Scriptural Mormonism: Carlos Raúl Sosa Siliezar on the Problems With the "Seventh Day" Interpretation of John 2 and the Wedding at Cana

In their search for a putative ‘seventh day’ in Jn 1–2 that can be matched to the day of rest of God in Gen. 2, some scholars have given attention to Jn 2:12. Hambly, for example, contended that Jn 2:12 represents the seventh day when Jesus rested after the miracle at Cana. This conclusion is implausible for at least four reasons. The first reason is that Jesus stayed in Capernaum ‘a few days’ (οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας, 2:12), while God’s rest after creation in Gen. 2:2–3 comprised only a single day. The second reason is that the phrase ‘after this’ (2:12) is not as clear as ‘the next day’ (e.g. 1:43). Therefore, John does not indicate explicitly that Jesus’ arrival to Capernaum took place ‘the next day’ after the miracle at Cana. The third reason is that other people stayed in Capernaum with Jesus: his mother and brothers, and his disciples (2:12). Since they did not take an active role in the previous miracle at Cana, it is difficult to think that they stayed with Jesus in order to rest. If John were intending to portray the seventh day in 2:12 as a day of rest for Jesus, the mention of his family and disciples would be unnecessary. The fourth reason is that John never indicates that Jesus stayed in Capernaum in order to rest. The reference to a royal official of Capernaum who has heard about Jesus before (4:46–47) might indicate that Jesus was already known in Capernaum as one who performs healings (cf. 20:30). Therefore, there is room to posit that Jesus’ stay in Capernaum in 2:12 involved some kind of activity (cf. 4:40–41; 10:40–41).

There are some time indicators in Jn 1:29, 35, 39, 43; 2:1, 12, but they are far from signalling a clear sequence of six or seven days that resembles the days of creation in Genesis. Only if there were conspicuous similarities between Jn 1–2 and Gen. 1–2 might one be inclined to believe that John intended to shape the inaugural days of Jesus’ ministry in light of the days of creation of the Genesis account. But a close assessment of suggested similarities between the two texts will show that this is not the case.

It has been suggested that Jn 2:11 is an allusion to Gen. 2:3, because the verb ποιέω and the broad idea of ‘beginning’ are used in both texts. However, the meanings of the texts are very different. John refers to the first (ἀρχήν) sign performed by Jesus while Gen. 2:3 refers to the works of creation that God ‘began’ (ἤρξατο) to make (cf. Jn 13:5). Similarities have also been proposed between the first and second days of creation and the putative Johannine days of new creation. Paul Trudinger and Hambly claimed that just as in Gen. 1:1–5 the light is separated from darkness, so too in Jn 1:19–28 the light (Jesus) is separated from the darkness (priests and Levites) by the witness of the Baptist. This link seems speculative because John never identifies the priests and Levites with darkness. People can walk in, love, or abide in darkness (3:19; 8:12; 12:46; cf. 12:35) but people are never identified as darkness in GJohn. Trudinger also attempted to relate the second day of creation (Gen. 1:6–8) to Jn 1:32–33, based on the use of the nouns οὐρανός and ὕδωρ in both texts. However, this seems to be a forced link. Both nouns are commonplace, and even in Gen. 1–2 they are used in other days of creation (οὐρανός, Gen. 1:1, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20, 26, 28, 30; 2:1, 4; ὕδωρ, 1:2, 9, 10, 20, 21, 22). Likewise, these nouns are used elsewhere in Jn 1:19–2:12 (1:51; 2:7, 9).(Carlos Raúl Sosa Siliezar, Creation Imagery in the Gospel of John [Library of New Testament Studies 546; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015], 126–128)