Jn 2,1-12 (2 Ord. C)
Literary context. - The “Book of Signs" (2,1-12,36) begins with a theme, which the end of the Prologue had already announced: “Though the law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (1,17). This theme is connected with the universal renewal brought about in the future by the messianic era (Rv 21,5: “Now I am making the whole of creation new”). But here there is no question of the old order of things being perfected by the new one (the Synoptics’ perspective, especially Matthew’s); the two orders are opposed one to the other so as to underline the transcendence of the new. The context is influenced by the controversy with the “Jews" who confine themselves to Moses and refuse to see that Moses was a preparation for Christ (5,45-47; 9,28-29). The new order inaugurated by Christ does not appear here as the crowning of the old one, but as opposed to the law of Moses, which is enough for the Jews. In this section, the old and the new are considered either in their totality (2,1-11) or in one or other of their essential elements: the cult (2,13ff; 4,20ff), the regeneration (3,5ff; 4,14).
And so, in these first four chapters, Jesus has endeavored to suggest that he was commissioned to set up a new economy, superior to the old one. In the solemn declaration to Nathanael (1, 51), "true Israelite, incapable of deceit” (1,47), Jesus promises the new Israel that, by his intervention, it would see angels ascending and descending not above a specific place like Bethel (Gn 28,10-17), but above the glorified Son of Man who, in the new order of things, will be "the house of God and the gate of heaven." The narrative of Cana refers to the new covenant, and doubtless more specifically still, to the messianic wine of the Eucharist; the cleansing of the Temple evokes the more perfect Temple, which will be the body of the Risen Lord; the interview with Nicodemus treats the new birth belonging to the realm of the Spirit; the conversation with the Samaritan woman contrasts the old cult with the cult in spirit and in truth.
Johannine perspective. - Our episode, which has for its setting a village wedding, seems simple, and one can be inclined to assimilate it to the Synoptic miracle stories. However, the conclusion (2,11) contains typically Johannine indications – “the first of the signs"; “he manifested his glory”; “his disciples believe in him" - which invite the reader to seek, beyond sense appearances, the true significance of this action of Jesus. On the other hand, Christ’s answer to his mother (2,4) seems enigmatic and even harsh, and cannot be easily understood after Mary’s discreet intervention. Yet Mary does not look troubled, and in fact Jesus performs the miracle after what should be interpreted as a clear refusal.
Numerous interpretations, often completely foreign to the Johannine perspective, have been proposed for this passage. A mariological concern has prompted several studies among the Catholics. In order to understand this passage, we must uphold two obvious principles: 1° the episode must be interpreted above all in its Johannine context; 2° we must distinguish between the redactional level of John and the anecdotal level of materially historical facts. Let us investigate briefly the clues, which are significant in the Johannine perspective (redactional level).
a) The symbolism of this miracle. John calls it a sign (v11), as he does all other miracles. It is clear that the other signs of the Fourth Gospel have a symbolic meaning: the miracle of the loaves shows that Jesus gives the bread of life and that he is that bread (6, 35.51); the healing of the man born blind is meant to manifest Jesus as "the light of the world" (9,5); the raising of Lazarus must render visible the declaration of Jesus to the effect that he is the resurrection and the life (11,25). The water, the wine, and the transformation of the water into wine must therefore point to realities beyond mere material appearances. The water stands for the Jewish religious order: as John observes, the six stone water jars mentioned “were meant for the ablutions customary among the Jews” (v6), and we know that the numerous ritual ablutions constituted one of the major characteristics of Jewish religious practice (Mk 7,3-4). On the other hand, Jesus himself has spoken of the wine of the new religious order set up by him (Mt 9,17 par.); the cup of wine, at the Last Supper, is connected with the foundation of the New Covenant (Mt 26,27-29 par.); already the OT knows of the wine as symbol of eschatological bliss (Gn 49,11-12; Is 25,6; 29, 17; Jr 31,5; Hos 2,24; Jl 4,18; Am 9,13). The sign of Cana symbolizes therefore the substitution of the whole former religious order by the new religious order. The quantity of wine is constant with the superabundance of the grace (1,16) the life (7,38), which John mentions as characterizing the new order founded by Christ.
b) Misunderstanding of Jesus’ listeners. In the Fourth Gospel those who talk with Jesus are often concerned with material questions: the Jews see only the temple in the process of being built for the past 46 years (2,20); Nicodemus limits himself to physical generation (3,4); the Samaritan woman thinks only of the water of Jacob’s well (4,11-12.15); the Jews ask for the repetition of the miracle of the manna (6.30-31); etc. Jesus endeavors to draw his listeners towards concerns of another order, but he remains completely misunderstood. Why? Because Jesus is the transcendent Son of Man "come down from heaven” (3,13.31). His person and his message are beyond the understanding of all men, for they are from below. They will be able to understand only with the help of the Spirit (16,12-14) who will be given only subsequently to Christ’s glorification (7,39).
And so we must not be surprised if the mother of Jesus does not understand what her son told her (2,4). Besides, Lk 2,48 recalls a similar lack of understanding. In certain way Mary is, like the other listeners of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, at a level situated at an infinite distance from her Son. And so, by calling her “woman” Jesus does not seem to distinguish her from the other persons he meets.
c) The initiative of the miracles. The miracles narrated by John are never performed in the way in which they were requested. The nobleman who asks Jesus to come and heal his son must believe that Jesus performs this cure at a distance, by his mere word (4,50). The paralytic hopes only that someone will help him go down into the pool; Jesus heals him by his word (5,7-9). Jesus decides of himself to feed the crowd (6,5-13) and to grant sight to the man born blind (9,3-7). The sisters of Lazarus ask Jesus to come and cure their brother, but he remains away two days more (11,3-7), and afterwards raises Lazarus from the dead.
The Johannine Christ is therefore never tied up by a human request. The way he must follow, even the least circumstances, are dictated to him by his Father and one else. And so Jesus simply cannot answer the request of his mother. He performs a miracle, but it is of his own initiative, or better still under the lead of his Father. That is why Jesus refuses at first to act on Mary's prompting (2,4) whereas, in what follows, he nevertheless seems to conform to his mother's request. The miracle gratifies Mary's desire, but it is not performed because it is requested.
General interpretation. - Here is therefore the general interpretation that we can give to this pericope. In v.3 Mary presents a request aimed at dictating Jesus’ behavior. This request has a double meaning: according to appearances the question is to provide material assistance to the bridegroom; but the transformation of water into wine signifies the replacement of the old religious order of things by the new religious order. Of course Mary sees only the first meaning of her request.
Any attempt softening v.4 only weakens and mitigates the transcendence of Christ and the exclusive obedience he owes his Father. The answer of Jesus constitutes in general a clear refusal to act at his mother’s instigation. Even if she is, physically, and no doubt spiritually as well, the person closest to Jesus, she is however by nature from below, whereas he is from above. And so he can call her “woman” like the other persons of this world and indicate the absence of common link between them. Precisely because Mary is still from below, she cannot understand that the change, which she is unconsciously requesting can take place, according to the Father’s decision, only at the Hour of the Son's glorification.
However, we must not extend the answer of Jesus in the direction of a reproach addressed to his mother. Christ is simply affirming his transcendence and, implicitly, his total dependence on his Father. Consequently, he refuses to do what Mary has unwittingly asked him to do.
Without being able to understand, Mary keeps on trusting her Son completely and leaves the whole matter to him (v.5). Then Jesus spontaneously performs the miracle, because his Father wills it so and sanctions it. This miracle is not yet the Sign par excellence, which will he accomplished at the Hour of the glorification of Jesus, but it is an anticipation and a type of that Sign. In order to underline the significance of this foreshadowing, John mentions the quality and the quantity of this new wine.
The role assigned to Mary in this episode may seem astonishing. It is true that Mary fulfills a secondary function, and the episode itself is strongly Christological in emphasis from beginning to end. Thus she does not indicate to Jesus what should be his behavior. Nevertheless her intervention becomes the occasion (not the cause) of Jesus’ first sign, which announces the climax of his career. At the supreme Hour, John will once more present Mary, but this time as the mother of all disciples. This presence of Mary at the beginning and at the end of the mission of Jesus - the only two moments in which she appears in the Fourth Gospel – can suggest a sort of mediation in the founding of the new order. Commenting on this second moment of Mary’s presence, R.E. Brown aptly writes: “But if Mary is to have no role during the ministry, she is to receive a role when the hour of his glorification comes, the hour of passion, death, resurrection, and ascension. John thinks of Mary against the background of Gen 3: she is the mother of the messiah; her role is in the struggle against the satanic serpent, and that struggle comes to its climax in Jesus' hour. Then she will appear at the foot of the cross to be entrusted with offspring whom she must protect in the continuing struggle between Satan and the followers of the Messiah. Mary is the New Eve, the symbol of the Church has no role during the ministry of Jesus but only after the hour of his resurrection and ascension" (1,109).
v.1: On the third day: This expression echoes a constant datum of primitive Christianity concerning the prediction of Jesus as to the moment of his resurrection: “after three days” in Mk 8,31; 9,31; 10,34; Mt 27,63; "on the third day” in Mt 16,21; Lk 9,22; Mt 17,23; 20,19; Lk 18,33; Lk 24,7; 1 Cor 15,4. This chronological notation therefore connects the present episode to the “Hour” (2,4) when Jesus will be glorified (v.11: “he manifested his glory”). According to the division adopted for 1,19-51, this first sign would consequently occur at the conclusion of the inaugural week (compare Jn 20,1) and would form its climax. Thus John indicates that Christ’s first action, and all the following ones, are oriented towards the highest point of his mission, the “hour” of his passion and resurrection. The glory manifested by Jesus in this first sign is the very glory of his resurrection. The whole ministry of God's Son consequently acquires the character of the third day of his glory.
- there was a marriage: According to the customs of the time, the festivities lasted a week in the case of a first marriage or three days in the case of a widow remarrying. This framework of a wedding connects the present episode to the well-known OT theme of God's wedding with his people. Now John the Baptist will soon present Jesus as the bridegroom (3,29). Elsewhere Jesus refers to himself as the bridegroom (Mk 2.19; Mt 9,15; Lk 5,34), and he describes the kingdom under the image of a wedding banquet (Mt 22,1-4). Finally the Book of Revelation uses this theme again in order to evoke the consummation of the present era and the advent of the coming era (19,7-9; 21,2; comp. Ep 5,22ff). According to etiquette it was the bridegroom's task to provide the wine (v.10); but in the present case the bridegroom finds himself short and Jesus discreetly substitutes in his place. As the bridegroom of mankind he is the one to provide the wine.
- at Cana in Galilee: The exact situation of this location is not certain. Archeological studies point to three possible sites, all within fifteen kilometers from Nazareth.
- the mother of Jesus was there: John never gives her name throughout his gospel. He prefers using the honorable title "the mother of X", which is current even today among Arabs for a woman who has been fortunate enough to bear a son.
v.2: with his disciples: This probably refers to the five mentioned until now. The text gives the impression that Mary was already there when Jesus and his disciples arrived; she might well have been invited independently, since Cana is very close to Nazareth and the inhabitants of these two small localities were no doubt connected in many ways. As for Jesus, either he was invited personally because he too was known to the bridal couple, or else he was invited indirectly through Nathanael who was from Cana.
v.3: they have no wine: Some authors have wanted to see in this intervention the mere acknowledgement of a race. But we may more aptly discern in it a discreet and trusting request on the part of Mary, for Mary's recommendation to the servants (v.5) shows that she somehow expects that he might do something - and such an expectation is normal on her part if her previous remark was meant as some kind of request. Moreover, we notice a similar occurrence in 11,3 (the simple "statement” of the sisters of Lazarus) and its subsequent interpretation in 11,21 by Martha as a request. However, in the case of Mary the form of assistance desired is not made clear. She does not explicitly ask for a miracle, and it is even doubtful that such a thought even entered her mind. Of course, according to the infancy gospels (especially that of Luke), Mary knew of the messianic mission of her Son; but could she expect a miracle from him, as if it were the most natural thing in the world? After all, according to Mk 3,21.31 and Lk 2,48-50 what Mary knew of the personality of her Son was far from limpid: her faith had to enlightened little by little. Besides, would it have been reasonable on her part to request a miracle, and the first one at that, for the sole purpose of prolonging a village celebration? It seems rather that here Mary appeals to Jesus with the obscure hope that he will do “something", that he will somehow intervene, without Mary herself knowing very well how he will proceed and what he will do.
v.4: O woman: A Jew would normally address his mother by the word “imma” (= my mother). And so the title “woman" given to Mary by Jesus seems strange. Actually Jesus uses the same title to address other women in the Fourth Gospel (4,21: the Samaritan woman; 20,13: Mary Magdalene) and in the Synoptics (Mt 15,28; Lk 13,12). But contrary to custom, Jesus does not express himself differently when addressing his own mother. As far as we know this is unique in all ancient literature.
- what have you to do with me?: This expression freely renders a Semitism, which could be translated literally by “what to me and to you?” The variety of the translations and interpretations of this formula is really astonishing (see F .M. Braun, La Mere des fideles, Tournai-Paris: Casterman 1954, pp. 51-55). And yet we find numerous parallels to this expression in Latin, Greek and especially biblical literature. The LXX expresses thus denial of common interest (Hos 14,9; Jos 22,24; 2K 3,13) or even hostility (1 K 17,18; comp. in the NT with Mk 1,24 and 5,7). Following a request, the answer formulated thus always expresses a refusal (2 S 19,23), motivated by absence of communion (either of feeling, interest, kinship, etc.)
- my hour has not yet come: Apart from ordinary expressions like “the tenth hour (1,19), “the sixth hour” (4,6; 19,14), John uses more often than not hora in the absolute, without any complement, as in the present case. Everywhere the “Hour” refers to the supreme climax of the mission of Jesus and of the whole of human history: the passion and the resurrection of Christ, when the Father and the Son will be mutually glorified. The whole ministry of Jesus, beginning with the first sign (2,1-11) tends towards that instant, which unifies all his actions and all his words. This tension is regularly recalled in the Book of Signs: “the Hour has not yet come” (2,4; 730; 8,20), but “it is coming” (4,21.23; 5,25.28). From ch. 12 onwards, “the Hour has come", "it is here" (12,23.27; 13,1; 17,1). As many critics recognize, it is unthinkable therefore that this key word have here a different meaning.
However, one may well ask why Jesus would thus be alluding to his final Hour so early in the gospel. The answer is simple: practically all the episodes of this gospel have some connection with Jesus' final Hour. For instance, we have already seen that the expression "the Lamb of God", at least at the level of the Johannine redaction, alluded to the consummation of the messianic mission of Jesus. Likewise, in the sign of the Temple (2,13-22), which forms a diptych with the Cana narrative, the abolition of the ancient cult by the Messiah evokes the end of Jesus’ life (2,17.21-22). The same thing may be said concerning that other sign performed in Galilee, the miracle of the loaves, during which Jesus alludes to his flesh given for the life of the world (6,51-59). Thus the still veiled revelation that Jesus gives of his role as Messiah is often completed in John by an allusion to the definitive Relation provided by the “Hour”.
v.6: Now six stone jars were standing there: The precise figure six suggests the reminiscence of an eyewitness. John may be hinting here at the “imperfection or incompleteness" of the Jewish religious order as compared to that brought about by Jesus, since the jars number six (seven being the symbol of perfection, six is that of imperfection) and are explicitly mentioned as destined “for the Jewish rites of purification."
- each holding twenty or thirty gallons: The text reads literally "each holding two or three measures (metretes)”. The metretes was equivalent to almost 40 liters or about 9 gallons. The total amount of wine produced was therefore between 480 and 720 liters or between 108 and 162 gallons — an enormous amount, far surpassing the requirements of the present situation. No doubt this lavishness is meant to suggest the greatness of the new religious order inaugurated by Jesus.
v.10: Every man serves the good wine first: Such a custom is attested nowhere in antiquity. Here the remark is probably meant to underline the new situation created by Jesus: with him the new religious order, symbolized by the quality and quantity of his wine, comes after the inferior religious order of the Jews.
v.11 and manifested his glory: As R. Schnackenburg comments: "In the divinely-wrought event the believer experiences something of the divine being of Jesus, contemplates the majesty of the Son of God and also senses the brightness of the heavenly world which he cannot yet see with his bodily eyes" (1336).
Parties are a lot of fun. Fun to attend, but perhaps even more so, fun to organize. Who among us has not thrown a party, or at least helped someone with his or her party? Maybe it was a birthday party, a Christmas party, a “despedida” party, a wedding anniversary party, or else it was something more simple – like an office “special merienda” or a mere barkada get-together. At any rate we enjoyed preparing it and enjoyed giving it and experienced afterwards a sense of fulfillment if it was a success. For indeed, not all parties are a success.
After all, so many things can go wrong with a party: the timing, the choice of guests, the place where the party is held, the behavior of the guests, the music, the weather (if it is held outdoors), and many other things besides. But one of the things, which any host or hostess will dread most is a shortage of food or drink. What an embarrassment if we have miscalculated the quantity needed! In fact, in order to prevent such an occurrence, we usually overdo things, preferring by far having too much to offer than not enough – even if we have to eat the leftovers for a week afterwards! And so, just to make sure, we prepare too much refreshment rather than risk the shame of lacking some. Yet even then it can happen that we have miscalculated the number of guests or their appetite.
This is what happened at Cana. There was a wedding, and at one point Jesus was discreetly informed by his mother that the wine had run out, and Jesus miraculously produced a vast quantity of new wine. A rather simple affair, if we compare it with the miracles we find in the other gospels, like the feeding of great crowds or the calming of a storm or the cure of a blind man or the raising of a dead girl. In fact, at Cana the miracle was so discreet that hardly anyone noticed it: the steward did not know what had gone on, and the text seems to suggest that only Mary, the disciples and a few servants were aware that Jesus had made a miracle. At any rate, John's conclusion only mentions the disciples: “Thus did Jesus reveal his glory, and his disciples believed in him." And yet this miracle, which was not thought worthy of mention by the other evangelists, is found in a gospel, which narrates only seven miracles of Jesus. Moreover, it is given special prominence by being the first miracle narrated by John. So surely, at least in John’s eyes, this was a very special miracle indeed, despite its modest appearance. Now why is this?
In order to answer this last question, we have to remember that all the miracles in this gospel are chosen for their symbolic or representative value. In other words, John chose the miracles, which could best explain who Jesus was. For him a miracle was not just a marvellous act of power; it was above all a revelation about the mystery of Jesus. And that is why in this gospel Jesus himself explains some of these miracles with a long discourse, so that they will be understood for what they are: symbols, figures, parables of who he really is. For instance, he multiplies the bread and then explains, "You know, I am the real bread." He enables the man born blind to see the light for the first time and then he explains, “You know, I am the light of the world." He brings back Lazarus to life and then he explains, “You know, I am the real life." Thus we are led to understand that, although Jesus does not explain each and every individual miracle in this detailed fashion, nevertheless all of them have a deeper meaning than what appears on the surface of things. They are not just remarkable events unexplainable by natural causes, they are a language speaking to us about Jesus and telling us in action who exactly Jesus is: bread, light, life, vine, shepherd, etc. At this point, therefore, it is well to ask ourselves what precisely this particular miracle is telling us about Jesus.
In order to find this out, we have to keep in mind first of all what was the setting of this miracle: it was that of a wedding. Now already this is very revealing as to the meaning of the miracle, for the wedding theme is very important in the whole of Israel’s past. In the Old Testament, God calls himself the Bridegroom of Israel, as emphasized in today's first reading, among many other such passages of the Bible. The image of the Bridegroom underlines God's tender love for his people.
Another detail that we must keep in mind concerning the event at Cana is that it was a banquet. Now very often in the Bible the happy future, which the messiah was to bring about, is presented as a banquet - and as a banquet with lots of good wine! This is how Isaiah, for example, expresses this promise: “Here on Mount Zion the Lord Almighty will prepare a banquet for all the nations of the world – a banquet of the richest food and the finest wine" (Is 25,6). Amos specifies that, on those days, "the mountains will flow with sweet wine" (Am, 13).
Jesus in his own preaching took up these images and applied them to himself. Many times he spoke of the Kingdom of God, which he came to inaugurate in his person, as a banquet. He also compared himself to a bridegroom (“Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?" – Mk 2,19), and he compared his teaching and the whole new religious order he was bringing to new wine, which no old wineskins could contain (Mk 2,22).
Now let us go back to the incident at Cana. There we have a bridegroom unable to provide enough wine at his own wedding; the only thing he had left was water—water which served for the ritual washings prescribed by the Mosaic Law. Now Jesus comes. He is the real bridegroom of mankind (like God was for Israel). The old order of things cannot quench the thirst of man for God — only the new order embodied by Jesus. To signify this, Jesus changes the water of the Old Testament into the wine of the New Testament and substitutes himself to the bridegroom. The quality and quantity of the new wine are a way of saying how precious and abundant is the life, which Jesus brings.
No wonder John calls this simple miracle a "sign"! Because in reality it is a sign of who Jesus is: the marvellous bridegroom of mankind ushering in the joy of God’s banquet.
Today also each Eucharist is a banquet in which Jesus gives himself to us, as a bridegroom gives himself to his bride. Here the wine is transformed into his blood. Let us celebrate Christ's gift to us with faith and gratitude. It is by celebrating this Eucharistic banquet that the Church prepares herself for the heavenly banquet and for the final manifestation of the Lord's glory.
*
Jesus prepared the institution of Christian marriage by being present at the wedding of Cana, just as he had prepared the institution of baptism by the contact of his sacred flesh with the waters of the Jordan when he was baptized by the precursor. Notice St. John's realism: the Word of God takes part in the festivities of a simple village wedding. And Jesus does not change. As Scripture says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb 13,8). And so, in our times too Jesus is present at any marriage, for it is he who communicates his grace to the spouses exchanging their vows.
The same holds true of Mary. She too was present at Cana. She is the one who exposed to Jesus the needs of the young wedding couple. She too has not changed. She continues always to expose to God and to her Son all of our needs. The hymn “Salve Regina” calls her “advocata nostra — our Advocate.” The church calls her “Mediatrix of all graces."
The delicate attention of Jesus and of Mary, who at Cana saved the newly-weds from embarrassment, shows to all married couples chat God’s concrete providence watches over their homes through the action of the Savior and his mother. Let us all joyfully open ourselves to their influence and welcome them in our lives, in our house, in all the details of our days.
*
Mary contributes in forming the group of the first disciples of her Son by taking them with her Son into her maternal love. Faithful followers of Christ, disciples we also, let us remember that we are the children of the Blessed Mother – a fact that was explicitly revealed to us at the cross, when Jesus formally handed over John to his mother.
On the other hand, the last words of Mary in the gospels are, "Do whatever he tells you.” This expresses well her enduring message. Through her advice as well as through her example Mary shows us the way leading to her Son. May she ever lead us, thanks to a renewed trust on our part, to the mysteries of Christ and ultimately to the contemplation of his glory.