The Marriage at Cana

Before I get started on The Marriage at Cana, I want to give a plug for Tim Mackie's five part series about the Book of John on Youtube. It is taken from a conference he gave for pastors about how to teach the Gospel of John.  He has crazy good insights about the structure of the book as a whole, and how different themes propagate through the narrative.  

So, the marriage at Cana.  This story has always been a little problematic for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  All our lives we are taught that drinking alcohol is a no-no.  In church artwork, especially in that created for children, you can always tell the "bad guy" because they are the one with a wine glass in their hand. So understanding that creating 150 gallons of wine and serving it at a wedding--after the guests are already drunk--is a good thing takes a little bit of mental and moral acrobatics.  

Even if you are not a "Mormon" it is easy to question why this miracle is as important or impactful as healing a blind person, or raising the dead. Whom does it help?  What lasting impact does it have to make sure a wedding is well supplied with good wine? If you believe, as I do, that John wrote his gospel to specifically mention certain meaningful events that the other gospel writers left out, then you have to ask the question, why did John see this miracle as particularly meaningful?

Another issue with the story that is enigmatic is Jesus' short interchange with his mother.  She states, "They have no wine," and he replies, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come." And Mary takes this as an offer to help, and orders the servants to do anything that Jesus asks.  (John 2:3-5).  What is up with that?

This is where Tim Mackie came in for me this week.  He related this whole story to a passage in Isaiah 25:6. 

"And in the mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all the people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. "...

Then vs. 8 "He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth; for the Lord hath spoken it."  

This is clearly a messianic prophecy.  If you think about what this prophecy is saying, that Jesus will make a feast where there is very good wine, and then he will end up dying to save his people, isn't that basically the book ends of the gospel of John?  Why is not this reference in the footnotes?  I think by including this story here at the beginning of his narrative, John is clearly referencing this Isaiah passage.  It is his first argument in his case that Jesus is the promised Messiah. He suggests as much in vs 11: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory."  He goes on with each of the stories he includes, to show how Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy again and again.  

What does this have to do with his conversation with Mary?  So, here's a question.  If an angel came to you as a teenager and told you that you were going to be the mother of the Son of God, the Messiah, and then you did, having, "known no man", and there were angels and shepherds, and wise men etc., do think, after all that, you might be motivated to learn all you could about what the Messiah was going to do? Do you think that each time in synagogue when they read a messianic passage, you might sit up and pay close attention?  Assume Mary was familiar with this passage from Isaiah.  She finds herself a feast and there is an issue with the wine. Of course, Jesus is familiar with this passage as well, (he quotes Isaiah more often than any other prophet).  Do you think there might have been some little gesture going on between mother and son, like, "Ok, son, we are at a feast, and, you know, the whole 'feast of wine on the lees' thing?"  

Jesus is maybe smiling indulgently, "you know it isn't time for that yet. right'  Then the mother's eyebrow goes up, and the son sighs and nods, and the mother delightedly commands the servants to do whatever he asks.

Of course, there are many more symbolic interpretations of this.  This is foreshadowing the crucifixion, where Jesus sweat blood instead of water (Luke 22:44), and where water gushed out of his side along with blood when they pierced him (John 19:34). This is also a symbol of the Atonement, in that the jars that were filled with water were "after the manner of the purifying of the Jews," (John 2: 6) In other words, the jars were supposed to contain water that a Jew would use to wash their hands and feet to become ritualistically pure before eating, or after they had touched something that was unclean.  The story suggests that it isn't the water of the Mosaic law that would make one clean, but "my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt 26:28).  

There is much more here and, again, my post is getting long. I just want to make another comment from Tim Mackie that I think is insightful.  In the Old testament, prophets like Jeremiah, and Ezekiel perform public "signs" or, like, street plays, that are symbols of things to come.  I think John sees this miracle at the marriage at Cana (and other miracles he is going to recount later in his narrative) as one of these signs that are meant to be symbols of things to come in Jesus' story.  Seeing Jesus' actions in that Old Testament style framework I think will be instructive as we move forward in John.