The MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV

by John MacArthur

  1:45 Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote. This phrase encapsulates the stance of John’s whole gospel: Jesus is the fulfillment of OT Scripture (cf. v. 21; 5:39; Deut. 18:15–19; Luke 24:44–47; Acts 10:43; 18:28; 26:22, 23; Rom. 1:2; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Pet. 1:10, 11; Rev. 19:10).

  1:46 “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Nathanael was from Cana (21:2), another town in Galilee. While Galileans were despised by Judeans, Galileans themselves despised people from Nazareth. In light of 7:52, Nathanael’s scorn may have centered in the fact that Nazareth was an insignificant village without seeming prophetic importance (cf., however, Matt. 2:23). Later, some would contemptuously refer to Christians as the “sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5).

  1:47 no deceit. Jesus’ point was that Nathanael’s bluntness revealed that he was an Israelite without duplicitous motives who was willing to examine for himself the claims being made about Jesus. The term reveals an honest seeking heart. The reference here may be an allusion to Gen. 27:35 where Jacob, in contrast to the sincere Nathanael, was known for his trickery. The meaning may be that the employment of trickery characterized not only Jacob but also his descendants. In Jesus’ mind, an honest and sincere Israelite had become an exception rather than the rule (cf. 2:23–25).

  1:48 I saw you. A brief glimpse of Jesus’ supernatural knowledge. Not only was Jesus’ brief summary of Nathanael accurate (v. 47), but He also revealed information that could only be known by Nathanael himself. Perhaps Nathanael had some significant or outstanding experience of communion with God at the location, and he was able to recognize Jesus’ allusion to it. At any rate, Jesus had knowledge of this event not available to men.

  1:49 the Son of God!…the King of Israel! Jesus’ display of supernatural knowledge and Philip’s witness removed Nathanael’s doubts, so John added the witness of Nathanael to this section. The use of “the” with “Son of God” most likely indicates that the expression is to be understood as bearing its full significance (cf. v. 34; 11:27). For Nathanael, here was One who could not be described merely in human terms.

  1:51 Most assuredly. Cf. 5:19, 24, 25. A phrase used frequently for emphasizing the importance and truth of the coming statement. heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending. In light of the context of v. 47, this verse most likely refers to Gen. 28:12 where Jacob dreamed about a ladder from heaven. Jesus’ point to Nathanael was that just like Jacob experienced supernatural or heaven-sent revelation, Nathanael and the other disciples would experience supernatural communication confirming who Jesus was. Moreover, the term “Son of Man” replaced the ladder in Jacob’s dream, signifying that Jesus was the means of access between God and man. Son of Man. See note on Matt. 8:20. This is Jesus’ favorite self-designation, for it was mostly spoken by Jesus who used it over 80 times. In the NT, it refers only to Jesus and appears mostly in the gospels (cf. Acts 7:56). In the fourth gospel, the expression occurs 13 times and is most commonly associated with the themes of crucifixion and suffering (3:14; 8:28) and revelation (6:27, 53) but also with eschatological authority (5:27). While the term at times may refer merely to a human being or as a substitute for “I” (6:27; cf. 6:20), it especially takes on an eschatological significance referring to Dan. 7:13, 14 where the “Son of Man” or Messiah comes in glory to receive the kingdom from the “Ancient of Days” (i.e., the Father).

  John 2

  2:1–11 John relates the first great sign performed by Jesus to demonstrate His deity, the turning of water into wine. Only God can create from nothing. John identifies 8 miracles in his gospel that constitute “signs” or confirmation of who Jesus is. Each of the 8 miracles were different; no two were alike (cf. v. 11).

  2:1 On the third day. This phrase has reference to the last narrated event, i.e., the calling of Philip and Nathanael (1:43). wedding. Such a wedding celebration in Israel could last for a week. Financial responsibility lay with the groom (vv. 9, 10). To run out of wine for the guests would have been an embarrassment to the groom and may have even opened him to a potential lawsuit from the relatives of the bride. Cana of Galilee. Cana was the home of Nathanael (21:2). Its exact location is unknown. A probable location is Khirbet Qana, a village now in ruins approximately 9 mi. N of Nazareth.

  2:2 both Jesus and His disciples were invited. The fact that Jesus, His mother, and His disciples all attended the wedding suggests that the wedding may have been for a relative or close family friend. The disciples that accompanied Him are the 5 mentioned in chap. 1: Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and the unnamed disciple (1:35) who was surely John, who also witnessed this miracle.

  2:3 wine. The wine served was subject to fermentation. In the ancient world, however, to quench thirst without inducing drunkenness, wine was diluted with water to between one-third and one-tenth of its strength. Due to the climate and circumstances, even “new wine” fermented quickly and had an inebriating effect if not mixed (Acts 2:13). Because of a lack of water purification process, wine mixed with water was also safer to drink than water alone. While the Bible condemns drunkenness, it does not necessarily condemn the consumption of wine (Ps. 104:15; Prov. 20:1; see notes on Eph. 5:18).

  2:4 Woman. The term is not necessarily impolite, but it does have the effect of distancing Jesus from His mother and her request. Perhaps, it has the equivalent of “ma’am.” what does your concern have to do with Me? The expression, common in Semitic idiom (Judg. 11:12; 2 Sam. 16:10), always distances the two parties, the speaker’s tone conveying some degree of reproach. Jesus’ tone was not rude, but abrupt. The phrase asks what is shared in common between the parties. The thrust of Jesus’ comment was that He had entered into the purpose for His mission on earth, so that He subordinated all activities to the fulfillment of that mission. Mary had to recognize Him not so much as a son that she raised but as the promised Messiah and Son of God. Cf. Mark 3:31–35. My hour has not yet come. The phrase constantly refers to Jesus’ death and exaltation (7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1). He was on a divine schedule decreed by God before the foundation of the world. Since the prophets characterized the messianic age as a time when wine would flow liberally (Jer. 31:12; Hos. 14:7; Amos 9:13, 14), Jesus was likely referring to the fact that the necessity of the cross must come before the blessings of the millennial age.

  John 2:5

  The Eight Signs

  Turns water into wine (John 2:1-12) Jesus is the source of life.

  Heals a nobleman’s son (John 4:46-54) Jesus is master over distance.

  Heals a lame man at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-17) Jesus is master over time.

  Feeds 5,000 (John 6:1-14) Jesus is the bread of life.

  Walks on water, stills a storm (John 6:15-21) Jesus is master over nature.

  Heals a man blind from birth (John 9:1-41) Jesus is the light of the world.

  Raises Lazarus from the dead (John 11:17-45) Jesus has power over death.

  Causes abundant catch of fish (John 21:6) Jesus is master over the animal world.

  2:6 purification of the Jews. The 6 water jars were made of stone because stone was more impervious than earthenware and did not contract uncleanness. Also, this made them more suitable to ceremonial washing (cf. Mark 7:3, 4).

  2:11 signs. John used the word “sign” here to refer to significant displays of power that pointed beyond themselves to the deeper divine realities that could be perceived by the eyes of faith. By this word, John emphasized that miracles were not merely displays of power but had a significance beyond the mere acts themselves.

  2:13–25 John used this section where Jesus cleansed the temple in righteous indignation to reinforce his main theme that He was the promised Messiah and Son of God. In this section, he highlighted 3 attributes of Jesus that confirm His deity: 1) His passion for reverence (vv. 13–17); 2) His power of resurrection (vv. 18–22); and 3) His perception of reality (vv. 23–25).

  2:12 After this. The phrase “after this” (or similar wording such as “after these things”) is a frequent conn
ective between narratives in this gospel (e.g., 3:22; 5:1, 14; 6:1; 7:1; 11:7, 11; 19:28, 38). John placed this verse here as a transition to explain Jesus’ movement from Cana in Galilee to Capernaum and eventual arrival at Jerusalem for the Passover celebration. Capernaum was on the NW shore of Galilee about 16 mi. NE of Cana.

  2:13–17 The first way John demonstrated Christ’s deity in the narrative of the temple cleansing was to show His passion for reverence. God alone exercises the right to regulate His worship.

  2:13 Passover of the Jews. This is the first of 3 Passovers which John mentions (v. 13; 6:4; 11:55). Jews selected the lamb on the tenth of the month, and celebrated Passover on the 14th day of the lunar month of Nisan (full moon at the end of Mar. or beginning of Apr.). They slaughtered the lamb between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m. on the night of the feast. Passover commemorates the deliverance of the Jews from slavery in Egypt when the angel of death “passed over” Jewish homes in Egypt whose “doorposts” were sprinkled with blood (Ex. 12:23–27). Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Jesus’ journeying to Jerusalem for the Passover was a standard annual procedure for every devout Jewish male over 12 years old (Ex. 23:14–17). Jewish pilgrims crowded into Jerusalem for this greatest of Jewish feasts.

  2:14 those who sold…the money changers. During the celebration of Passover, worshipers came from all over Israel and the Roman Empire to Jerusalem. Because many traveled large distances, it was inconvenient to bring their sacrificial animals with them. Opportunistic merchants, seeing a chance to provide a service and probably eyeing considerable profit during this time, set up areas in the outer courts of the temple in order for travelers to buy animals. The money changers were needed because the temple tax, paid annually by every conscientious Jewish male 20 years of age or older (Ex. 30:13, 14; Matt. 17:24–27), had to be in Jewish or Tyrian coinage (because of its high purity of silver). Those coming from foreign lands would need to exchange their money into the proper coinage for the tax. The money changers charged a high fee for the exchange. With such a large group of travelers and because of the seasonal nature of the celebration, both the animal dealers and money exchangers exploited the situation for monetary gain (“den of thieves”; Matt. 21:13). Religion had become crass and materialistic.

  2:15 As John recorded this cleansing of the temple at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, the synoptic gospels record a temple cleansing at the end of Jesus’ ministry during the final Passover week before Jesus’ crucifixion (Matt. 21:12–17; Mark 11:15–18; Luke 19:45, 46). The historical circumstances and literary contexts of the two temple cleansings differ so widely that attempts to equate the two are unsuccessful. Furthermore, that two cleansings occurred is entirely consistent with overall context of Jesus’ ministry, for the Jewish nation as a whole never recognized Jesus’ authority as Messiah (Matt. 23:37–39). Instead, they rejected His message as well as His person, making such repeated cleansing of the temple highly probable (as well as necessary). drove them all out of the temple. When the holiness of God and His worship was at stake, Jesus took fast and furious action. The “all” indicates that He drove not only men out but also animals. Yet, although His physical action was forceful, it was not cruel. The moderation of His actions is seen in the fact that no riotous uproar occurred; otherwise the specially large contingent of Roman troops in Jerusalem at that time because of the Passover crowds, stationed in the Antonia Fortress overlooking the temple, would have swiftly reacted. Although the primary reference is to the actions of the Messiah in the millennial kingdom, Jesus’ actions in cleansing the temple were an initial fulfillment of Mal. 3:1–3 (and Zech. 14:20, 21) that speak of Messiah’s purifying the religious worship of His people.

  2:16 Do not make. The force of the Gr. imperative should better be translated “stop making,” indicating Jesus’ demand that they stop their current practice. God’s holiness demands holiness in worship. My Father’s. John gave a subtle hint of Jesus’ divine Sonship as well as His messiahship with the recording of this phrase (see 5:17, 18). house a house of merchandise. Jesus may have intended a play on words. The word “merchandise” pictures a trading house filled with wares.

  2:17 Quoted from Ps. 69:9 to indicate that Jesus would not tolerate irreverence toward God. When David wrote this psalm, he was being persecuted because of his zeal toward God’s house and his defense of God’s honor. The disciples were afraid that Jesus’ actions would precipitate the same type of persecution. Paul quotes the latter half of Ps. 69:9 (“The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me”) in Rom. 15:3, clearly indicating the messianic nature that the psalm had for the early church.

  2:18–22 The second way John demonstrated Christ’s deity in the account of the temple cleansing was to show His power over death through resurrection. Only God has this right.

  2:18 the Jews. Most likely the temple authorities or representatives of the Sanhedrin (cf. 1:19). sign. The Jews demanded that Jesus show some type of miraculous sign that would indicate His authority for the actions that He had just taken in regulating the activities of the temple. Their demand of a sign reveals that they had not grasped the significance of Jesus’ rebuke that centered in their need for proper attitudes and holiness in worship. Such an action itself constituted a “sign” of Jesus’ person and authority. Moreover, they were requesting from Jesus a crass display of miracles on demand, further displaying their unbelief.

  2:19 At his trial, the authorities charged Jesus (Mark 14:58; cf. Mark 15:29) with making a threatening statement against the temple, revealing that they did not understand Jesus’ response here. Once again John’s gospel supplements the other gospels at this point by indicating that Jesus enigmatically referred to His resurrection. As with His usage of parables, Jesus’ cryptic statement most likely was designed to reveal the truth to His disciples but conceal its meaning from unbelievers who questioned Him (Matt. 13:10, 11). Only after His resurrection, however, did the disciples understand the real significance of this statement (v. 22; cf. Matt. 12:40). Importantly, through the death and resurrection of Christ, temple worship in Jerusalem was destroyed (cf. 4:21) and reinstituted in the hearts of those who were built into a spiritual temple called the church (Eph. 2:19–22).

  2:20 forty-six years to build this temple. This was not a reference to the Solomonic temple, since it had been destroyed during the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C. When the captives returned from Babylon, Zerubbabel and Jeshua began rebuilding the temple (Ezra 1–4). Encouraged by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 5:1—6:18), the Jews completed the work in 516 B.C. In 20/19 B.C. Herod the Great began a reconstruction and expansion. Workers completed the main part of the project in 10 years, but other parts were still being constructed even at the time Jesus cleansed the temple. Interestingly, the finishing touches on the whole enterprise were still being made at its destruction by the Romans along with Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The famous “Wailing Wall” is built on part of the Herodian temple foundation.

  2:23–25 The third way John demonstrated Christ’s deity in the account of the temple cleansing was to show His perception of reality. Only God truly knows the hearts of men.

  2:23, 24 many believed in His name…. But Jesus did not commit Himself. John based these two phrases on the same Gr. verb for “believe.” This verse subtly reveals the true nature of belief from a biblical standpoint. Because of what they knew of Jesus from His miraculous signs, many came to believe in Him. However, Jesus made it His habit not to wholeheartedly “entrust” or “commit” Himself to them because He knew their hearts. Verse 24 indicates that Jesus looked for genuine conversion rather than enthusiasm for the spectacular. The latter verse also leaves a subtle doubt as to the genuineness of the conversion of some (cf. 8:31, 32). This emphatic contrast between vv. 23, 24 in terms of type of trust, therefore, reveals that, lit., “belief into His name” involved much more than intellectual assent. It called for whole-hearted commitment of one’s life as Jesus’ disciple (cf. Matt. 10:37; 16:24–26).

  John 3

  3:1–21
The story of Jesus and Nicodemus reinforces John’s themes that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God (apologetic) and that He came to offer salvation to men (evangelistic). John 2:23, 24 actually serves as the introduction to Nicodemus’ story, since chap. 3 constitutes tangible evidence of Jesus’ ability to know men’s hearts and thereby also demonstrates Jesus’ deity. Jesus also presented God’s plan of salvation to Nicodemus, showing that He was God’s messenger, whose redemptive work brings about the promised salvation to His people (v. 14). The chapter may be divided into two sections: 1) Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus (vv. 1–10); and 2) Jesus’ discourse on God’s plan of salvation (vv. 11–21).

  3:1–10 This section on Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus may be divided into 3 sections: 1) Nicodemus’ inquiry of Jesus (vv. 1–3); 2) Jesus’ insight into Nicodemus (vv. 4–8); and 3) Jesus’ indictment of Nicodemus (vv. 9, 10).

  3:1 Pharisees. See note on Matt. 3:7. The word “Pharisee” most likely comes from a Heb. word meaning “to separate” and therefore probably means “separated ones.” They were not separatists in the sense of isolationists but in the puritanical sense, i.e., they were highly zealous for ritual and religious purity according to the Mosaic law as well as their own traditions that they added to the OT legislation. Although their origin is unknown, they seem to have arisen as an offshoot from the “Hasidim” or “pious ones” during the Maccabean era. They were generally from the Jewish middle class and mostly consisted of laity (business men) rather than priests or Levites. They represented the orthodox core of Judaism and very strongly influenced the common people of Israel. According to Josephus, 6,000 existed at the time of Herod the Great. Jesus condemned them for their hyper-concentration on externalizing religion (rules and regulations) rather than inward spiritual transformation (vv. 3, 7). Nicodemus. Although Nicodemus was a Pharisee, his name was Gr. in origin and means “victor over the people.” He was a prominent Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin (“a ruler of the Jews”). Nothing is known about his family background. He eventually came to believe in Jesus (7:50–52), risking his own life and reputation by helping to give Jesus’ body a decent burial (19:38–42). a ruler of the Jews. This is a reference to the Sanhedrin (see note on Matt. 26:59), the main ruling body of the Jews in Palestine. It was the Jewish “supreme court” or ruling council of the time and arose most likely during the Persian period. In NT times, the Sanhedrin was composed of the High-Priest (president), chief priests, elders (family heads), and scribes for a total of 71 people. The method of appointment was both hereditary and political. It executed both civil and criminal jurisdiction according to Jewish law. However, capital punishment cases required the sanction of the Roman procurator (18:30–32). After A.D. 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin was abolished and replaced by the Beth Din (court of Judgment) that was composed of scribes whose decisions had only moral and religious authority.