “Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself” (John 6:15, ESV). But we also note that, in the general sense, most people are not trustworthy to the core, or to the death, if you will, because of the inner-sin nature that resides in all of us. Sounds bold and unkind, doesn’t it? Whether or not a Christian believes in the inherited sin-nature or not, all believe that at some point all sin. And because of the nature, since we look out for ourselves first a lot of times, that makes us ultimately untrustworthy.

       An explanation and good example of the untrustworthy-ness of people can be found at the end of Paul’s life, and this may have even come to your mind. Recall what Paul said at the end: “Luke alone is with me” (2 Timothy 4:11, ESV). As great as Paul was, as famous as he was, it was just Luke. That’s it. Everybody else, all of Paul’s other companions, had left him. Of course, Timothy and Mark were still on his side. But a lot of his brothers, a lot of those he thought were on his side, ended up loving the world more. And, so, bringing this back roundabout to Jesus, Jesus knew this is what men’s hearts were like. Sure, a few can be trustworthy and be counted on, but most will not be at the end of the day. Peter didn’t have to deny Jesus; John himself didn’t have to view from afar. Those were choices they made. Let us bring to mind what Solomon said, when he said, “A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (Proverbs 18:24, ESV). Unfortunately and sadly, Jesus didn’t even have that, in the earthly sense. He was “a man of sorrows” as Isaiah prophesied (Isaiah 53:3, ESV). Hopefully, if we ever find ourselves to be in that type of situation where we have to defend our brother, we are found to be faithful. Of course, we know the disciples all would make it good, as Peter himself was likely crucified for Jesus’ sake, and John was faithful to the end. But sometimes people don’t get second chances.

- Daniel Litton