New Thoughts (5/11/05-5/20/05)
As narrative goes, this is a very straightforward telling of the story. John simply notes some of those who were there, and then cuts straight to the matter he wishes to focus on. It is not until we reach his summary of the matter that things become less clear. He tells us that this was the first sign Jesus did, and he tells us that because of this sign, His disciples believed in Him. To me, this is where the questions begin.
What causes me to have questions is the very fact that this is declared a miracle. It is not that I doubt the miracle occurred, nor that it was indeed miraculous in nature. It is more along the lines of wondering what the point was. The thing that Mr. Zhodiates points out in his definition of the word is that miracles always have a higher purpose. They are their not to excite the physical senses but to point to God. They are rather like physical parables in that sense, using events in the physical to draw our attention to the spiritual. Considered in this light, I find it difficult to explain what this event is pointing out about God’s kingdom, or why it would lead the disciples to believe more fully. One could wonder as well why further attention was not drawn to what had occurred at the time.
One further question that arises is how this event can be fit together with the record of the other three Gospels. From what is read there, it seems that Jesus was gone for well over a month beginning with His departure from the Jordan, yet John places this event ‘on the third day.’ Then, there is the matter of His disciples being with Him here, when it seems that they weren’t called until after He had preached in Nazareth. [A note here: In preparing for this study, I placed the events in Nazareth after the call of the disciples, based, I suspect, on the mention of His prior work in Capernaum. In retrospect, I think that Luke’s ordering of those two events should be considered correct. That He had preached in Capernaum prior to this does not require that He had called the disciples at that time.] So, the first issue is the placing of this event so close to the baptismal event. The second issue is that John claims this as the first of Jesus’ signs, whereas the discussion of His preaching in Nazareth suggests that He had done things in Capernaum already. One would think that if the Nazareth message follows after the Cana wedding that the people of Nazareth would be at least as aware of what He had done there, just a few miles away, as they were of what had happened farther away.
So how are we to deal with these things? A few of the issues I think can be resolved with relative ease. As to the disciples being at the wedding, this is only an issue if we insist that the events in Cana precede the events in Nazareth. In that case, I would simply point out that the presence of the disciples at the wedding was not necessarily, indeed not even probably, because they were Jesus’ disciples. Far more likely that they were friends of either the bride or the groom. Viewed in that light, it’s actually a bit more surprising to find Mary there. If one accepts the theory that this was Nathanael’s wedding, the whole picture becomes that of friends and acquaintances invited to witness his big day.
That said, what prevents us from considering these events as following after Nazareth’s rejection of Jesus, as I have ordered it here? The strongest argument against this is John’s statement that it occurred ‘on the third day.’ This is without a doubt the stickiest issue with placing these events. Following along in John’s narrative from the introduction of Jesus, we have this clear progression of one day Jesus is announced, the next day He is pointed out, the day after that He determines to go back into Galilee, and then, on the third day, He is found in Cana, at a wedding. Contrast that to the other accounts, in which Jesus is led into the wilderness for a month and a half, and those He met at the Jordan have gone home and returned to their fishing. It would certainly be convenient to say that John used the phrase to indicate a Tuesday, as opposed to a span of time, but there is nothing to support such a view. The usage of the phrase in Scripture certainly seems to bespeak of a span of time, and not a particular day. John’s telling of events certainly seems to have clearly identified the starting point for that span as being the day of Jesus’ baptism. I see, at this point, no way to reconcile the two accounts. Either it was three days, or it was a few months. I don’t see how it could have been both.
The final point to reconcile is that of this being the first sign, when it seems Jesus had, at a minimum, been healing people before this. To this, I would say that it would seem from other mentions of Jesus’ doings specifically as signs that the general healings were not counted as signs. Given that there were any number of spiritual healers, and that physicians such as they existed at the time were little more than magicians, this might not be an unreasonable distinction. There were any number of people wandering around Israel who could claim to have healed the sick. News of such a healer would certainly suffice to bring the crowds, and it seems to be news of such healing that Jesus made reference to as He addressed the folks at home. However, there was not a one in Israel who could lay claim to changing water into wine, or, for that matter, changing any particular substance into another. Certainly, no other could have produced witnesses to such an event.
Consider the healing ministries of our own time. The majority of these healing ministries produce thoroughly unverifiable results. Either there has been no diagnosis of an illness to be cured, or there has been no validation that the documented illness has truly been healed. If we are honest, we must recognize that a large portion of what passes for healing ministry today is as much a hoax and a sham as what passed for healing in Israel before Jesus came. This is not to say that there is no validity to physical healing at God’s hand. It is merely to point out that it is a far more rare event than the claims might lead us to believe. My point is this: we do well not to accept unverified claims of healing as proof of the man of God. The healings Jesus performed were important, but they were not, by and large, the things that showed Him to be the Son of God. When, however, He shows Himself to be Lord of all creation, as He does in this event, that is another thing altogether. That is a sign, albeit a sign that may require further thought to truly understand.
Turning my attention back to the beginning of this event, I find another question arises. When Jesus was informed that the wine was running out, His immediate response was that it was nothing He could do anything about, for it was not yet time for Him to be revealed. Yet, when Mary ignored this comment and told the servants to just do whatever He said to do, He appears to have reversed course and decided it was time after all. What is learned from this? Clearly, there is something we are to understand in it, for all Scripture is written for our edification. But, what is the lesson we are to take away from Jesus’ actions here?
One lesson we could choose to pull from this is that Christianity is all about expediency. After all, Jesus changed His apparent perception of the plan and purpose of God to fit the expectations of those around Him, didn’t He? His understanding was that it was not time, and yet when Mary’s expectations remained unchanged by that position, He moved. Oh! But this would be a vile lesson to take away! This would be such a twisting of the message of the Bible to fit one’s own weakness. Face it. The worldly nature in us would love to have this excuse to soften the message. We can see it happening in churches today. While the Bible remains adamant in its stance regarding homosexuality, we find that there are preachers who will stretch and twist the significance of this or that passage to support the idea that God’s stance is quite the opposite. To see this passage as supporting expedient Christianity would be the same sort of misrepresentation. It would be another case of forcing God’s Word to conform to our opinion.
This is why it is so important that we come to the Word with the purpose of allowing the Word to inform our opinion, rather than coming with opinions already set in stone. Indeed, there are many aspects of the passage before us that make it dangerous to come with our own preconceptions or our own agenda. We must struggle past what we’d like to hear to find out what God is really trying to get across.
With that in mind, I come back to this issue of Jesus changing course. I could ask myself whether He really did change course, or if He was merely testing Mary. Yet, there is nothing in the text to require such an understanding. Far better to assume that He intended to be taken at face value, as befits a man of integrity. No, I think when He told His mother that it was not yet time, that was His understanding of things. Of course, in a sense, His hour did not come until several days after His death. Yet, I don’t think this was His meaning here. So, why did He act? I think a portion of the answer is to be found in Luke’s account of an earlier event.
Recall that visit the family made to Jerusalem. After the celebration of Passover, Mary and Joseph had headed for home, assuming that Jesus was with relatives in the caravan. Days later they found Him at the temple, pursuing His course in His Father’s house. That’s a key thing. He was in His Father’s house on His Father’s business in pursuit of His Father’s purpose. Yet, when His parents came He went with them, and “continued in subjection to them” (Lk 2:51). This is, I suspect, the lesson to be taken from the event John records. See, it is always God’s purpose that we walk in obedience to those who hold authority over us, except when their commands would require an outright breach of God’s own Law.
It comes down to this: “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex 20:12). “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God” (Ro 13:1). This was the principle Jesus pursued in listening to His mother. Indeed, to have dismissed her implied command would have been a sin. To have done nothing after she had told the servants to heed His command would not have honored her. It would have made her look foolish.
In a sense, then, Jesus is put in a moral quandary here. If He dishonors His mother, He has held to God’s purpose for His ministry, but at the cost of His righteousness. If He honors His mother, He has seemingly disregarded God’s timetable for His ministry. He has upheld the Law, but at the cost of obeying God. That Jesus acted is evidence that He found a resolution to that quandary, a resolution that satisfied both of the demands upon Him for obedience.
How is it that He has done this? One possibility is that He simply communicated with the Father before acting, and received from that quarter a permit for His action. After all, He was in constant communication with the Father, and such communications are not always – not necessarily even usually – obvious to the observer. Prayer does not need to be ostentatious to be real. Fervency and visible agitation do not necessarily go hand in hand. This would certainly solve the dilemma. Clearly, if God says, “Yes, do as she asks,” His problem is ended.
There remains another possibility, which is that He found a course that satisfied both requirements for obedience. Yes, He did as His mother had sought, and provided for the lack at the wedding. Yet, He did so in a relatively quiet way. He did not make a scene of it. He did not demand the attention of all who were there to bear witness to His deed. He simply, humbly obeyed His mother, and provided. He did so in such a way that only a few were aware what He had done. His mother, of course, was aware. The servants could not help but be aware, as they had their part to play. Then, His disciples, those who had met Him before, and who had either been called or were about to be called (depending how we order the events), were aware. He was not yet revealed on any grand scale, and yet He had walked the path of obedience to both parental and godly authority.
In this day and age, when pragmatism seems to rule the field, we are often faced with such seeming dilemmas. We will often face choices that have the appearance of being a choice between the lesser of two evils. We have been trained by society and by experience to accept these choices as inevitable, and to simply seek the most pragmatic course, the one that will achieve the least bad or the most good, depending how we view it. Jesus, in this event, shows a better course. Find the path that satisfies the good completely. Don’t look for the pragmatic solution, look for the righteous solution. When faced with a dilemma such as this, don’t try to decide which path to follow, seek out God to find the way in which both correct paths may be followed.
Recall that God does not test us beyond our ability, and He will provide the way through. He has sent us the Counselor to teach and guide us in just such situations as this. We need not suffer to be made unrighteous by our pursuit of right. When such difficulties appear to face us, we must be clear that there is an answer that will prove right for both cases.
Now follows the actual sign, and this too may give us pause. The reaction of the headwaiter would suggest that the guests at the wedding had already had a fair amount of wine, sufficient, at least, to impair the discernment of their tongues. In our present day, we would doubtless look upon the whole scene as a sinful display of drunkenness and turn away. But, Jesus does something shocking. He provides them with more and better wine. Of course, the miracle is in how He did this, which deserves consideration in itself. But, before we can approach the message in His miracle, we must first come to grips with the fact of that miracle.
It struck me, in reading through the various translations, that only one of them was willing to declare matters as they truly were. They will quote the headwaiter as speaking of men drinking freely, drunk well, drunk a lot, but only one gets at the point. They have drunk too much. They are drunk. Jesus first sign was done before a crowd of drunks, and consisted of providing them the means to become drunker yet. How much does that offend our sensibilities!
What are we to make of this? Can it really be that God is declaring that drunkenness is alright after all? No! Just considering those verses that are given as parallels to this passage makes it clear that God is not pleased to see His people drunk. At most, it might be taken to suggest that there is a time and a place for everything.
There is also this to consider. The event at which this miracle was performed was a wedding, a celebration of that covenant relationship which God ordained between man and woman. God is glorified in marriage because it is His institution. God is magnified as we celebrate His institution, as we declare what He has ordained to be good. We must also recognize that while drunkenness, especially habitual drunkenness, is condemned, wine itself is not, nor is the drinking of wine. Indeed, except when under vows for a specific purpose and period, wine was a vital part of life. Come, now! The very peace of Israel is represented in their vineyards prospering as much as in their olive groves.
What I see here is that Jesus was not going to condemn what was, after all, a proper display because it looked rather like its sinful counterpart. Here is a failing of the modern church. In large part, we no longer discern the distinction between proper use and abuse. If there’s the possibility of abuse, then any use becomes abuse in our eyes. We pull out the words of Paul and declare it sinful because it might possibly convince somebody else to partake in sinful fashion. True, there are times when we must abstain for the sake of those around us, even when abstinence is not required. But, we have pushed that idea, I think, to an extreme far beyond what Scripture requires, and in doing so, we are in great danger of not glorifying God. As willing as we are to defend our judgmental view with Paul’s words, we do well to remember God’s words to Peter alongside them. “What I have declared clean, let no man declare unclean.”
The wedding celebration is a sacred thing, a glorifying of God, whether or not all the participants therein recognize that fact. If the celebration is to God’s glory, it can only be a taking away from His glory to do that which would disrupt or destroy that celebration.
Yesterday was one of those days when messages seem to converge. The new Table Talk had arrived a few days prior, and the whole of it was aimed at issues of sex and the sanctity of the marriage covenant, the one-flesh relationship. Sitting in the dark in a hotel room at our first men’s retreat yesterday, I had considered why Jesus would give wine to drunkards, and recognized that He was honoring the marriage covenant as it could not help but glorify God. My time was brief that morning, as the morning session began quite early, but the first message of the day was about covenant, about God’s great concern and honoring of covenant, about His seeking a covenant relationship with His men. The message continued what had been said the night before, that men, as head of the house must be in touch with their own Head.
As a husband, I have entered into covenant relationship with my wife. This is true whether I acknowledge and understand it fully or not. It is the nature of marriage. If I have not also entered into covenant relationship with my Father, my Bridegroom, then I can never be fit to take up the responsibilities of covenant in my earthly marriage. If I am not putting in the effort to maintain that covenant relationship with my Father, my Bridegroom, then I will surely not put in the appropriate effort in my earthly marriage.
Now, you can surely bring forth examples of marriages that work, where God has been left out of the picture. I could, as well. I needn’t look farther than my own family for examples. Yet, I would have to ask how I am defining what works. The marriage may work. It may be quite happy, quite satisfactory for those two who have joined in wedlock. But it has not become a covenant relationship. It has not reached its full potential, because the head is not in touch with his Head. The chain of covenant that brings God’s institution under God has been detached.
Well, Lord, I am so blessed that You have seen fit to bring all these disparate threads together as You have. Thank You for that reminder that we are all walking in the guidance of one Holy Spirit. I look back over the last while, Father, and recognize that I have not, for all this studying and writing, been doing what our relationship requires. It’s been too long since we talked, too long since I listened. Lord, keep me reminded that I need to stop from all my activity and effort and just be in Your presence now and always.
Truth be told, I’ve been rather holding You at arm’s length lately, haven’t I? Yes, I know I have, and I beg Your forgiveness for that. I beg You to draw me close once more. I know You won’t let me get too far away, but any distance between You and I is too far. Thank You that You have set in motion a few things that will help to restore connection, but continue to speak to me, Spirit, lest I allow those, too, to become just empty activity. Draw me close to You, Lord.
So, how can it be that giving drunks more wine made Jesus’ glory evident? It is time we consider more fully the sign itself, the thing that was done. In doing so, we must bear in mind that a miracle is a sign in that it points to God. It points, like a parable, to the greater things of God’s kingdom, to matters in the spiritual domain. Considering that, I think we must look to see the significance of the particular material Jesus chose to begin with.
Consider the containers He chose, waterpots used to hold water by which the attendees might purify themselves prior to eating. For us, this matter of purification might not seem much more than mother’s admonition to wash your hands before you eat. It may have been somewhat unique to their culture at the time, but it’s nothing unusual in our day, just good hygiene. But we must consider why this was part of their culture. It was there, in their tradition, as a matter of rite. It had begun, most likely, as a sign of respect for the God who had provided their food. There was great concern in that culture over what was clean and what unclean. God had provided clean food. God loved cleanliness, purity. The merest touch of man could defile what He had made clean. Thus, it became very important to them that they be as clean as possible before coming near the things of God. Early on, they recognized that their daily food, their provision, was as much a thing of God as the temple hardware. Would we remembered this as well.
Over time, though, I suspect the significance of this was rather lost. Rather than a matter of respect for God, it became more a matter of fear. Can I say this? When we approach God from a basis of fear, we reduce worship to magic and witchcraft. When we approach God out of fear, everything comes down to performing the incantation right, so as not to offend the Mighty One. We no longer come as to one who loves us, but rather as approaching one who could as easily crush us as bless us. These things are true, but they deny the relationship He has established with His people. They deny the covenant.
This is rather where things had gotten to with the matters of purification. It was no longer out of love and respect for God, but out of superstition and fear of God. He was no longer One to be blessed, but One to be appeased. He had been reduced to the level of any of the pagan gods in the surrounding culture. The unique relationship of God and His people had been lost.
I think this must be the higher, spiritual message behind Jesus’ use of those vessels. They had become matters of incantation, appeasement of fear. We must wash lest God strike us. Jesus, by making those ritual containers a part of the celebration proper, was declaring God’s pleasure in His people. He wanted to be an intimate part of all they did. Far from needing some preventative measure lest He curse the marriage, He longed to be an invited guest. He wanted to be in that same relationship that they were celebrating. He wanted to be as intimate with those who were gathered to celebrate as would be those two who stood at the center of that celebration. Indeed, when things are as they should be, He is at the center of that celebration, for He is at the center of the marriage, the source of all that will bind these two together in the covenant of matrimony.
The whole point of this entire picture seems to resolve on this issue. God wants to be part of our life. He doesn’t want to be some far off, disinterested deity such as certain movements have attempted to make Him. He doesn’t want to be the angry, ever threatening force of destruction we feel we must somehow fend off. He wants to be in love with us. He wants us to be in love with Him. Since the first days in Eden, this has been His purpose, to love and be loved, to have fellowship, communion with mankind. But, we are forever making it out to be something else. We are forever taking that intimate relationship He comes with and distancing ourselves from it by ritual and ceremony. We take the living relationship He offers and trade it in for dead works and pageantry. And repeatedly, God comes back to point out the mistake in that approach, to remind us that He created us, created life, and rejoices with us in the joyous occasions of that life.
With this first sign of Jesus, He has already begun the confrontation with empty religion. He has used the vessels of purification to provide drink to the drunk. Had there been more to witness this thing, there would have been more offended by it. But, He would continue forcing their eyes to look upon the truth of the matter, that those laws that God had established were there not to bind men up, but to free them.
Somewhere recently I read the comment that a man cannot truly be free until he knows his boundaries. I recall living in Austin when the speed-limit around the state was lifted from 55 to 65, except in areas of high population. I tell you drivers were more cautious after the change than before! See, when the limit was 55 everywhere they knew their boundary. There was no question as to what the limits were. Once the limits varied, though, one had to forever be attentive to the signage to figure out whether one was allowed 65, or still restrained to the lower limit. Men no longer knew their boundaries, so they neither felt free nor acted freely.
It is the same with God’s law. He set boundaries that we might be free. But, tradition and opinions reduced solid unchanging boundaries to a list of requirements that changed with every nuance of situation. Men no longer knew their boundaries, so they were no longer free to worship, nor did they worship freely. Throughout Jesus’ earthly ministry, we will find Him challenging those things that have crept in to squelch honest worship. In no way did He suggest that we cease from respecting God’s holiness. In no way did He teach us to stop being in awe of God. He simply insisted that we come to Him for the relationship that He has ever desired. If we continue to seek purity it is simply because we love Him who is pure. If we seek to be holy it is simply because we are so deeply in love with the Holy One.
Now come to that final declaration that John makes upon the event: Jesus made His glory manifest (v11). That word glory, when applied to Jesus, speaks of all that is excellent in His self-revelation, of His perfect inward excellence. And as John tells us at the start of his gospel, His glory was a glory unique to the only begotten of the Father (Jn 1:14). When I consider the meaning of this, I have to wonder what it was about the event that gave evidence to His inward perfection.
That He made His power manifest I can see. That He made His lineage manifest I could understand. Recall that definition from Zhodiates that speaks of the need for revelation to come before manifestation can occur. Jesus had already revealed Himself to the disciples, but He had not been made manifest. It had already been revealed to them that He was the Messiah, but they had not as yet been given visible evidence of that fact. Now it was come. Healings they had seen before, but this was something new.
Still, what does the act say of glory, of excellence? How is the making of wine a matter of inward excellence? Can it be as simple as the verdict passed by the headwaiter? Is it simply that He had turned the natural order on its head by bringing the best out for those least in position to note the act? Perhaps. That is certainly the most commonly understood aspect of this scene. Yes, in Jesus God was bringing out the best He had to give. Yes, we could look upon the people of God in that moment and recognize that they were too far in their cups to appreciate what God had done for them. We could make the same argument for the present day, for God’s best continues to be given out freely to a world that largely doesn’t care to partake of Him.
It seems to me, though, that there must be a greater significance to the choice of the vessels. Why make note of their usual purpose if it were not of some moment to the meaning? Granted, John is writing for a church that is largely Gentile in composition by the time of this record, yet was the idea of a 30 gallon water jug so foreign to their understanding as to require explanation? I shouldn’t think so. Indeed, in that region where John served his later years, I should think large water jars would be as common amongst the Gentiles as among the Jews. What differed was their purpose, and that purpose, if John chose to explain it, must have bearing on the message.
So, Jesus used the waters of purification to make this wine of excellent vintage. What are we to make of it? I’ve heard it said that in this miracle, as in so many, nature was not being perverted, but merely accelerated. Water is certainly a natural component of wine. I can give them that, but where is the seed of the grape that would grow to fruition, be harvested and fermented? No. I think it is necessary that we see something more than accelerated nature at work in this. Water is a component, but hardly the only component. Leave water out ever so long and it will never turn to wine.
Yet, it was not just water that was used, but that water by which men sought to present themselves clean for the meal of God’s provision. Leastwise that was the purpose of the ritual. True, the water was no different in its composition than that which could be found in the well from which it was drawn. There was no chemical composition to the jugs that would change the water’s quality. What changed it was the symbolism of its use. Like any other visible symbol of God’s inward works, the difference, the power, was not in the symbol, but in the spiritual significance of the symbol. The water itself purified nobody, but for those whose faith was real, the purification of the soul was equally real.
This was the water Jesus chose for His work. Yet it was water no different from any water. Had He told the servants to draw water in some other container, the water would be just the same. It was not the water, then, that made the wine excellent, just as it was not the water that made man pure in God’s sight. It required something greater. It required the inward excellence, the inward perfection of the only begotten Son. This is true in both cases. The purification that the water symbolizes cannot be had except it come from the deep well of Jesus’ own purity. The excellence of the wine could not be had except it came from the deep well of Jesus’ own excellence.
Here, then, is that way in which the wine made His glory manifest, because it was a physical outpouring of the inward, spiritual excellence that was His alone. The wine was excellent because it was distilled from His excellence. Here is also what makes this more than just a fine show, what makes it miracle. See, a miracle, as we have it defined, is never in itself the point. Never. A miracle that is all about the event is no miracle, but merely a show. Real miracle ever points to God, His kingdom, and His purpose. What was true of the wine – that its excellence flowed from the Son, could not exist apart from the Son, was true of the purification rites – purity cannot exist apart from the Son. The purity that God seeks in His children can only come from their eldest Brother. Without Him, there can be no purity in God’s sight, for all our works are as filthy rags in the light of His perfection.
The lesson of Jesus’ first sign is not, I suspect, to be drawn from the comment of one totally unaware of what had transpired. True as his comments are, as prophetic as they may be, they are but observation of the result. If we are really to have the full force of the miracle as the disciples saw it, we must consider the whole event, not just that summary statement. Did they understand the full import of Jesus’ actions at that moment? If they did, it was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, for it is clear from the record that even in the ensuing years they would not be particularly apt at drawing the meaning from Jesus’ parables. Indeed, it is quite likely that I have misunderstood as well. Yet, the lesson is there. If it is not coming from Jesus, if our purity is not founded in Him rather than our works and efforts, then it’s nothing. He is the way, the truth, and the life, the only way to the Father. Like it or not, that is the purpose of God. Like it or not, He has declared an exclusive means by which we can approach Him, by which we can be made like Him. There is the bigger message in the wine.
The sign that is contained in the headwaiter’s words remains valid, of course. The speaking of God’s word is not reserved to His followers, after all. It is the hearing of His words, the understanding of His words that is reserved. The headwaiter had not thought for God or religion when he commented on the quality of this wine. He had no more intent to prophesy than did Caiaphas before the Sanhedrin. Yet, this man’s words spoke truly of God’s purposes and actions. Indeed, He had reserved the best for last. Where once He had poured out the good word of the Law, He now poured out the great living Word of His own Son. Where once He had provided the good work of atonement, now He provided the perfect work of redemption. Where once a chosen few amongst His chosen people were privileged to meet with God, God was now meeting with all of His chosen people.
The sum of His action here was that His disciples believed in Him. Why did they believe? They believed because they had witnessed the Son of God doing things that no man could do. They believed because the witness of the headwaiter, one totally uninvolved in the actual event of the miracle, confirmed what had occurred. I rather doubt they immediately understood the import of his words, yet they held enough importance that John would remember them decades later. Even without the full understanding of his message, the very fact of the message had been enough to burn the words into his mind. Why? Because the fact of that message was evidence that Jesus’ actions were more than hypnosis or trickery of some form. The thing He had done was real, and served to show that He, too, was real.
Having come to some understanding of the purpose of these things, there remains for me the question of John’s placing of the event ‘on the third day.’ I am still at a loss to explain how this fits with the larger record of the Gospels. It would have required rather heroic efforts to go from the Jordan, just north of Jerusalem to Cana in a matter of a few hours, yet that would have been needful for this to have occurred the day after He had met Nathanael by the river. Jesus, Himself, we could explain by an unwitnessed miracle allowing Him to traverse the distance in the twinkling of an eye. But, the disciples were there as well, and not yet subject to miraculous activity of their own.
It is entirely possible that the events we read of here came before Jesus preached in Nazareth. Possible? I suppose it’s even likely, given the reaction to Him on that occasion! Can we place it even before the temptation? That would be more difficult, perhaps, but not necessarily impossible. It might even explain Jesus’ comment that it was not yet His time. He hadn’t gone through the preparation for His ministry as yet. Perhaps what we ought to read here is that the wedding occurred on the third day after Jesus and Nathanael were introduced. That would, perhaps, suffice for the traveling required. The distance would have been some forty miles, which may not seem much today. But, for men on foot through mountainous, and rather dangerous terrain, it would take quite some time to traverse. So let me leave it with that possibility, as it does seem the best explanation that can be given.
Then we have John’s choice of that phrase, ‘on the third day.’ I wonder if his use of that phrase was intentional, or rather an unconscious elusion to the end of Jesus’ ministry. By whichever means, the Holy Spirit saw fit to have that phrase here, and it is here for a reason. The reason behind that phrasing is the same reason that would make it so natural for John to use. The idea of the third day had taken on great significance. It was a significance that would have been lost on all at the time, just as the significance of Jesus’ promise to rebuild the temple in three days was lost on His disciples at the time. It was not until He arose from death on that third day, after that period of time which by Jewish tradition certified real and irreversible death, that understanding came. And from that point forward, the words ‘on the third day’ would forever be heard with that significance laying just behind.
With that in mind it would hardly be surprising if John, thinking on the implications of the headwaiter’s words, amplified it with that phrasing. “On the third day”. That phrase alone puts us in mind of the end of the story, of Jesus risen from the grave. It serves, in this case, to sensitize the reader to the import of what is about to be read. Indeed, as the Resurrection is the climax of the gospel record, just so does this wedding day serve as the climax in John’s introduction of Jesus. He came, He was baptized, He was revealed to certain of His disciples, and now He was manifest.
Given John’s preparation for the message, we cannot but consider it. “You have kept the best for last.” This is how the Living Bible concludes the waiter’s comment. This is the message John wants us to take from the event. This is the point at which the miracle is aimed, the message of that parable. Here was a complete reversal of the order common to the world, the order of sin.
Consider the way of sin. Sin begins with great enticement, great promise. One finds, though, that the more one indulges in that sin, the less it gratifies. We see it in the downward spiral of pornography. What used to excite now bores, and greater sins are required to keep up the sensation. The end of that course is a complete loss of humanity, and a complete inability to find any enjoyment either in the normal course of things or even in the twisted perversions that have replaced the normal course. That which looked so good at the start has now made us so drunk by its influence that we don’t notice when that downturn begins. We’re so thoroughly taken in that we just jump on the slide and plummet. It’s only as we’re hitting the bottom that the reality of the problem becomes evident to our besotted senses, but by then it’s too late.
In contrast, we are shown the heavenly order in Jesus’ actions. The best is saved for the last. The goodness of God’s Law, revealed in Scripture, is now made manifest and complete in the sight of man. Where the Law could only motivate coercively, by threatenings of punishment for failure, now comes Jesus with the spiritual funds to redeem all our penalties before the court of heaven. Where once had been only the periodic and temporary atoning for sin that the Law could make available to man, now there was a once for all Atonement. Where there had been no hope of complying with the Law, now came Perfect Obedience; Obedience so perfect that He can share of His obedience with all who come to Him. He is more than enough!
Surely, John also held in His mind those final days in Jerusalem as he considered the beginning. That the Son of God came to earth to minister directly to His creation, to experience the life of His creation firsthand so as to bear perfect compassion for His people was a good, heady wine already. Here was something wonderful beyond words. Yet even this was not the best, but only the very good. The best was saved for last, when all hope seemed gone. On that most momentous third day, He rose. The curse of death, the power of death was broken. The wages, the due penalties of sin had been paid, and peace with God made a real, eternal possibility – nay, not a possibility but a reality – for those who believed in Him. And His disciples believed in Him!
Before moving on, I need to make note of one particular impression taken away from last weekend’s men’s retreat. As I came down to the conference room early Saturday morning, the halls of the hotel were filled with quiet classical music, a peaceful, soothing atmosphere. But, while still some ways from our meeting, I heard the unmistakable call of the shofar cutting through that peaceful music. My heart thrilled. My step accelerated to be with God’s people. Why? Well, a couple of things occurred to me. Of course, for us, the shofar is ever a call to worship and prayer, a call to come into God’s presence. Yet, it was also the call to war, the call for the army of God to come to position. These two are, in reality one and the same.
This was made more clear as I reached the conference room, where even as I was coming in, the prayers of those already in position were prayers of war against the principalities that have so perverted this land. And, I dare say, this was absolutely right and proper. Prayer and worship are the great weapons of God’s army, for we do not fight flesh and blood, but powers and principalities in spiritual realms. These are the things that matter.
Now, the significance of that shofar overpowering the classical music was made more clear to me. And as it was made clear, so too was the reason for prayer and worship as our weapons. See, the jarring note of the shofar shattered the peacefulness of that classical music. In the same way, the worship and the prayers of the saints shatters the peacefulness of the world.
The world seeks peace just as much as we do. The problem is that they seek to establish peace by declaring sin to be acceptable and right. They neglect peace with God in favor of the appearance of peace with themselves. They seek to establish peace by numbing their moral senses – the drunkenness of sin, the wine of God’s wrath. When we come with prayer and worship, we are bearing God’s peace into the picture. Indeed, we are able to pray to our Father, to worship our God, because He is our peace. He has made peace with us, that we need not experience His wrath. This is the peace we bear up in the face of the world’s foolishness, and it is war! It is war precisely because, as Scripture has told us, peace with God is enmity with the world. That is the ultimate tool of our warfare, the very thing that makes the warfare inevitable.
While this is true, we must be careful to keep our balance in pursuit of His peace. Being at enmity with the world system is not an excuse to remain aloof from the world, to pursue a monkish course. Consider this simple fact from this story. Jesus participated. He participated so fully as to provide wine. Far from condemning the drunkenness of those celebrating the wedding, He contributed to their celebration. I’ve already discussed the shocking nature of this, but here I consider another aspect. Jesus had come to participate fully in the human condition, with the sole exception of sinning against God. He came to share our sorrows, our pains, our trials. We know this, and we appreciate Him for it. Well, He could hardly claim to have experienced the full breadth of human experience without fully participating in its joys as well! Yet, it is in those moments of joy that we are most likely to find His presence somehow offensive!
My, how we allow ourselves to be corrupted in our view of our God and Savior! I was so chagrined by this understanding after attending the men’s retreat, for in the room next to ours at the hotel, there was a wedding reception. Needless to say, as the night progressed, so did the flow of drinks. The music grew louder, the guests more rambunctious. Walking by that party, all I could must up was offense at their lack of self-control. All I could see was the enemy trying to disrupt what we were doing. I tell you, Jesus didn’t see it that way, and I needed to seek His forgiveness for my own viewpoint. Weddings aren’t the problem. Celebrations of the marriage aren’t the problem, even if drink should flow freely. Look, if Jesus wasn’t offended by it, what right have we to be? The covenant is still being celebrated. So long as there’s a man and a woman in there standing in acknowledgement of what God has joined together, why should we not celebrate with our Lord?
It’s rather like the Christmas season. Some of us get all worked up about the commercialization, and can’t rejoice with the angels. Others are gracious enough to remind us that however wrongly they have done it, however unwittingly they have done it, yet the world is celebrating the birth of our Savior. So, too, with the wedding. Husband and wife may not fully understand that they have made covenant with each other and with God, yet that truth remains true of their actions. The guests may not understand the greater significance of this marriage they’ve come to celebrate. They may, in many cases, see little more than another excuse to party. Even so, in this party, they will glorify God, knowingly or not.
We need to learn from this that we are by no means called to beg off from every invitation to participate in life. There are those things that are surely forbidden for us, things that we could not possibly participate in without sin. But, to take a glass of wine at a wedding is no sin. To toast the bride and groom is no sin. How can we think it is so? We need to become less focused on outward things and more concerned with inward! How many have been cast out of the church for an outward habit that while not healthy is yet no sin? How many have come with a true servant’s heart to join the laborers in God’s vineyard, only to be turned away because some outward habit of theirs disqualifies them in our sight? Blind Pharisees! As if God is interested in what we think of His creatures! It is His opinion that counts, and if He is pleased to use that brother or sister in His service, what complaint have we?
We have the Law to guide us and we have Jesus to stand as our example. What these do not condemn we have no right to condemn. Whatever in our rulebooks does not come of these things needs to be set aside. We have allowed ourselves to fall back into that trap of defining an achievable holiness for ourselves so that we need not consider the impossibility of being truly holy.
I shall close out this particular study with considerations of that final point John makes. Jesus’ glory was manifest, and His disciples believed in Him. John, not many paragraphs later, will tell us that after He was resurrected, they believed Him as they believed the Scriptures (Jn 2:22). In that case, it was because of an early statement of His that He would rebuild the temple in three days. Of course, this clearly establishes the connection John sees between these two events – that thought of ‘on the third day,’ and having saved the best for last.
Now, I should like to note in considering these two cases of belief that they come of very different sources. In the present event of the wedding, the disciples believed because of the witness of their own direct experience. They saw firsthand what He had done. In that final example, though, it was as much a matter of thought and intelligence as it was of experience. True, they had seen Him dead and now they saw Him alive. Indeed, they saw Him doing things that even the most fully alive man could not expect to do. Face it. We don’t know anybody who can walk through walls and doors without leaving a hole behind. But, looking at John 2:22, the thing that brought belief in that moment was understanding. They understood that what they had witnessed was the true fulfillment of what He had said some years earlier. They were coming to the realization of all the myriad ways in which what the prophets had written much earlier was also fulfilled in this One they had been following about.
Real faith, real belief, requires both the emotional involvement of personal experience, and the intellectual recognition of how truths connect. John tells us later that many of Jesus’ disciples discovered they could not handle what He was saying (Jn 6:60). Their emotions had convinced them to pursue this Teacher, but when things got challenging, when real thought and consideration was required, they stuck with their emotions instead, and their emotions convinced them to leave His presence. This is the danger of incomplete faith.
As I’ve said before, we could look at the events in Cana and be really put off by what Jesus did. If we think about it just a little, we discover that what He did really goes against our ideas of what’s right and proper for the man of God. Catch a minister doing what He did and it would be a scandal to be spread out on the front pages! Right then and there, the disciples had an opportunity to be run by their emotions. Would they be offended that Jesus was blessing drunkards? Would they take it as license to over-indulge themselves? Or, would they become true disciples, continuing in all His word, all God’s word (Jn 8:31)?
This was the question they had to answer over and over again in the course of pursuing Jesus. It is a question we will have to answer over and over again as we pursue Him. There will be times in this walk when the way He points us towards seems crazy, impossible, or even just plain wrong to us. Beware that there will also be plenty of times when such suggestions are not His. We must discern. But, having discerned His voice from amongst all imposters, where He has pointed, we must determine to pursue. For the blessings are for those who persevere to the end. The reward is for those who finish the race.
