The Wedding at Cana (2.1-12).

The incident at the wedding in Cana of Galilee is said by the writer to be the first of Jesus’ ‘signs’. John is the only one who describes Jesus miraculous acts as ‘signs’, however this is not in the sense some would use it today as ‘proofs’. It was because they revealed something of His glory. They demonstrated Who and What He was.

2.1-2 ‘And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there, and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage.’

Note once again the time element ‘on the third day’ (v.1), the third day after leaving the place where Nathaniel received his call. This series of events from 1.19 onwards was imbedded in the writer’s mind as a vivid memory of a glorious, few, never to be forgotten days.

‘There was a marriage at Cana in Galilee’. Jesus and His mother were clearly known to the organisers, as were possibly the accompanying disciples, as they too were locals. Thus they were all invited. Although as Nathaniel came from Cana the combined invitation to the disciples may have been due to his influence (21.20). There is no need to think that all the twelve were there. They would be appointed later. ‘His disciples’ simply refers to those who were following Him at the time. The site of Cana is not yet certain, although it was presumably not far from Nazareth.

Such weddings would be occasions of celebration and feasting which helped to make the daily grind tolerable. It was therefore a matter of honour to ensure they went well. The marriage feast itself would usually take place in the evening, and after the marriage covenant had been signed the couple would be escorted to a specially prepared room, the ‘chuppa’. The feasting would then continue for a number of days, with much music and hilarity.

2.3 ‘And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus says to him, ‘They have no wine.’ We do not know at what point the wine failed, whether at the marriage feast or in the later festivities, but either way it was a shameful thing for the families concerned. So when the wine ran out, Jesus’ mother approached Him and said, ‘They have no wine’.

The fact that it did run out might suggest that the family concerned were very poor and had not been able to fund the wedding fully (the ‘servants’ may well have been volunteers), but their shame would be clear to all. If their means were very limited this could easily happen as the feasting during a wedding was not restricted to close relatives, and there would be many friends and acquaintances there. But to John, and possibly Jesus at the time, the words are more poignant. John sees it as a picture of the world. The world indeed has religious ceremony galore, but it lacks that which floods the heart with joy, it lacks wine that satisfies (Isaiah 55.1). The world too ‘has no wine’.

2.4 ‘And Jesus says to her, ‘Woman, what is there to you and to me, my hour is not yet come.’

That Mary’s words are not just a quiet remark to her son comes out in the reply He made. It is clear she hoped He would do something remarkable, revealing some of the powers she now knew He had. But she knows she cannot tell Him what to do. She can only draw His attention to the situation. It is probable that Joseph is already dead and she has become used to leaning on her eldest son. The coming of the Messiah was often described in connection with a Messianic Feast and quite possibly she saw this as an opportunity for Him to reveal Himself. As His mother she cannot wait for Him to be a success.

Jesus reply is fairly stern, but not as stern as it might appear.

“Woman”. Difficult to put into English because we do not have a word that means the equivalent. In Yorkshire it could be translated ‘lass’ which can be an affectionate term in the same way as this. It probably contains the sense of gentle chiding, but no more. It is, however, unusual for a Jew to address his mother in this way. We must therefore see in it a slight distancing of Himself, indicating that His ministry must not be interfered with.

“What is there to you and to me?” is what He says (literally). The phrase can be used (1). When one person is unjustly bothering another. The injured party may then say "What to me and to you?" meaning, "What have I done to you that you should do this to me?" (See Judges 11.12; 2 Chronicles 35.21; 1 Kings 17.18). Alternately, (2) When someone is asked to get involved in a matter he feels is no business of his, he may say to the one asking him, "What to me and to you?" meaning, "That is your business, how am I involved?" (See 2 Kings 3.13; Hosea 14.8).

Here then this probably means, ‘we have different concerns, lass’, rather than the harsher ‘what have we in common?’ or ‘why do you do this to me?’ It was not yet the time when He wished to reveal Himself, as He makes clear when He says ‘my hour has not yet come’. Even Jesus must await the hour God has appointed for Him, the hour which will finally result in His death and glorification (John 7.30; 8.20; 12.23; 12.27; 13.1; 17.1). How much more important it is for us not to rush into things before God and we are ready.

Jesus words are significant. As we have seen, in John’s Gospel ‘His hour’ is regularly linked with His death. So Jesus may well already be feeling aware of what His hour will bring and not be desirous of bringing it on too quickly. It was not an easy path He would be called on to tread, and He is fully aware of the consequences.

2.5 ‘His mother says to the servants, “Whatever he says to you, do it.’ She did not feel His words as a rebuke, but just a reminder that she must not hurry Him into His work, and gathers from His attitude that her son will do something. So she tells the waiting servers, (possibly unpaid volunteers), ‘Do whatever He tells you.’ The words indicate that she is expecting Him to do something unusual which may take the servers by surprise.

This incident illustrates the fact Mary is not fully in tune with her son’s purposes, although like the disciples she accepts He is chosen for a special task. Jesus will later re-emphasise this when He will not allow her to interfere with His ministry (Mark 3.31-35), putting her on a par from that point of view with all who do the will of God. Even His mother cannot be allowed to interfere in His destiny.

2.6 ‘Now there were six water pots of stone set there in accordance with the Jewish custom of purifying, each containing two or three metretes.’

Nearby Jesus sees six very large jars which were there for purposes of Jewish cleansing rituals (Compare Mark 7.3). The writer remembers clearly the number of the jars. (Interestingly six disciples have been mentioned. Perhaps John saw significance in that. From them Jesus would produce new wine and they would take God’s wine to the world). Much of the water had been used already, and He tells the servers to refill the jars. It is significant that John mentions the use of the water pots. He wants to draw the attention of his readers to the source of the water, that it is connected with the old religious rites.

‘Metretes’, a measure containing about thirty nine and a half litres. Thus each jar contains on average about a hundred litres, (about 26 US gallons), making 600 litres in all, illustrating the fact that Jesus gives good measure and running over.

2.7 ‘Jesus says to them “Fill the water pots with water.” And they filled them to the brim.’ On the basis of Jesus’ instruction the servers enthusiastically fill them to the brim. They are probably curious as to what He will do and perhaps a little jocular. There may well have been a few humorous remarks such as ‘let’s make sure there is plenty of water there, just in case’. Again, however, John intends us to get the idea of overabundance.

2.8-10 ‘And he says to them, “Draw out now and carry it to the ruler of the feast”. And they carried it. And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from, (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast called the bridegroom and says to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when men have drunk freely, then that which is worse. You have kept the good wine until now”.’

‘Draw out now’. ‘Antlesate’. The verb is used of drawing water out of a well or baling out a ship, but can be used more generally to signify drawing out by means of some vessel, (thus the noun for ‘bucket’ (antlema) is etymologically similar).

When the water is drawn and taken to the master of ceremonies, the master of ceremonies, who is not aware of what is happening, drinks it and is impressed. Indeed he calls the bridegroom and says, ‘Most people serve the best wine first, and then when people are a little merry give them cheaper wine. But you have saved the best till last’. There is not only overabundance but exquisiteness of taste, a true Messianic feast. Abundance of wine is a symbol of the coming age in Amos 9.14; Hosea 14.6-7; Jeremiah 31.5, 12, and it will be without money and without price (Isaiah 55.1). ‘The best wine’ emphasises change for the better, a new beginning.

In the coming of Jesus the world will be offered new and better ‘wine’, replacing the old religious ideas. Elsewhere new wine symbolises Jesus’ teaching (Mark 2.22).

2.11 ‘This beginning of his signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and revealed openly his glory, and his disciples believed on him.’

The whole account illustrates to John that here is One Who will take the old ceremonies (the jars of purification) and replace them with a new and vibrant reality, the wine of the kingdom. The water of the old religion will become the wine of the new, which will introduce a new and wonderful future, a time of joy and fruitfulness, a Messianic Feast of overflowing plenty. God has saved the best until last. The Messiah is here at last to satisfy men’s deepest needs, and by His actions He reveals His glory as the provider of God’s richest blessing. This is why John can call it a ‘sign’, indeed the first sign, of the purpose Jesus has come to fulfil. The incident strengthens and confirms the faith of the disciples (v.11).

2.12 ‘After this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they remained there not many days.’ The writer now remembers vividly how, after this incident, they went to Capernaum for a few days, with Jesus’ mother and brothers, where they all stayed together. Note that John never mentions Mary by name. While respected she must fit into the scheme of things.

There are some who express surprise that Jesus should perform such a miracle when it seemed to have little purpose, but the fact is that it is an act typical of Jesus. When He wanted to impress on His disciples the bankruptcy and coming devastation of Jerusalem he cursed the fig tree, so that from it the disciples might learn a vivid message and recognise His power (Mark 11.12-25), and when He wanted to show them that their eyes were still only half open He healed the blind man in two stages (Mark 8.22-25). So here He turns water into wine to show that the days of spiritual prosperity and plenty are now here.

The Cleansing of the Temple (2.13-25).

2.13 ‘And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.’

John constantly tells us that Jesus went up to Jerusalem for the different Feasts of the Jews, and especially for the Passover. (1.13; 5.1; 7.10; 10.22; 11.55 with 12.12). Jesus did not ignore the traditions of Israel. This is His first Passover after taking up His calling. Perhaps John intends us to link it with the final Passover, and to have that awareness of the shadow that lies already over the ministry of Jesus.

But the incident he will now describe is paralleled at the end of Jesus’ life by a similar incident before His final denunciation (Mark 11.12-19 and parallels), and this must raise the question as to whether there were two such incidents or one. It is of course always possible that John deliberately puts the incident here in order to reinforce the message that the old is passing way and the new has come (chronology was not a major factor to the Gospel writers). But in fact he puts it in such a context that it suggests that it occurred early rather than late in the ministry, and the incidents are so dissimilar that it seems far more likely that this is a different incident altogether.

Given the fact that the trading in the Temple must always have angered Jesus it is rather surprising that He did not do something like this every time He went to Jerusalem, although after this incident they would be on their guard, and He would perhaps realise that such repeated actions could precipitate a collision which would prematurely end His ministry. He knew, after all, that it could only be a token gesture. But by the time of the later incident the passage of years would have convinced the guards that He was no longer a danger. Thus two incidents years apart might really be expected, the first when in His new zeal He faces up to the matter for the first time, the second occurring as a thought out policy before He is finally put to death. The first He gets away with as being the act of a zealous young man who may well hold promise for the future, the second is a seal on His death warrant.

The reason for His act here is described very differently, and fits better into the beginnings of His ministry when He was probably not quite as aware, as He was later, of the dishonesty that was going on. It is exactly the kind of reason that might well fire up a younger man without containing the thought out attitude revealed in the later incident. He feels in His new awareness of Messiahship that He has to do something, for they are treating God’s house like a market! He may well have had in mind the words of Zechariah, ‘In that day there will be no more a merchant in the house of the Lord of Hosts’ (Zechariah 14.21), and the words of Malachi, ‘The Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom you delight in --- for he is like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap --’ (Malachi 3.1-3).

The other Gospels tell us little about His ministry in Jerusalem, concentrating rather on His itinerant ministry, thus they disregard the happenings at the trips to Jerusalem, possibly even because they were not present (in John ‘the disciples’ is a vague term not necessarily always meaning the twelve). But John, who records a number of trips to Jerusalem, and who wishes to finish his Gospel on a spiritual note, perhaps did not wish to jar it with violent visits to the Temple and details of the last Supper, just as he ignores Jesus’ actual baptism and the transfiguration, while hinting at both, but remembers this other incident and describes it because it fits in with his purpose. He is well aware that the later cleansing is already well known in the Christian church. An action like this helps to explain why in the other Gospels the leaders are so antagonistic to Jesus at an early stage (e.g. Mark 3.22).

2.14 ‘And he found in the Temple those who sold oxen, and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers sitting there.’ In the temple courts He found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others at tables exchanging currencies. This latter was necessary because the Temple tax, required of every Jew, had to be paid in Tyrian coinage which had no idolatrous images on, and many had come from afar bringing ‘tainted’ money. Conscious of His new ministry He is angered at this use of His Father’s house, which He sees as a place for prayer and worship.

2.15-16 ‘And he made a scourge of cords and cast them all out of the Temple, both the sheep and the oxen, and he emptied out the changers’ money and overthrew their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, “Take these things out of here. Do not make my Father’s house a house of business”.’

So He makes a small scourge (no weapon or stick was allowed in the Temple) and drives out the animals, tips over the tables of the moneychangers, and then says to those who were selling doves (for sacrificial purposes) ‘Get these out of here. Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace’. Even in His anger His compassion and self-control are shown for He does not act in a way that will harm the doves.

The whole picture is one of spontaneous action as a result of the impact the scene has made on Him, quite unlike His studied purpose in Mark, where He first goes in and surveys the Temple Mark 11.11) and then later carries out His planned action. Theoretically the activities of the traders might have been seen as justified, as they made it convenient for worshippers, but to Jesus it meant that concentration was diverted from the main purpose of the Temple, that of meeting with God. Do some of our church activities come under the same heading?

2.17 ‘His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘Zeal for your House will eat into me’ (Psalm 69.9)’, (we are not told when they remembered) and it confirms to them and the readers that here is One Who fulfils the Scriptures.

John possibly also sees in the incident a picture of rejection of the sacrificial system which Jesus has come to replace, but that is not apparent from Jesus’ words, although hinted at in what follows.

2.18 ‘The Judaisers therefore answered and said to him, “What sign do you show us that you do these things?” ’ This reaction of the authorities is interesting. Like John he is questioned about who He is. This would not have happened at the end of His ministry. The incident has done little harm, and like others they eagerly await a unique figure who will aid their cause, for they are sure that one day God will act as He has promised through such a unique figure. They recognise that what He has done is a claim to having some kind of authority from God, and that He already has some popularity, and is associated with miraculous events, so rather than arresting Him they come to question Him. There may even have been some who quietly agreed with what He did. There was no love lost between the Pharisees and the Chief Priests. If He is amenable He could be useful. ‘What sign can you show us that demonstrates your right to do this?’ They are not sure how to view Him.

2.19 ‘Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy the Temple and in three days I will raise it up”.’ This enigmatic reply puzzles them. They are not aware that within forty years the Temple will be destroyed as a result of their activities. Nor are they aware that for multitudes the crucified and risen Jesus will have replaced the Temple and its sacrifices. That the statement was remembered comes out in the fact that Jesus will later be charged with having said such things as, ‘I am able to destroy the Temple of God and rebuild it in three days’ (Matthew 26.61) and ‘I will destroy this Temple that is made with hands and in three days I will build another made without hands’ (Mark 14.58). Here is one example where the Synoptics assume material contained in John’s Gospel.

3.20 ‘The Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty six years to build this Temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’ ” Herod’s Temple commenced being built around 20 BC and was still in process of being built. Completion would occur in 63 AD, just in time for its destruction. In view of the fact that it had been in process of building most of their lives it is not surprising that they found His statement difficult to comprehend.

3..21 ‘But he spoke of the temple of his body’. Here Jesus’ meaning is explained to the readers. By destroying Him they will in effect destroy the Temple, although the destruction may be delayed, but within three days of their destroying Him He will rise again, replacing the Temple and its sacrifices. This reply demonstrates that He is already aware that His acceptance among these bigoted men will not be positive.

3.22. ‘When therefore he was raised from the dead his disciple remembered that he had spoken like this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.’ Although the disciples did not understand the meaning at the time, once Jesus had risen from the dead they remembered what He had said and understood.

‘And they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken’. Jesus’ words are put on a level with ‘The Scripture’. The one in mind may well be Psalm 16.10, ‘you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you allow your holy one to see decay’, although John may have had a number of Scriptures in mind including as well Isaiah 53.12, where resurrection is implied.

2.23 ‘Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast many believed on his name when they saw the signs which he did, but Jesus did not trust himself to them because he knew all men, and because he did not need that anyone should testify to him concerning man, for he himself knew what was in man.’

Two interpretations are possible for these verses.

The first sees this as the completest condemnation of those who think people will believe because of miracles that we could have. That is what these people did, runs this view, but Jesus knew how unreliable such faith was. The only faith worth having is that which is based on an inner certainty of Who Jesus is and a full response to Him based on that certainty. That is what the ‘signs’ mentioned by John are meant to accomplish, understanding. These people did not understand.

‘Jesus did not trust himself to them.’ This would then mean that He would not encourage them to become disciples until He had more evidence of their genuineness. He was never concerned about numbers and popularity, and was quite happy to limit there number.

The second possibility is that their faith was genuine, but that there was a danger of them seeking in their enthusiasm to press Him into Messianic activity outside His purposes. Compare how later he withdraws from the crowd who would make Him a king (6.15). Thus He does not take them under His wing, and does not wish to be too closely involved with them..

The fact that this comes before the incident of Nicodemus whose faith also was lacking may be seen as supporting the first suggestion, for Nicodemus at this stage illustrates one whose understanding is lacking.

It is interesting that John does not mention the miracles, but just assumes them. They were an important evidence of Jesus’ compassion, and of His status, but not relevant to John’s purpose. He is not citing them as ‘evidence’. He makes clear that Jesus knew men and women through and through - ‘He knew what was in man’. Jesus does not want those who only respond to miracles. He only wants those who are genuine.