Skip to main content

John 2:1-11

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.” 5His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” 6Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. 8He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.” So they took it.9When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom 10and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.” 11Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him. (NRSV)
The narrative has now moved on from the calling of the disciples to the start of Jesus' public ministry. The narrative itself ties with other important themes throughout the gospel and thus does introduce the nature of Jesus' ministry (see Moloney's commentary for a concise treatment of themes with references). Thus, as Michaels has pointed out, this is more of a pronouncement story than a miracle story. Or perhaps, better, a miracle story that functions as a pronouncement. Jesus goes to a wedding with some of his disciples and the wine runs out. Mary, his mother points this out to him, presumably hoping for him to intervene in some way. Jesus responds in a way that distances himself from his mother. Mary is undeterred and tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them to do. Verses 4-5 are quite difficult in my opinion. It's hard to see verse four as anything but a rejection of Mary. McHugh's translation captures it nicely, 'What relationship is there, woman, between you and me, now that my hour is approaching?'

What is Jesus' hour? It must be the demonstration of Jesus' glory, culminating in his death. The miracle performed here is a precursor for what will be demonstrated more widely later on in the gospel. Jesus' rebuff of his mother then must be understood as expressing his freedom from human influence (so Bultmann, among others). Even familial relations cannot be counted on. Jesus was truly his own man.

Why then did Mary persist? She is presented here as a model disciple. She has faith even prior to the demonstration of Jesus miracle. However, we do, as well, need to reckon with the possibility that Jesus's response is from the hand of the editor, because its still very hard to hold Jesus response and Mary's instructions to the servants together.

There were six large jars for purification that Jesus instructed to be filled with water. I think it's impossible to adjudicate whether or not we are supposed to understand this narrative element as indicating that what Jesus provides supersedes the Mosaic covenant. I think we are on much surer ground in seeing this miracle as expressing that Jesus' ministry is the flowering of the Messianic age, an age (as McHugh points out) overflowing with the wine of wisdom. Jesus, as Wisdom incarnate is coming to give wisdom by the Spirit to all who will receive and recognize it.

The story ends ironically. Jesus performs a great miracle but it isn't recognized. The wrong bridegroom is called. Jesus the true bridegroom displayed his glory, but it was only ascertained by his followers, who responded with faith. Thus the story is both ironic and indicative of what is to come.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…