The Signs in the Gospel of John (1)
THE MARRIAGE IN CANA
John 2:1-11
The Gospel of John centers around
seven miracles or signs. John calls them
signs
the Greek word (
semeion)
which means a sign, mark, token, wonder, a miraculous operation with meaning
and intent. The intent is to produce
faith, manifest His glory and power by these miraculous narratives (John 2:11).
Keener notes that these signs “
signified
something beyond itself, and functioned as a proof or attestation”
of
Jesus’ person and his call to faith. They are not an end to themselves. The
seven signs in John are:
- Water into wine (2:1-11)
- Healing of the Nobleman’s son (4: 46-54)
- Healing of the lame man (5:1-17)
- Feeding of the 5000 (6:1-14)
- Walking on the Water (6:16-25).
- Healing the blind man (9:1-12)
- Raising of Lazarus (11:1-45)
John 1-11 has been called the
sign book. While each miracle is not unique to John (i.e., Feeding of the 5000)
his interpretation of them is distinctive. In the other gospels the miracles
are related to the
kingdom
of God, or eschatology in
nature; in John they are related primarily to Christology, who Jesus is and as
evidence to believe in Him.
I
chart the differences in approach between the Synoptic Gospels and John’s
Gospel this way:
|
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
|
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
|
|
Historical and Miraculous
events
|
Historical and Miraculous
events
|
|
Eschatological in nature
|
Christological in nature
|
|
Signs of Christ’s mission
|
Signs of Christ’s person
|
|
Indicates His Messiahship
|
Indicates His Deity
|
The signs in John present a focal
point to call one to faith (cf. 7:31; 12:37). Likewise, the lack of faith after
seeing the signs caused by the stubbornness of disbelieving is also possible
and seen (John 10:25; 12:37). They are intended to challenge the readers turn
to God in faith. Thus the signs are linked with the responses they evoke:
either to faith or unbelief.
It also must be observed that these
seven signs are given before the passion of Christ, which begins immediately
after the seventh sign (John 12-20). These signs present who Christ is, once
these signs were completed (John 1-11) the passion begins which begins His
redemptive work. Like in the synoptic gospels, once the person or office of
Christ is confirmed with the confession of Peter, from this point on he says “he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things...”
(Matt. 16:13-21; Mark 8:27-31; Luke 9:18-22). In John the seven signs being
given is the turning point to begin His passion. In all the gospels is
presented the revelation of who Jesus is, before it turns to what He did in His
passion.
The first sign is given at the
marriage in Cana. The name of the village
brackets the event (2:1, 11). There has been some debate as to its exact
location and two possible sites frame the debate: Kefar-Kenna or Khirbet-Qanah.
Most scholars prefer Khirbet-Qanah, which is located 9 miles north of Nazareth. This debate is
really a sidebar to the event itself and does not affect either the record of
the event, nor its historical reliability. The text of the miracle can be
divided into three parts: The Setting, the Sign, and the Summation.
The Setting (John 2:1-5)
This miracle took place “
on the third day” after leaving
Bethany (John 1:28). This
makes sense because the distance to
Cana from
there was about 75 miles. Travelers walking often made 25 miles or so per day.
Thus, it would be the third day when they arrived, probably in the late
afternoon or early evening hours. It does not refer to the third day of the
week for standard customs were that virgins were married on the fourth day of
the week and widows on the fifth.
It
also may well refer to the third day of the wedding feast, since weddings
lasted seven days. The text seems to imply that the wedding feast had been well
underway by the time that Jesus and the disciples arrived. The mother of Jesus
was already in attendance
when Jesus and the disciples arrived, being invited guests.
When the wine ran out, Mary came
to Jesus with their situation. To run out of wine on such an occasion was a
social no-no in Mid-eastern culture. At the least she is bringing to him the
need. It would look bad in the eyes of the guest, and in a village like
Cana. Most of the village would be in attendance. That
this happened may indicate that they were poor and tried to get by with the
minimum provision hoping it would last. Whatever the case, it could result in
two things: (1) the slur of not fully fulfilling the duties of hospitality; (2)
opening up the bridegroom’s family to a possibly a lawsuit.
At this point the question that
is often asked is “was the real wine?” There are two things that should be
pointed out here. First, the word for wine
is oinos, used three times in
this scripture (2:3 [2x], 10), and is the only word use for wine in the New
Testament. In the New Testament world three types of wine were in use:
(1) fermented wines, which usually were
mixed in the proportion of two or three parts of water to one of wine; (2) new
wine, made of grape juice, and, similar to cider, not fermented; and (3) wines
in which, by boiling the unfermented grape juice, the process of fermentation
had been stopped and the formation of alcohol prevented.
Keener brings out two points,
however: (1) It was difficult before hermetic sealing and refrigeration, to
prevent some fermentation, and impossible over time; (2) Wine was a standard
part of life in
Palestine, pointing out that
winemaking was a major part of the economy of
Galilee.
Since
all three were called wine, it is impossible to tell which was used at this
wedding. However, it appears that the most common wine in use was the wines
mixed with water. The use of water turning into wine may indicate the first type
of wine. Second, drunkenness was seen as a sin and was severely reprobated.
Scripture may not directly teach total abstinence, but clearly prohibits the
sin of drunkenness (Hab 2:15; Luke 21:34; Rom 13:13; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:18).
It is not clear, nor stated when
Mary told Jesus of the situation, what she had in mind. The statement indicates
she had some type of expectation, and seems to carry an implied request,
although some scholars deny it. This implication is reinforced by her statement
in John 2:5. Jesus responds to her, “Woman,
what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come” (2:4). This is
one of the most unusual sayings of Jesus found in Scripture. There are three
things in this response demands our attention.
- First, the use of the word Woman (Gk: gynai)
indicating normally a married women. Although this use of this word sounds
disrespectful to our western ears, it is not to be taken as such.
John uses the same word at the cross in committing Mary to his care (19:26).
In the time of Jesus, it was a term that can be used to express great affection
and respect.
In its use in the gospels, Jesus uses it as a polite term for addressing
women (cf. Matt 15:28; Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10; 20:13).
- Second, is the question: “what does that have to do with us?” (2:4). Literally it is “what to me and to you?” It is a
Semitic idiom which distance the two parties and has an abrupt tone, but
not necessarily rude.
It has been pointed out that in the Old Testament it has two basic meanings:
(1) It was used when one person was unjustly bothering another (cf. Judges
11:12; 2 Chron. 35:21). (2) When someone is asked to be involved in a matter
they felt they had no business to get involved (cf. 2 Kings 3:13; Hosea
14:8). The first implies hostility; the second disengagement. The context
seems to uphold the second meaning as the most likely in John. The exact
phrase is used in Matthew 28:29.
The phrase marks a separation of some type in a relationship. In John it marks
a change of relationship between mother and son. It is now necessary to
break the apron strings (sort of speak), in that it expresses Jesus’
freedom from the family and establishes distance between them (cf. Matt.
12:46-50). He is now going about to doing the will of the Father, which
now becomes the controlling factor of his actions. Carson remarks: “now that he had entered into the purpose of his coming,
everything, even family ties, had to be subordinated to his divine
mission.”
- Third, his hour had not yet come. John views the “hour” as the hour of suffering and
sacrifice. He uses it seven times in two different ways: First, to
indicate that the time of his suffering and sacrifice was still future
(2:4; 7:30; 8:20). It is clear that these statements are given for the
reader’s anticipation of its arrival in a later point in the life of
Jesus. Second, to acknowledge that the hour had
come, the events associated in the hour are part of his passion and
sacrifice (12:23, 27; 16:32; 17:1). Thus the word “hour” has an anticipation/realization tension in the life of
Jesus.
In spite of those statements, the
change of mission and relationship, Mary displays full confidence and faith in
her son. The undertone and expectancy of faith cannot be missed, as seen in her
instruction to the servants: “
Whatever He
says to you, do it” (2:5). The servants were put into submission to Jesus. It
has been observed that although the disciples were present, they had no part in
the miracle.
The
reasons for this may be: (1) to center the reader’s attention on Jesus; (2) to
display His glory to the disciples as well as those who were in attendance; (3)
since the disciples had just been called, it was too early for them to display
such power.
The Sign (John 2:6-10).
There are three elements to the
miracle:
- The order (2:6-7). At the scene there are six
waterpots. We should erase from our minds that these were simple pot for drawing
water from a well (cf. 4:28). These were a certain type of waterpots—those
used for the Jewish custom of purification. These were large containers,
made out of stone, and held “twenty
to thirty gallons each” (2:6). These were large enough to fill an
immersion pool used for Jewish purification ceremonies.
He orders them to be filled with water and they were filled to the brim
(2:7). Being filled to the brim left no room for additional solutions. “There was no way, humanly speaking, in
which the water could have been made to taste like wine” observes
Toussaint. That
is no less than 120 gallons and could be up to 150 gallons of wine.
- The Obedience (2:7-8). They were obedient not only to
fill the waterpots, but also to draw out the contents of the waterpots and
take it to the headwaiter. The word translated headwaiter is the Greek
word architriklinos,
used only in John 2, and is one who is more than a headwaiter; it means ruler
of the table, thus the director of a feast. He was the man in charge. Toussaint
points out that “This person who
was the first to taste the wine had the combined responsibilities of head
waiter and master of ceremonies.”
It is interesting that the text never identifies what is drawn from the
waterpots, or when the water became wine. However, it is safe to assume
that the water became wine while in the waterpots. Ryle is reported to
comment: “Duties are ours. Events
are God’s. It is ours to fill the water-pots. It is Christ’s to make the
water wine.”
- The Opinion (2:9-10). It is clear that “when the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine...”
(2:9). The Greek word is ginomai,
is a passive participle, indication that the miracle of water turned to
wine before it was tasted. The servant did not draw water to give to the
headwaiter, but wine. When he drank it, he was a shocked. The wine was
excellent, but better than the wine that was served earlier. He was
confused not knowing where it came from. He called the bridegroom and
said, “Every man serves the good
wine first, and when [the people] have drunk freely, [then he serves] the
poorer [wine]; but you have kept the good wine until now” (2:10). This
confirms two things: First, it was a miracle, the water had become wine.
Second, the wine was better than what preceded it.
The Summary of this Sign (John 2:11)
As John points out clearly, this
is the first miracle (or sign) that Jesus performed. The word
beginning (
arche) may be translated as the first or primary. It
implies other signs are to follow. The account is closed by an inclusio—“
Cana of Galilee” (2:1, 11). The purposes
that Jesus did the sign are twofold:
- To manifest His
glory. John uses the word glory
to bracket these signs in John (2:11; 11:40), thus the signs begin and end
with glory. These signs reflect Exodus 16:7, where God’s glory is seen by Israel
in the signs He performs
(cf. 1 Cor 1:22). In these signs we see the heart of John’s Christology to
Israel
as Jesus being the one who is greater than Moses (John 14:1). This was his
first manifestation of His glory, or self-revelation in public (cf. John
1:14). However, Kostenberger makes an interesting and valid point: this
manifestation was lost on the general public. “Though benefiting from Jesus’ physical provision, the
wedding guests were untouched by Jesus’ messianic self-revelation.”
His manifested glory is limited to His own, not the guests. This
reinforces the idea presented earlier in John 1:11-12: “He came to His own, and those who were
His own did not receive Him.” The unwanted Savior is a common theme
present in the gospels.
- To bring about and strengthen belief. This is seen in
“His disciples believed in Him”
(2:11). This is in unison of John’s overall purpose (John 20:30-31). The
text is that this messianic self-revelation affected only the disciples.
There is no reaction from the people at the wedding at all. There is no
notice among even the groom or headmaster as to why or where the wine came
from. The point of John is that this behind-the-scenes miracle and sign
was directed toward his disciples, not the crowd.
Significance of the First Sign
While many see the significance
of this passage for the church, but I do not think that is the primary
significance. I see the significance as threefold:
- First,
as the renewal of Israel
by means of the remnant of true believers. During this gospel period,
Jesus acts as a reformer within Judaism.
His mission is to the lost house of Israel, not to start a church
apart from the nation (cf. Matthew 15:24; 5:13). To make the significance
as for the church (which was not in existence at the time) is to take the
event out of the historical situation. The first step in his revelation as
would naturally be to his own disciples as a confirmation of his messianic
mission.
- Second, the significance of the miracle speaks of his
messianic character and purpose. It has been noted that “this revelation culminates prophetic
symbolism and prediction and lending Jesus’ work an end-time, definitive
dimension that sets it apart from previous figures, servants, and
spokesperson of God.”
Both ideas of glory and joy are aspects and features of the messianic hope
and kingdom. Joy is present in the picture of wine. Wine is a symbol of
joy (Psa. 104:15). The coming of the Messianic kingdom is pictured in the
water being turned into wine with great abundance bringing great joy.
- Third, that this sign takes place at a wedding,
pictures the future wedding when Israel is married unto Jehovah (Isa.
62:4-5; Rev. 19:7-9).
Of course, that is not to say
that there is no secondary significance or application to the church. C.F.
Baker observes: “
While the primary
interpretation of these signs concern Israel in the Kingdom dispensation,
they also show forth, secondarily, the riches of God’s grace in this
dispensation. One is reminded of Paul’s statement... [in] Ephesians 3:20-21.”
