The Wedding At Cana
In John chapter 2, we find the story of Jesus turning water into wine at a wedding at Cana in Galilee. At face value, it appears to be a simple story of Jesus responding to his mother's urging that he step in and work a miracle—his first, in John's account—to spare the shame of the bride and groom.
The passage has been cited as evidence of Jesus endorsing the institution of marriage. We have no reason to think he would not be pro-marriage, but to suggest that John is consciously citing the story for that reason seems to be more of a “reading-in” than a “reading-out.”
The passage has also raised eyebrows about the quantity of wine that Jesus produced for guests who John infers had already drunk their fill. We could view this as illustrative of a lavishly generous God, or simply say that to dwell on this detail is to miss the broader points.
Below the surface of the story, there’s more going on—more that needs to be appreciated to hear the story with the ears of John's original audience. As so often, that begins with “context,” by which we mean several things, including the incident in its societal setting; the book within which it appears; the writer's particular concerns in his book; and its significance within the wider context of Scripture as a whole. All of this comes into play in understanding the passage in ways that are consonant with John’s original audience.
It will be apparent even to casual readers that John's Gospel is rather different stylistically from the Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—whose stories and styles are quite similar, drawing on apparently common materials and sources. It’s from this commonality that we get the term synoptic, which means “together-view” (from “syn” as in synchronized + “optics” as in viewpoint). In contrast, John demonstrates some different concerns and selects and orders his content differently.
Features of John include:
Far more “theological” content—for example, a strong focus on the relationship of Jesus to the Father, the nature and identity of Jesus as the Son of God, and the role of the Holy Spirit (John is very “charismatic” compared to the Synoptics, and hence is often referenced more frequently in charismatic and pentecostal church traditions).
A significant interaction with the institutions, symbols, and thought world of first-century Judaism (John was probably quite early, pre-AD 70).
Jesus’ miraculous deeds explained as “signs” of Jesus’ identity (there are seven such signs in John). Their significance is less in Jesus performing miracles as such than in what they point to.
The Jesus of John is not concerned about his identity being revealed; in the synoptics, however, his identity remains enigmatic.
Critical language concerning “the Jews.”
This last point is not a reference to ethnicity: namely, that Jews are bad, or that Judaism is bad. It’s simply a catch-all term for those who were opposed to Jesus—who let’s not forget was also Jewish, along with the disciples.
“Christianity” (as we now call it) was counted within Judaism at the time, alongside its other sects and movements, such as the Pharisees, Scribes, Zealots, and Essenes. Jesus’ disputes with Pharisees, in particular, were debates happening within the family—different perspectives on what God wanted, and how what was happening in Israel (such as its occupation by the Roman legions) was to be understood. They were not reflecting a parting of the ways between two fully-formed distinct religions, the “old” and the “bad” of Judaism versus the “new” and the “good” of Christianity. Although some of the language in John can come across today as quite sharp and vitriolic, we need to understand that this was “just the way people debated with each other” in those days; in fact, the New Testament tone is quite mild in comparison.
Turning to the structure of John, the stories in chapters 2 through 4 engage with some key Jewish institutions and practices (the one featured here being marriage). Chapters 5 through 10, meanwhile, engage with important Jewish festivals and their symbols. Each story John recounts is “saying something theologically” about Jesus concerning one or more of these.
John’s intentions in assembling his narrative are made clear in John 20:30-31. Jesus did many other things, but the ones the author has focused on “are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John's purpose is not so much a life story as an explanatory story, with application. As well as recounting events, John offers interpretation and commentary in parallel.
In that time and place, wedding celebrations would typically last a whole week. That the wine should run out (perhaps as early as the third day—see verse 1) was not merely an embarrassment, but a total catastrophe: social disgrace and endless shame for the family, bride, and groom.
The custom was for guests to bring wine as a gift, so, a lack of wine might imply a lack of friends. Or, inviting Jesus and his disciples may have upset the quantities: perhaps they had failed to bring any wine, because of poverty. But that’s all speculation.
In any event, Mary is concerned and brings it to Jesus. Mary may be related to the wedding family, as one early tradition suggested—which would explain being invited to a wedding happening in another town—so she has a more acute sense of familial responsibility, that she feels Jesus should share. Mary may have consulted him because (as the eldest male) he was now head of the family; assuming that Joseph has by this point died. Either way, clearly Mary expects Jesus to intervene in some way, though it’s not clear in what way that might be. It’s not obvious that she’s expecting him to perform a miracle, not least because in John's account there have been no miracles yet (all that Mary says to Jesus is, “They have no more wine”).
To the modern ear, Jesus might sound rude when he addresses his mother as “woman” (softened by the NLT to “dear woman”), but that’s not the case. It’s actually a polite term. Similarly, when Jesus responds with "Why do you involve me?” it’s a well-known Jewish idiom, or saying. Its literal rendering is, “What to me and to you?” In other words, “What does this have to do with us?”
The story then turns to the six jars, each holding 20-30 gallons. That's probably some 600-900 bottles of wine. They’re probably jars to hold ritual purification water, but notice that the jars are empty at this point—they first have to be filled (with what the text suggests is simply ordinary water). The theological point in the story is not therefore about Jesus replacing the features of something old (“Judaism”) represented by ritual purification with something new (“Christianity”) represented by the new wine of the Spirit. To think otherwise is to succumb to theological anti-Judaism by a “reading-in.” That said, the quality of the new wine compared to the earlier wine is a key theological point; there was nothing wrong with the wine served earlier, but through Jesus, something qualitatively different has come about. He’s done more than participate in the festivities (though he has done that as well)—in so doing, he’s transformed them.
We need to recognize the importance of the symbolism here in terms of Jewish messianic expectations. The theological implication to which John is alluding is that the Messiah has come and the messianic banquet (here portrayed as a wedding feast) has begun. Revelation 19:9 pictures the arrival of the new era as an invitation to the wedding feast of the Lamb. As Gary Burge notes, in the NIV Life Commentary on Revelation, “When Jews reflected on what heaven or the arrival of the Messiah would be like, they thought about banquets, and the wedding banquet was the foremost model that came to mind.”
An abundance of wine had significant “eschatological” significance—the end of the age and the restoration of Israel. Along with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, it was a signpost to the arrival of the messianic era, when God would put right everything that was wrong. See Amos 9:13-14; Hosea 2:22; and Jeremiah 31:12.
Wedding imagery is symbolic of the Messiah's coming in Old Testament prophecy (for example, in Isaiah 54 and 62). Both weddings and banquets were images on which Jesus drew (see Matthew 8:11, and esp. 22:1-14).
In John’s observation in verse 11—“This miraculous sign at Cana in Galilee was the first time Jesus revealed his glory”— the word ”glory” is a reference to the presence of God. The presence that first resided in the tabernacle and then in the temple, in an unseen and limited way, has now been revealed in the person of Jesus. John says, “We have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (verse 14). God is now present with his people through Jesus and the Spirit in an unprecedented, radical way.
So why did Jesus get involved in the problem of the wine running out, having initially seemed reluctant? Did Mary's persistence change his mind? Did he prayerfully reflect on the situation and the Father showed him what he should do (see John 5:19)? Perhaps it was a combination. An apparently casual comment by Mary that is easily overlooked might be the best clue we have. It reflects a complete confidence that Jesus is going to do something. In verse 5, she says to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Interestingly, these are Mary's last recorded words in John’s Gospel. Perhaps those are words that she herself would have chosen to leave us with. If it could be said that Catholics over-venerate Mary, it could also be said that Protestants under-venerate her. Surely, though, whatever our brand of Christianity, we are with Mary on this one. It’s not a bad mandate for a Christian.