043. Chapter 22 - The Wedding Feast at Cana
Chapter 22 - The Wedding Feast at Cana
Jesus chose to begin His public ministry at a wedding. Immediately after the forty days of temptation Jesus returned to the Jordan, where John was baptizing. Here He quickly won six disciples — two pairs of brothers who were fishermen from Bethsaida and a pair of friends, Philip and Nathanael. With these disciples, He departed into Galilee, arriving at Cana on the third day after His appearance at the Jordan. The location of Cana is disputed. Cana el Gelil, about twelve miles north of Nazareth, is favored by most scholars. Kefr Kenna, four or five miles northeast of Nazareth, is favored by tradition. The Greek Catholics have built a church here.
Traditions
Like many other weddings, this one became famous because of certain guests who attended. The names of the bride and groom are unknown, but from the earliest times there has been much speculation. One guess was that Alphaeus and Mary, the sister of Jesus’ mother, lived at Cana, and that this was the wedding of one of their sons or that of Alphaeus and Mary themselves. An old Mohammedan tradition says John the apostle was the bridegroom. Simon the Canaanite is also named. But all this is idle. The significant fact is that Jesus and His disciples and mother were present. The fact that Jesus’ mother was already there and was conversant with the intimate needs of the household seems to indicate that she was a close friend or relative. Whether Jesus was invited through Nathanael, who was a native of Cana, or in His own right as a friend has also been argued. The proximity of Cana to Nazareth is certain, and is sufficient explanation in itself. The absence of Joseph from the narrative here and throughout the rest of the Gospels seems to indicate that he had died during the time since the visit to the temple when Jesus was twelve years old.
Contrasts of John and Jesus The fact that Jesus’ disciples were present was significant. It must have thrilled His mother to see Him return with this group of followers. It seemed to indicate the opening of His ministry. And this scene must have made a powerful impression upon them. These men had been disciples of John the Baptist until a few days before. From the desert and the stern manner of life of John, who subsisted on locusts and wild honey, Jesus led His disciples straight to a wedding feast. The contrast between the two leaders must have been vivid. Jesus once drew such a contrast Himself. He pointed Out that the perverse Pharisees would follow neither John, who they said had a “demon,” nor Jesus, whom they called “a gluttonous man and a winebibber.” Of course, this is nothing more than slander in both cases. Jesus was no glutton nor a winebibber. But He did not even stoop to deny the charge. He did not have to do so. His life furnished sufficient denial. His teaching placed profound emphasis upon the supremacy of the spiritual over the physical. In the Sermon on the Mount, He warned the disciples against being anxious about such matters as food, drink and clothing. Trust in God. Do His will. He will take care of all who do their part. Once they were starting across the lake, and the disciples, hearing His warning about “the leaven of the Pharisees,” remembered with dismay that they had forgotten to bring any provisions for the journey. But Jesus corrected their misapprehension. He was not speaking of physical food — that was an insignificant matter — but of the corrupt influence of the Pharisees. And Jesus’ life matched His teaching. His joy was not in meat and drink. Once we find Him expressing hunger, but, when the fig tree was found to be barren, the opportunity to teach a great lesson by withering it forced the mere physical hunger into the background. At Jacob’s well, Jesus’ need of food evidently stirred His disciples’ apprehension. Hear their anxious appeal: “Master, eat.” And the reply was typical: “My meat and my drink is to do the will of him that sent me.” No, this Man was no glutton nor a winebibber. We find Him occasionally at the banquet-table, but always the scene reveals a great spiritual leader.
Jesus at Cana
Here He is at a wedding feast; but He is not represented as enjoying a sumptuous feast. The physical side again appeals so little to Him, and is so far overshadowed by the spiritual opportunity which the feast offers, that it is not mentioned. We do not even find Him in the picture seated at the festive board. We find Him rather a majestic figure proceeding among the guests, surrounded by His devoted disciples. We find Him in the outer court helping to supply the needs of others. But everywhere He goes there is dignity and spiritual atmosphere in His presence. The contrast with John impressed the disciples, but there was no suggestion of revelry at Cana. They were to find the new Leader would demand that they take up a cross and follow Him to the extreme of self-sacrifice.
Joy and Sorrow
Nevertheless, it is still true that Jesus was entirely at home at this joyous festival. This tells much of His character and attitude toward the wholesome joys of life. “He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” This is the fundamental experience of His earthly ministry as revealed by the loneliness, the misunderstandings, the opposition, the rejection, betrayal, and death. Yet there was joy, great joy, in His earthly life. Can there be great joy without great sorrow? or day without night? Do not trials and sufferings deepen the capacity of mankind to experience great joy? Is a person at his best when he is sorrowful or joyful? Do the most profound experiences, the noblest impulses and the greatest heights of sacrifice come with sorrow or with joy? The sorrow of repentance as we come to confess the name of Christ is contrasted with the joy of forgiveness when we are buried with Christ in baptism. If sorrow is the noblest mood of life, then heaven will be a very sorrowful place, for we shall be at our best there. The promises are all: “Enter into the joy of thy Lord.” “Rejoice in that day, yea, exult and leap for joy.” “He shall wipe away all tears.” “No more pain or sorrow or crying.” “Blessed are ye. The Joy of Jesus The attempt to translate the Beatitudes “Happy are ye” is rather lame. The spiritual content of the promises is paramount: “Blessed are ye.” Yet it is a joyous vista Jesus opens. Jesus expressed constant joy at the evidence of nobility and faith in the people He met and in the growth of His disciples’ faith and understanding. Hear His joyous cry: “Blessed art thou, Simon.” “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” “O woman, great is thy faith!” “My joy therefore is fulfilled.” “That my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be fulfilled.” “Rejoice with me, I have found my sheep.” Jesus “endured the cross” itself for “the joy that was set before him” of saving lost humanity (Hebrews 12:1.). As we see Jesus at the wedding feast, we accept His presence as holy sanction of all joys that are for our profit. But we should remember that there is no suggestion of His seeking worldly pleasure. The contrast with John is, after all, only one of method, and not of fundamental principle. His joy is in things spiritual. And at the wedding feast a profound sense of His mission rules. This feast is not only famous because of its guests, but because of an embarrassing need which arose. The wine gave out. In the light of Eastern hospitality, with its extravagant courtesy to guests, this was a disgraceful calamity. How typical of human frailty and limitation that, in this hour of joy, such weakness, impotence and humiliation should arise, and that even here Jesus should hear the call of human sorrow and need. Jesus at the wedding feast? Yes, hut not at the head of the table as master of the feast, nor even the chief guest of honor, but in the outer court as One who serves! The suggestion of some that the wine ran out as the result of the unexpected arrival of these seven guests from the Jordan is without the slightest support in the text, and is ludicrous in the light of the amount of wine Jesus made. Jesus was not the cause, but the solution, of the distressing dilemma. The supply of wine ran out as the result of the great crowd.
Jesus and Mary The scene in the courtyard furnishes a most interesting dialogue between Jesus and Mary. All sorts of discussions have been stirred by the coming of Mary with her simple plea: “They have no wine. Paulus, the German skeptic, takes the prize with his absurd suggestion that, of course, Mary was not asking a miracle, but merely passing a surreptitious signal to Jesus and His disciples not to ask for refreshments. But Mary was not asking Jesus to leave or restrain His group of disciples; she was appealing to Him to help. The following considerations prove she was expecting a miracle: (1) She had treasured in her mind the miracles surrounding His birth and the miraculous foresight He had shown at twelve years. (2) Something of the wonderful happenings at His baptism must have been known to her. (3) Jesus’ disappearance for so long a time would have worried her. (4) His reappearance with a group of followers suggested He was about to begin His ministry. (5) If she expected the supply to be replenished by natural means, why approach Him at all rather than the servants?
Jesus’ answer, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come,” was not discourteous. The Greek word gune was a title of respect. It is so in the classics. Hear Him on the cross: “Woman, behold thy son.” Literally, His remark was: “Woman, what to me and to thee?” “What is there in our earthly relationship which would give you the right to interfere or dictate when my first obligation is to do my heavenly Father’s will?” This reply utterly destroys the contention of radicals that Mary was trying to get Him to go or send for more wine. “Mine hour is not yet come” does not seem to mean here the hour of His death, but the hour of the public revelation of His Messiahship and divine nature. This is what Mary was on fire to see Him do. It meant vindication of her past and the fulfillment of all her dreams through the years. There is no inconsistency in His performing the miracle after such a remark, for the miracle was semi-private and without the least effort to thrust Himself into the limelight or make public declaration of His Messiahship. Moreover, while no great time elapsed between this remark and the miracle, yet the spiritual atmosphere had undergone great change through the quiet work of Mary. With a most remarkable faith and insight, she quietly accepted this rebuke from Jesus, and proceeded to go among the servants and prepare the way for a miracle if Jesus should decide, in His own wisdom, to perform it. The Amount of Wine The motives behind the miracle were sympathy for the embarrassing dilemma of the host, and the desire to produce faith in the hearts of His disciples. They had accepted Him at the Jordan, won by John’s testimony and by Jesus’ personality and teaching. But now they were to have miraculous evidence to reinforce their faith. The jars of water were used for ceremonial cleansing such as washing of hands. There were six jars, and they held between two and three firkins apiece. A firkin is nine gallons. Thus the amount of wine made was between 108 and 162 gallons. This would indicate a great crowd at the wedding. Again, the water-jars were at hand, especially fitted for the miracle, and His power matched the occasion. If He had only used one or two of them, it would have suggested a limitation of His power. Moreover, God’s gifts are always in abundance (John 6:1-3; Matthew 14:13-21; Luke 5:1-11; John 21:6-11). Some suggest that the surplus of wine was left as a gracious gift to the bridegroom, but there is nothing of this in the text. The miracle was semi-private, but of course must have become known. The servants and the household, in general, could testify that no more wine was to be had. The servants were witnesses of the miracle, and could testify that only water was placed in the vessels. The jars were filled to the brim with water so that the miracle could not be questioned. Both guests and servants could testify as to the quality of the wine. Mary and the disciples were also witnesses.
Implications of the Miracle
Radical critics object strenuously to this account because in it John records a “nature miracle.” They feel that they can explain any cases of healing, but a miracle of this type which runs counter to the regular course of nature is the subject of especial attack. But when once the human heart fastens upon God, then one miracle is no more difficult to believe than another. The laws of nature represent the way God usually works, but who can say that He cannot work in an unusual way — by miracle? It is all the work of God’s power. The only difference in this case is the method. Sadler points out that God causes the grapevine to grow by means of soil, sunshine, moisture, and its own inner power. We gather the grapes, but we cannot fathom the power or the process. In this miracle Jesus achieved instantly what God’s power, plus man’s labor, ordinarily brings about through a long process. Since we cannot doubt the one which is accomplished before our eyes, even though we cannot explain it, we should not doubt the other which rests upon irrefutable testimony. Was It Intoxicating Wine?
Another line of attack is to charge Jesus with immoral conduct in making intoxicating wine. The modernist delights to point out this alleged flaw in the conduct of Jesus and boast anew of the glorious process of evolution which has brought us up so far above Jesus that we realize it is wrong to make, sell or use intoxicating liquors. The first point to be proved before the indictment can stand is that Jesus did actually make intoxicating wine. Did He? Who says so? His slanderers, not His biographers. John does not state nor indicate that the wine was intoxicating. It may not have even been fermented. There is no drunkenness recorded against this wedding feast. The ruler’s remark cannot intimate this. “Every man setteth on first the good wine, and when men have drunk freely, then that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now.” He was not drunk. He recognized the different flavor instantly. His is a facetious remark: “You are not proceeding according to custom. At the feasts I have heard about, they furnish the good wine when the taste is keen; and when it is dulled by much drinking, the poor wine; and they tell me they are not able to discern the difference.” If Jesus made intoxicating wine here, then this is the only time He ever used His power to furnish to man that which is destructive of his nature and powers. Why, then, gratuitously accuse Jesus of this when it is not even hinted in the record? The Greek word omos (wine) does not necessarily mean intoxicating wine. The wine of the miracle had a delightful flavor which excelled anything the ruler had experienced, judging by his emphatic comment. The Methods of Jesus Where did the critics of Jesus get their idea and impulse against intoxicating liquors? From the Bible and from Jesus! He did not attempt to start a sudden social or political revolution of any kind to abolish slavery, the sale of alcohol, or even tyranny. To do this would have meant such bloodshed and world upheavals as would have defeated His very purpose. But He preached the great heavenly message which finally brought about these reformations by gradual processes. While He did not preach a bloody revolution to free the slaves, He did not join in the cruel work of enslaving man, but gave the true freedom and set forth the principles upon which the social reformation finally was achieved. The same principle applies to the crime of strong drink. The account of the wedding feast at Cana does not controvert the principle. This scene presents Jesus, even in the midst of earth’s most joyous occasion, meeting human distress and using the power of heaven to make glad the hearts of men.