Water Into Wine: The Meaning of Jesus' First Miracle
Posted: Thursday, September 08, 2005
by Carson Day
Ophir Gold Corporation
The second chapter of John's Gospel offers a most interesting account of the beginning of Jesus's ministry of miracles and teaching. Yet, where is John going with this, and why did he include it? But before we undertake to solve this mystery, let us first read the text in question.
John 2:1-11 [with comments in brackets] reads:
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called [i.e. invited], and his disciples [also], to the marriage. And when they wanted [i.e. ran out of] wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, "They have no wine." Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." His mother saith unto the servants, "Whatsoever he saith [commands] unto you, do it." And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins [of water] apiece. Jesus saith unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now [what is in the waterpots], and bear [bring it] unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory and his disciples believed on him."
Now, to understand the books of the Bible, you must always start your investigation by reading the end of the book first. Although this will at the first seem out of order, it actually provides the best approach. The author has the end of the book in mind when he lifts his pen to write the first letter. He has a plan and a goal, and he holds this goal -- the end of the story -- fixed firmly in mind from the very beginning. So he writes every account within the gospel with one eye on the end of the matter. By taking this approach then, we mimic the author's own mindset. So let's start at the end of the gospel to look for clue #1.
Now John tells us at the end of his gospel that "....there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen" (John 21:25). John knows of a great many "things Jesus did" (i.e. miracles and astonishing teachings) which "showed forth his glory," meaning that these clearly pointed to Him as "the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus' miracles point to resurrection glory. But also note John's lament -- his inability to tell us all that he knows of Christ (for lack of time, space and ink). This shows us that's John writes with an Evangelist's heart, with the buring desire to tell anyone who will listen everything Jesus ever did and said. The greatness of the Lord has overtaken John, and John overflows with joy to tell of it. Or in his own symbolism, John was a startling waterpot, filled to the brim with new wine.
John's problem -- too much to say, and not enough ink, pens, parchment or world -- will come to profit us. For John has thus indicated by the Holy Spirit that he has chosen this material carefully and selectively. The fact that this account made it into the gospel, when there were thousands of other accounts about Jesus he could have included instead, tells us that this is extremely important.
Clue #1. John has included only what he deems MOST important about Jesus, to show us the Greatness of God in Christ. This greatness, John calls "showing forth his glory." At the end of the gospel, this glory shines from the Resurrected Messiah literally, as radiant light. Just as the gospel's beginning calls him "The light of men." But John has here told us that we could and should have seen all along that Jesus was the Messiah. For this radiant light shot forth into public view -- so to speak -- now and again during the ministry of Christ.
Now let's move onto Clue #2. In chapter 21, John has told us he is interested primarily in the miracles that Jesus did, and the things he taught. The Bible often dubs a teachers words his "deeds," for, as the proverbs tell us, the power of life and death is in the tongue...". By a cursory reading of the verses 1-11, we notice that most of the words in this account belong to persons other than the Lord Jesus. He does not say much here. This tells us that John wishes to focus on the deeds of Jesus in the more strict sense. So John highlights the particular water-into-wine miracle of Jesus, and then the testimony about this miracle from the other actors in the narrative.
Any good detective must ask "the big five" questions: who, what, when, where, and why? Now each of the answers to these may not be equally important. In this case, it turns out that "where" forms one of the most important questions because the answer turns out to be something other than what one -- especially if one were a first-century Jew -- would expect. Where did the wedding take place? In Galilee. That is, in the north, somewhat removed from Jerusalem (which then was "the Holy City"), and Galilee was associated with a high percentage of Gentile inhabitants.
How did the Jews view Gentiles? Let's just say that to pronounce correctly the word "Gentiles" in first-century Hebrew, you must spit at the saying of the final syllable to say it correctly. Gentiles, also known as "pigs" and "dogs," to them resembled "unclean animals."
Conspicuous clue #3: Jesus had honored those of Gentile territory -- even though the guests were likely all Jews -- in his first miracle. And note that Jesus Himself seemed to consider this miracle premature, and likely assumed that his first miracle would occur later, perhaps in Judaea. But in keeping the fifth commandment, "Honour thy father and THY MOTHER," the Lord saved the wedding from disaster. To run out of wine would have left a shameful blot on the reputation of the hosts.
The second time we ask "where?" -- this time meaning "more exactly where" did the miracle take place -- we answer "in the waterpots." Now THIS gets interesting. These were no ordinary stone pots. They formed a necessary part of the purification ritual commanded in the Older Testament for Jews to maintain ritual purity. In other words, they form the centerpiece of this story as the symbol of cleanness before God.
Clue #4: Cleanness before God forms a central theme in this narrative.
Clue #5. Since we know that the waterpots are not incidental, but central, to John's point, we must zoom in on any detail given about them. Jesus had commanded "Fill them." And John then notes that they obeyed by "filling them TO THE BRIM." This connotes a sense of overflowing, where "filled to the brim" means nearly spilling out the sides.
Clue #6. What follows next? The interchange between the "ruler of the [wedding] feast and the bridegroom. Notice that the complaint came from the ruler (wedding supervisor) to the bridegroom. Now the ruler of the feast would have been responsible for supervising the whole wedding to see that it went smoothly. His complaint to the bridegroom shows that he had delegated certain tasks to others to help out, and that the bridegroom specifically held the duty to keep the wine flowing freely.
But Jesus had done the faltering bridegroom's job for him, and the ruler of the wedding feast did not know this. But the servants did. Jesus, in effect, then IS the responsible bridegroom, who took upon Himself the groom's task and succeeded where the groom had failed.
Clue #7. John's own punchline comes from the mouth of the feast supervisor as a complaint: "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."
His complaint is this. When people first show up to the wedding, you must give them the best wine to drink. The California Pinot Noir's come first. After the guests have had a few marvelous glasses, the wine has dulled their pallets and made them happy (or as we might say, "tipsy.") When they cannot now distinguish the flavor of wine very well (dulled pallet), they do not care what the wine tastes like. So then you break out the second-string wine -- Here come the Merlots -- and no one cares. But the bridegroom -- actually Jesus -- had reversed the order!! The ruler complained, "You didn't do it the way we expected." But he didn't know it was Jesus, the True Bridegroom, that had done it in the unsuspected order.
Clue #8. Thus, says John, Jesus showed forth his glory as the Messiah, long before his Resurrection into glory. Glory bespeaks resurrection. The Lord had hereby granted us a preview of his glory to come -- even though his hour had not yet come. Later, John will tell us, that Jesus died with the placard above his head, "King of the Jews." But in his resurrection, Jesus says, "All authority in heaven and earth is given me..." (Matthew 28:18). This makes Jesus king, not only of the Jews, but of all nations. That is what "ALL authority IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH" means. In his death, God reveals Christ as Lord of the Jews, but in Christ's resurrection glory, God has revealed him as "King of the Gentiles" too.
For it was in His resurrection that God the Father swore an oath to Christ, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." And said to Him, "Ask of me and I shall give thee the nations for thine inheritance" (Psalm 2).
Now let us put it all together. Any good sleuth must put his pool of relevant data together and draw the intended conclusion from them. Clue #1. John had something very important, even urgent, to say [clue #2] about the miraculous work of Jesus [C3] on behalf of the Gentiles [C4] by which he would purify them and make them clean [C5] as it were, filling them to the brim with His Spirit and overflowing joy ("New wine") [C6] and replacing the intended bridegroom (i.e. the Jewish rulers which would irrepsonsibly fail before God to bring His "wine" to the wedding guests). God would then supplant the failures -- scribes, Pharisees and Saducees --with Jesus (and his apostles), who fulfilled the duty of the bridegroom and saved the wedding guests from a ruined celebration. Now God would also accomplish this in a way that offended the Jewish leaders (remember the complaint against the Bridegroom), and in a way that people did not expect, a way which seemed out of order to them. So when the complaint [C7] of the Jewish rulers grew to become something far more sinister -- the execution of the Son -- God would indeed raise Him to life [C8] in vindication of Christ against the false charges that led to his demise. Thus, by resurrection God had reversed a tragic situation and would bring joy (like that of a wedding) to the world -- to Jew and Gentile alike by filled-to-the-brim "purified waterpots" like John, like Paul, and like Peter.
Finally, what does it mean, "You have saved the best wine til last?" This is a marvelous punchline. John revels throughout his Gospel in showing how those who oppose the Lord often say far more than they know. Here John offers just such an example.
First came the patriarchs, then Moses and Samuel, and great men like David, Solomon the Wise, and Josiah the king, and also many great prophets besides -- who brought the word of the Lord by His Spirit -- God's wine -- to teach and to rescue his people. But, at the very last, God sent His very Best -- when the Jewish nation had lost its taste for good wine -- Jesus came "in the fullness of time." "In past times, God spoke to our forefathers in many ways and at various times but IN THESE LAST DAYS hath He spoken to us BY HIS SON..." (Hebrews 1:1). God sent His obedient Son at the last to replace the failed Jewish leaders. God had saved the best for last.
Jesus, the greatest of the prophets -- and oh-SO-much-more -- had come at the end of the Older Covenant, at the "last days." Well said Solomon, "The end of a matter is better than its beginning." But this was only Christ's FIRST miracle. See how great a story THIS preview of Christ's glory is?, says John. Wait til I tell the rest!! John was saving the best for last too.
Carson Day has written approximately 1.3 gazillion articles and essays, many with very insightful, if alternative, viewpoints. He presently writes for Ophir Gold Corporation, and specialized in the history of ideas in college. He has been quoted in the past as saying "What box?" and remains at large despite the best efforts of the civil authorities.
John 2:1-11 [with comments in brackets] reads:
Now, to understand the books of the Bible, you must always start your investigation by reading the end of the book first. Although this will at the first seem out of order, it actually provides the best approach. The author has the end of the book in mind when he lifts his pen to write the first letter. He has a plan and a goal, and he holds this goal -- the end of the story -- fixed firmly in mind from the very beginning. So he writes every account within the gospel with one eye on the end of the matter. By taking this approach then, we mimic the author's own mindset. So let's start at the end of the gospel to look for clue #1.
Now John tells us at the end of his gospel that "....there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen" (John 21:25). John knows of a great many "things Jesus did" (i.e. miracles and astonishing teachings) which "showed forth his glory," meaning that these clearly pointed to Him as "the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus' miracles point to resurrection glory. But also note John's lament -- his inability to tell us all that he knows of Christ (for lack of time, space and ink). This shows us that's John writes with an Evangelist's heart, with the buring desire to tell anyone who will listen everything Jesus ever did and said. The greatness of the Lord has overtaken John, and John overflows with joy to tell of it. Or in his own symbolism, John was a startling waterpot, filled to the brim with new wine.
John's problem -- too much to say, and not enough ink, pens, parchment or world -- will come to profit us. For John has thus indicated by the Holy Spirit that he has chosen this material carefully and selectively. The fact that this account made it into the gospel, when there were thousands of other accounts about Jesus he could have included instead, tells us that this is extremely important.
Clue #1. John has included only what he deems MOST important about Jesus, to show us the Greatness of God in Christ. This greatness, John calls "showing forth his glory." At the end of the gospel, this glory shines from the Resurrected Messiah literally, as radiant light. Just as the gospel's beginning calls him "The light of men." But John has here told us that we could and should have seen all along that Jesus was the Messiah. For this radiant light shot forth into public view -- so to speak -- now and again during the ministry of Christ.
Now let's move onto Clue #2. In chapter 21, John has told us he is interested primarily in the miracles that Jesus did, and the things he taught. The Bible often dubs a teachers words his "deeds," for, as the proverbs tell us, the power of life and death is in the tongue...". By a cursory reading of the verses 1-11, we notice that most of the words in this account belong to persons other than the Lord Jesus. He does not say much here. This tells us that John wishes to focus on the deeds of Jesus in the more strict sense. So John highlights the particular water-into-wine miracle of Jesus, and then the testimony about this miracle from the other actors in the narrative.
Any good detective must ask "the big five" questions: who, what, when, where, and why? Now each of the answers to these may not be equally important. In this case, it turns out that "where" forms one of the most important questions because the answer turns out to be something other than what one -- especially if one were a first-century Jew -- would expect. Where did the wedding take place? In Galilee. That is, in the north, somewhat removed from Jerusalem (which then was "the Holy City"), and Galilee was associated with a high percentage of Gentile inhabitants.
How did the Jews view Gentiles? Let's just say that to pronounce correctly the word "Gentiles" in first-century Hebrew, you must spit at the saying of the final syllable to say it correctly. Gentiles, also known as "pigs" and "dogs," to them resembled "unclean animals."
Conspicuous clue #3: Jesus had honored those of Gentile territory -- even though the guests were likely all Jews -- in his first miracle. And note that Jesus Himself seemed to consider this miracle premature, and likely assumed that his first miracle would occur later, perhaps in Judaea. But in keeping the fifth commandment, "Honour thy father and THY MOTHER," the Lord saved the wedding from disaster. To run out of wine would have left a shameful blot on the reputation of the hosts.
The second time we ask "where?" -- this time meaning "more exactly where" did the miracle take place -- we answer "in the waterpots." Now THIS gets interesting. These were no ordinary stone pots. They formed a necessary part of the purification ritual commanded in the Older Testament for Jews to maintain ritual purity. In other words, they form the centerpiece of this story as the symbol of cleanness before God.
Clue #4: Cleanness before God forms a central theme in this narrative.
Clue #5. Since we know that the waterpots are not incidental, but central, to John's point, we must zoom in on any detail given about them. Jesus had commanded "Fill them." And John then notes that they obeyed by "filling them TO THE BRIM." This connotes a sense of overflowing, where "filled to the brim" means nearly spilling out the sides.
Clue #6. What follows next? The interchange between the "ruler of the [wedding] feast and the bridegroom. Notice that the complaint came from the ruler (wedding supervisor) to the bridegroom. Now the ruler of the feast would have been responsible for supervising the whole wedding to see that it went smoothly. His complaint to the bridegroom shows that he had delegated certain tasks to others to help out, and that the bridegroom specifically held the duty to keep the wine flowing freely.
But Jesus had done the faltering bridegroom's job for him, and the ruler of the wedding feast did not know this. But the servants did. Jesus, in effect, then IS the responsible bridegroom, who took upon Himself the groom's task and succeeded where the groom had failed.
Clue #7. John's own punchline comes from the mouth of the feast supervisor as a complaint: "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."
His complaint is this. When people first show up to the wedding, you must give them the best wine to drink. The California Pinot Noir's come first. After the guests have had a few marvelous glasses, the wine has dulled their pallets and made them happy (or as we might say, "tipsy.") When they cannot now distinguish the flavor of wine very well (dulled pallet), they do not care what the wine tastes like. So then you break out the second-string wine -- Here come the Merlots -- and no one cares. But the bridegroom -- actually Jesus -- had reversed the order!! The ruler complained, "You didn't do it the way we expected." But he didn't know it was Jesus, the True Bridegroom, that had done it in the unsuspected order.
Clue #8. Thus, says John, Jesus showed forth his glory as the Messiah, long before his Resurrection into glory. Glory bespeaks resurrection. The Lord had hereby granted us a preview of his glory to come -- even though his hour had not yet come. Later, John will tell us, that Jesus died with the placard above his head, "King of the Jews." But in his resurrection, Jesus says, "All authority in heaven and earth is given me..." (Matthew 28:18). This makes Jesus king, not only of the Jews, but of all nations. That is what "ALL authority IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH" means. In his death, God reveals Christ as Lord of the Jews, but in Christ's resurrection glory, God has revealed him as "King of the Gentiles" too.
For it was in His resurrection that God the Father swore an oath to Christ, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." And said to Him, "Ask of me and I shall give thee the nations for thine inheritance" (Psalm 2).
Now let us put it all together. Any good sleuth must put his pool of relevant data together and draw the intended conclusion from them. Clue #1. John had something very important, even urgent, to say [clue #2] about the miraculous work of Jesus [C3] on behalf of the Gentiles [C4] by which he would purify them and make them clean [C5] as it were, filling them to the brim with His Spirit and overflowing joy ("New wine") [C6] and replacing the intended bridegroom (i.e. the Jewish rulers which would irrepsonsibly fail before God to bring His "wine" to the wedding guests). God would then supplant the failures -- scribes, Pharisees and Saducees --with Jesus (and his apostles), who fulfilled the duty of the bridegroom and saved the wedding guests from a ruined celebration. Now God would also accomplish this in a way that offended the Jewish leaders (remember the complaint against the Bridegroom), and in a way that people did not expect, a way which seemed out of order to them. So when the complaint [C7] of the Jewish rulers grew to become something far more sinister -- the execution of the Son -- God would indeed raise Him to life [C8] in vindication of Christ against the false charges that led to his demise. Thus, by resurrection God had reversed a tragic situation and would bring joy (like that of a wedding) to the world -- to Jew and Gentile alike by filled-to-the-brim "purified waterpots" like John, like Paul, and like Peter.
Finally, what does it mean, "You have saved the best wine til last?" This is a marvelous punchline. John revels throughout his Gospel in showing how those who oppose the Lord often say far more than they know. Here John offers just such an example.
First came the patriarchs, then Moses and Samuel, and great men like David, Solomon the Wise, and Josiah the king, and also many great prophets besides -- who brought the word of the Lord by His Spirit -- God's wine -- to teach and to rescue his people. But, at the very last, God sent His very Best -- when the Jewish nation had lost its taste for good wine -- Jesus came "in the fullness of time." "In past times, God spoke to our forefathers in many ways and at various times but IN THESE LAST DAYS hath He spoken to us BY HIS SON..." (Hebrews 1:1). God sent His obedient Son at the last to replace the failed Jewish leaders. God had saved the best for last.
Jesus, the greatest of the prophets -- and oh-SO-much-more -- had come at the end of the Older Covenant, at the "last days." Well said Solomon, "The end of a matter is better than its beginning." But this was only Christ's FIRST miracle. See how great a story THIS preview of Christ's glory is?, says John. Wait til I tell the rest!! John was saving the best for last too.
Carson Day has written approximately 1.3 gazillion articles and essays, many with very insightful, if alternative, viewpoints. He presently writes for Ophir Gold Corporation, and specialized in the history of ideas in college. He has been quoted in the past as saying "What box?" and remains at large despite the best efforts of the civil authorities.
This Article has been viewed 19,629 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsI thank Go for your insight Carson. I was studying to teach a class on discipleship and this article gave me not only teaching material but also so much revelation and a new set of yes on how I see and read God's word. May you be encouraged to keep writing and fulfilling God's will for your life.Again...THANK YOU!Rebecca M.
this article is very usefull for me to prepare a miracle of god
Shalom,Your facts are in accurate and display an anti-Semitic slant (whether this is intentional or not is yet undetermined).First you say here that "and Galilee was associated with a high percentage of Gentile inhabitants.". This is absolutely false. This idea is propagated by those such as Burton L. Mack and others. These theologians were not privy to the latest archeological finds that show quite the opposite. The de-Judaizing of the Galilee seems to fit New Testament theology but when studied in context there are failures.Having been raised in Israel and also having worked on many digs there I can verify that archaeological discoveries clearly attest to many Jewish burial and purity practices at several sites in the Galilee region. In fact a Gentile presence is rare. Though Gentiles ruled the area and gave Pagan names to many of the cities, Gentiles did not see Israel as a place they wanted to live and they left a minimal impact on literary as well as archeological records. There is far less evidence than often supposed for pagans frequently even traveling through Galilee.You are also incorrect in your article concerning how Jews felt towards Gentiles. true the Talmud has some very negative things to say about them, but it has to be understood that the anti-Gentile sentiments written in the Talmud date much later after the First Century and most are written in response to Christian persecution against them. Christians killed millions of Jews in the name of "Christ". Is it so hard to imagine that all the Jews could do is write a few bad things about them in retaliation?The truth is the Jews of the First Century were very kind to Gentiles and even went out of their way to welcome them. We also see this from the Talmud and from extra-Biblical works. Yeshua (Jesus) was only building on what the Rabbis of the day were teaching and fell in line with love towards ones neighbor. One of the greatest Rabbis of all time, Hillel, said the greatest commandment was love, Yeshua quoted him in the New Testament.So I find your article is hostile towards the Jews of the first century as well as inaccurate.Rabbi (Messianic, Born Again) StanleyGood wake-up call Rabbi for those who were quick to praise Carson without investigating the facts...That's a recurring problem for Christians. They will swiftly give thanks to those who provide inaccurate information, so as to stay ill-informed with ignorant bliss. I guess God only wants stupid people in heaven.Thanks Kenny,We can't be afraid to give the facts any longer. It does seem "un-Christian" to tell someone when they're wrong under the "What would Jesus do?" guise. The fact is Yeshua would correct them and would most likely tell them to stop speaking or writing until they educate themselves.As Believers in Yeshua, being "Jesus like" doesn't mean we encourage un-truths. So I agree with you 100%.You should check out some of my articles here on Search Warp. I think you'll like them.Rabbi Stanley
Here is something you wrote Carson that struck me as odd."Now, to understand the books of the Bible, you must always start your investigation by reading the end of the book first. Although this will at the first seem out of order, it actually provides the best approach. The author has the end of the book in mind when he lifts his pen to write the first letter. He has a plan and a goal, and he holds this goal -- the end of the story -- fixed firmly in mind from the very beginning. So he writes every account within the gospel with one eye on the end of the matter. By taking this approach then, we mimic the author's own mindset."*** Carson, are you saying John fabricated the story of the miracle? It seems you are. Why would John "the author have the end of the book in mind when he lifts his pen to write the first letter," unless he was making up the story?I don't know of any author who has ever had or needed to keep the end of a book in mind when a story or account were factual and true. Why would a writer need a GOAL and PLAN (the end of the story) if the story already had its story line? Any story that is written as a testimony has a beginning, middle, and end all of its own making long before it is spoken for. All the writer needs to do is write about what happened. There is no need to keep "... one eye on the end of the matter" when an event is already history. A writer only needs to keep "one eye on the end of a matter" when he is creating a story, but never when giving an account of it!By your own "reasoning" you're saying John concocted the "water to wine" story, AND Christ performed this miracle - implying two things at once: "... mimic the author's own mindset?"*** Then you say, "Now John tells us at the end of his gospel that "....there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen" (John 21:25). John knows of a great many "things Jesus did" (i.e. miracles and astonishing teachings) which "showed forth his glory," meaning that these clearly pointed to Him as "the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus' miracles point to resurrection glory. But also note John's lament -- his inability to tell us all that he knows of Christ (for lack of time, space and ink)."*** This makes me laugh...Your telling me that God gave up his only son for the human race, yet when it comes to God allowing all future generations an opportunity to know all of Christ miracles God suddenly can't perform simple miracles like supplying more ink and paper? Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds?Your writing about wonderful miracles that we will never know because God, I guess, ran out of miracles for ink, paper, and pens that would have filled our spirits with great admiration for his one and only son. I must be missing something because that makes no sense to me...To have your son give up his life, performing miracles to prove he IS INDEED the son of God, and then leave John without enough ink and paper to give us testimony of those miracles is the stuff of The Three Stooges.Hi Kenny, I read some of your other comments and this one as well. I see you're not a Believer, and frankly, I don't blame you. I am impressed by some of your questions though... they are brutally honest. I wish we had more Believers who were asking these same kinds of questions. It would root out the idiocy that most Churches support. Drop me an email if you get a chance at Rap_ Rabbi at hotmail dot com. I'd like to get your opinion on a couple things.Rabbi StanleyOkay I will Rabbi. I copy & pasted your address into my address book. ttyl...Kenny
Last Sunday my pastor preached a sermon on this passage and I asked him if he thought Jesus’ first miracle of turning water into wine is related to the Exodus story where the Nile is turned to blood. His brief response was no because one was a curse and the other a blessing. The more I thought about it I couldn’t help but wonder if John placed the story at the beginning of his gospel to draw attention to a curse turned blessing? Is it a bookend to the Passion narrative?John introduced Jesus with a series of events that took place over the course of a week. On the first day a deputation of priests and Levites asks John the Baptist who he is and he denies that he is the Messiah. He then tells them about “the one to come” saying “I am not good enough to unfasten his shoes.” The next day, John sees Jesus for the first time and identifies him as the “Lamb of God”, clearly inviting his readers to think of the Pascal Lamb and Passover. The Passover story begins in a similar way with Moses’ first encounter with Pharaoh when he asks “Who is the Lord that I should obey him and let Israel go?”The next day Jesus called his first disciples. The following day he left Galilee and Nathanael joined the group. He is amazed that Jesus knew his name simply by having seen him under a fig tree. This first minor “sign” is the basis for Nathanael’s faith. I think John is drawing a contrast between Jesus’ disciple’s immediate response of belief and Pharaoh’s immediate response of unbelief. In his second encounter with Pharaoh, Moses performed his first sign by turning his staff into a serpent, also a relatively minor sign since Pharaohs’ magicians do the same thing, though their serpents get devoured by Moses’.John begins his story of the wedding feast by saying it was on the third day. Counting the days in the narrative it is actually the fifth day. I think he mentions it being the third day to once again draw attention to the Passover story. It was during Moses’ third encounter with Pharaoh that he turned the Nile to blood making it unfit to drink. When Jesus turned the water into wine he had the servants fill the water jars that Jews use for ritual cleansing. According to the law of Leviticus, water from these jars is unfit for drinking. A curse turned blessing?I also noted that when Mary approached Jesus about the wine running out, he rebuked her by saying “My hour has not yet come.” Elsewhere in John “hour” denotes the hour of the Passion. By using the term here, John is drawing attention to the first Passover that was a curse for non-believers and a blessing for believers. I also find it curious that John doesn’t include breaking of bread and drinking of wine in his version of the Last Supper. I think the reason he doesn’t is because he has already described it here. The one thing he alone adds is Jesus washing his disciples’ feet. This seems directly related to the Baptist’s comment “I am not fit to untie his sandals”.And last, after the wedding feast Jesus went to Capernaum and from there to Jerusalem to celebrate the Jewish Passover. It is during this visit to Jerusalem that Jesus drives out the money changers, an event that the synoptic gospels place during Holy Week. If John was writing after the synoptic gospels were written, why would he include one of the pivotal events that lead to Jesus’ crucifixion here?It isn’t until we read the Passion story that the miracle at Cana becomes entirely clear. Jesus is the Passover lamb who dies a cursed death on a tree for our sin yet he conquers death and lives. Our sins are washed in his blood without ever asking and, for some, not even knowing. And all we need to do to attend His wedding is believe so we can drink from the cup of victory over death.Viewed this way, the miracle at Cana, while clearly a “sign”, is also a bookend to the Passion story. A curse turned blessing.
I believe the author was correct when he said "John writes with an Evangelist's heart,..." But outside of a narrative sense, this miracle contradicts Mark's gospel when, after Jesus had performed many miracles, it is said: "Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." (3:20-21)If Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine, at the request of his mother, then his family would not have met him with hostility. It seems likely that John was making an appeal to men with this passage.
It is clear from other scripture that Jesus' brothers did not believe he was the Messiah. Mary, his mother, may have well been along with the brother's, but there is no indication she did not believe there was something unordinary about Him. She is noted to have 'pondered' the things told her or witnessed in the past and she certainly knew she did not impregnate herself. However, the brother's did not believe Jesus's claims. Jesus is confronted by his brothers in John 7. They wanted him to go and showcase Himself, prove that He was who He claimed to be at the Feast of Tabernacles. Everyone would be there. But Jesus did not want to do that. Therefore John 7:5 "For even his brothers did not believe him."Furthermore, the Messianic Psalm 69 states "I have become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to my mother's children." His only family member at his crucifixtion was his mother, Mary. However, after His resurrection, his brothers did believe whereas we see his brother James as a prominent figure of the early apostolic church.
Great article, thanks for breaking it down so well with these clues. John is so complex! We really need this type of help to digest the meat of the Word.If you look at the earthly nation of Israel as an allegory of man's relationship with God, this miracle works in nicely. We find God naturally and without a nation of Israel (Abraham...Melchizedek) but then God blesses us with the nation of Israel. Is that nation, a worldly kingdom, the end-all to satisfy our human desires? NO...the people leave (Joseph), come back (Moses...Joshua), experience earthly greatness (Saul...David...Solomon) but even that fails to satisfy human desires. Earthly Jewish leadership (Bridegroom) had so many chances to fulfill these human needs but it was torn apart (922 BC) and dragged away (586 BC) before God draws them back to the Nation ruled by worldly Persians, Greeks and Romans. The nation needs saved, but those earthly ways never work! Only through Jesus and being overflowed with the Spirit can we come to a full relationship with God. Shortly after Jesus left Earth, the Holy City was torn down, brick by brick, and no remnant of a strong Nation would exist. We must look to Christ for fulfillment and relationship (good wine), not the worldly leaders (bridegroom) who always fail.
I never thought about the water to wine story in this way, true revelation, thank you for being a vessel that God could use to relay to other Christians, again thanks!
Wow, interesting, yet way overdone. The way I have always read this, the "best for last" is a reference to the last supper and crucifixion. Then, on a deeper level, for the modern Christian, the communion wine (and transformed for Catholics) is the first wine. In short, the best is yet to come, even today.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.