Several weeks ago I read an article by a lawyer who had some doubts about global warming. He admitted that he wasn’t a scientist, but as a lawyer he was accustomed to cross examination; he believed that was demanded when some people made assertions not founded in good thinking. Today we are used to assertions made by experts and alleged experts who feel they must not allow people to question their beliefs. However, social discourse must engage in such back and forth discussion to discover truth but especially to uncover hidden agendas and unsubstantiated statements.

The Apostle John recognizes the importance of making a valid argument. After he asserts his belief in chapter one that Jesus was creator and author of life, he turns immediately to providing the reader with evidence. Were his suppositions taken to court, he would be called as an eyewitness.

He provides two reasons why he believes that Jesus was present at creation. First, Jesus changes water to wine. John provides this event to demonstrate that Jesus had the very elements of nature under his command. In case his eyes had deceived him, John notes that the other disciples were there and could confirm this. In addition, the servants were eyewitnesses as well.

Second, after Jesus cleanses the temple in Jerusalem, he predicts his own resurrection: “Destroy this temple, and I’ll raise it up in three days.” Only after Jesus came back to life, did the apostles grasp that Jesus referred to his ability to conquer death.

In a discourse or in a court of law, evidence is offered to substantiate statements. John provides his witness to Jesus’ control of nature and to his power over life and death. He wants us to see that these are sufficient to bring us to believe his assertion that Jesus is truly “God with us,” 1:1-4.

Were this a trial or should someone read this with a jaundiced eye, cross-examination might try to discredit his account by denigrating his character or by suggesting that such power is so unheard of as to be quite doubtful. I will leave it to my readers to undermine his credibility if they so desire, but to discredit these events as being beyond our normal experience only suggests that if they really happened, people would most certainly remember them because they were beyond normal experience.

In any case the modern reader must render his own verdict. If John is correct in his evidence and with his eyewitness account, we must decide whether we believe Jesus truly is who John claims. If you are inclined to decide against John’s testimony, you must have a legitimate argument to stand on. If you are on the fence, hang on for a while. John is not finished with us. He has twenty more chapters to go.

Video “Conversation” on John 2:

NOTE: Image used from They suggest that archeologists have discovered where Jesus changed water to wine.