Sermon Tone Analysis

This, the first of the signs John records in his gospel was a private one, known only to His disciples, some servants, and probably Jesus’ mother.

Rather than call this a miracle (which it undoubtedly was), John called it a sign probably because in his purpose for writing the gospel, he was more concerned not with the act itself but its significance to his thesis, i.e., that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.

The setting for the sign, vs. 1-2

The phrase on the third day gives us the context of the events here.

In light of the sequence of days found in 1:29, 35, 43, this events would occur three days after the calling of Philip and Nathanael.

It would take at least that long to reach Cana in Galilee from Bethany beyond Jordan, which was NE of Jericho of Judea.

We do know that Cana was near Nazareth; many believe that it is today’s Khirbet Qanah, about 8 miles northerly from Nazareth.

The occasion for the trip to Cana is a wedding.

Jesus’ mother is attending the wedding.

In John’s gospel, Jesus’ mother is not named.

We do not know whether his mother had a say in the invitation or not, but both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.

It has been suggested that because both Jesus and His disciples were also invited is an indication of their arrival at the last moment and that they were invited to come along.

Therefore their unplanned presence at the wedding suggests why the crisis occurs with the wine.

A wedding in that day was more characterized as a wedding feast (with music and dancing) which would often last up to seven days, depending on the resources of the family.

This celebration was normally hosted by the groom’s family, following the groom’s taking of the bride to his home or his father’s home, before the consummation of the marriage.

Often the entire community would join in the wedding procession.

Hosts would invite as many people as possible , including distinguished guests like teachers of prominence.

To refuse such an invitation would create an offense , especially if one was of equal or lower status to the host.

From the description in the text, the host of this particular wedding seemed to be better off than most, having a number of servants as well as stone pots.

The presence of Jesus here at this wedding is a contrast to the Baptist.

He attended social functions and in this case, will add to the joy of the celebration.

His presence and subsequent actions here are properly understood as a confirmation of God’s blessing on the marital state.

The Crisis Communicated, vs. 3-5

In the course of the wedding feast, Jesus’s mother learned of the shortage of wine.

This may have been due to the proximity of the women at the feast being closer to where the wine and food was prepared.

When she approached Jesus regarding the problem, her statement was most likely a polite Middle Eastern way of implying the He should do something.

Guests at the wedding were to help defray the costs of the wedding by their gifts.

She points out to Jesus that this acquaintance might need extra help now.

The Greek NT word for wine is oinos.

In the Septuagint, this word was used to translate two Hebrew terms for a drinking beverage:

The first was yayin, used 136 times in the OT, a word designating all stages of the fruit of the vine.

Many of the references warn against its use, such as:

Other references point to its benefits:

The second Hebrew term, tiros, is used 38 times in the OT.

It designates new, fresh fruit of the vine, which according to the Mishnah, was always unfermented.

The NT word, oivos, refers to both.

Take into account this woe pronounced by Habakkuk:

Jews guarded against fermented wine at feasts and weddings!

One of the primary industries of Galilee was wine production, so wine would have been readily available.

Jewish custom required wine for festive occasions, including for Sabbath meals and weddings.

Although wine might be mixed only as needed, a wedding banquet was expected to have more than enough food and drink ready.

To run out of wine at a wedding was a social embarrassment that could become the subject of this village’s jests for years; the host was responsible to provide his guests with adequate wine even if they stayed for seven days.

Wine in the day was usually mixed with water, ratios which varied from two to four parts water to one part wine.

Wine was not distilled but was naturally allowed to sit for a few days (usually 2 or 3) at about 75-80 degrees.

It would have a low alcohol content of about 5% which would be lower when mixed with water.

This is in contrast to today’s unfortified wine (avg.

11.6% alcohol) and fortified wine (avg.

18% alcohol).

Apparently, the hosts had water, but ran out of the wine to mix with it.

There was no more to be had.

This was a disaster for the wedding hosts.

Jesus’s response to His mother seems strange to our modern ears.

His mother had respectfully presented the problem to her son, with only the cultural expectations prodding a response of some kind.

There are three exegetical difficulties here in verse 4.

The use of “Woman” to address Jesus’s mother, though maybe harsh to us today, is generally not disrespectful but respectful, and even affectionate, meaning something like “ma’am” today.

Much of this depends on Jesus’s intention; the use of this same term toward His mother from the cross suggests a sense of empathy and love.

Its normal usage demands that it be seen to function in a somewhat distancing mechanism, as Jesus’s ministry as the unique Son before His Father is to come to the forefront It draws attention away from blood relationship, yet He does not disrespect her and is not indifferent to the situation.

The idiom, “what does that have to do with us,” is used here as a nuanced form of refusal intending to communicate a different view than that of His mother.

It was not entirely hostile, nor, according to verse 5, received in an entirely negative manner by His mother.

Maybe there are similarities to the time when Jesus was found in the temple complex as a 12 year old, and when questioned by His parents, asked ...

Consider the reason for Jesus’s coming as an explanatory context for this event.

As much as His plans differ from His mother’s, Jesus - the very expression of the love of God - would certainly be able to incorporate into His mission to the the world the situation of the people (especially His mother) with whom He now dwells.

The phrase “My hour has not yet come” is probably the crux of the difficulty with this verse.

His declaration to His mother is not a claim to inability to act but an inability to act in a full way.

The Father’s agenda has been laid out before Him.

But within this, the very reason Jesus could (and did) respond to His mother’s implied request was because He could do something.

She was looking to see the wedding to a successful conclusion, saving the host from embarrassment.

Jesus is thinking of a much grander wedding feast, knowing that the embarrassment of the cross is required for it to reach its ultimate conclusion.

His mother’s response suggests the her Son’s refusal was at the most a distancing response, not a rebuke or a rejection.

She trusts her Son to respond to her need, yet without knowing what He would do.

She submitted to her son, knowing He would do something.

As the Word He “dwells” with His creation, yet remains as the God of creation.

The crisis resolved, vs. 6-8

Now John points out in verse 6 the convenient location of six jars of water.

We discover they are made of stone.

Clay water jars that have not been fired in a kiln could become unclean.

When that occurred, it was required that they be destroyed Lev.

11:33 “‘As for any earthenware vessel into which one of them may fall, whatever is in it becomes unclean and you shall break the vessel.”

Stone jars were more expensive than those made of pottery, but they had the advantage of being able to be purified after ritual defilement, according to rabbinic rulings.

This type of jar is well known in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the first century AD.

The purpose of these stone jars was “for the Jewish custom of purification.”

It was the “tradition of the elders” that held that the Jews were not to eat until they gave their hands a ceremonial washing, which involved the servants pouring water over the hands of every guest before and after the meal as well as between courses.

The larger the number of guests, the more water was needed.

Now they will serve a useful purpose: they will now contain celebratory drink as wine jars.

This was unheard of yet is one of those times where Jesus put a person’s need over tradition.

Jesus gives directions to the servants to fill the water pots with water.

How much water is emphasized by the phrase “to the brim.”

This was a lot of work.

The servants had to take these stone jars to the closest water source, fill them up and then transport these heavy, full pots back to where Jesus was.

The text tells us in verse 6 that these jars could contain 25 to 30 gallons each.

In

Where were these jars returned to?

Probably outside the area of celebration, in light of what Jesus commands next, in verse 8: “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.”

This was the person who was to oversee and preside over of the wedding feast, parceling out food and beverage.

It was a very honorable position, usually performed by one of the invited guests.

I do not know what the servants were thinking, but they did not question what Jesus commanded.

The Manifestation of Jesus’s Glory, vs. 9-11

We have no indication of when the water was turned to wine.

Verse 9 tells us that the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine and called the bridegroom over.

He had no idea where this wine came from, but the servants who had drawn the water from the water source knew.