PM Home Bible Study Group; March 14, 2012

John 2:1-11

Theme: The “sign” at the wedding in Cana identified Jesus as the Creator-God in human flesh.

(Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references are taken from The Holy Bible, New King James Version; copyright 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc.)

In our last look in John’s Gospel, we found that Jesus “wanted to go to Galilee, and He found Philip and said to him, ‘Follow Me’” (v. 43). Not only did Philip go with Him, but it may be that his friend Nathanael—who he went and found, and told, “We have found Him of whom Moses and the law, and also the prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph” (v. 45)—also went along. After all, John 21:2 lets us know that Nathanael was from Cana. And now, in this evening’s passage, we see why it was that the Lord desired to go to Cana. It was for a wedding—perhaps a wedding that involved a friend of Nathanael, or even one of his relatives, or perhaps even a relative of our Lord.

What Jesus performed in Cana is referred to by John as “a sign” (symeion)—which speaks of a miraculous act by which something (or someone) is known or distinguished. There are, in John’s Gospel, six other such “signs” besides this one: the healing of the nobleman’s sick son—which also occurred in Cana (4:46-54), the healing of the infirmed man at the pool of Bethesda (5:1-9), the feeding of the 5,000 on the mountain by the sea (6:1-14), the walking that our Lord did upon the water (6:15-21), the raising of Lazarus from the dead (11:1-44), and the miraculous catch of fish after His resurrection (21:1-14). If we look carefully, each of these “signs” were intended to reveal something of great significance concerning the Lord Jesus as “the Word become flesh”; and the first of these signs is the one our Lord performed at the wedding.

I. THE OCCASION FOR THE SIGN: THE WINE RAN OUT (vv. 1-5).

A. John begins by telling us, “On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee

. . .” (v. 1). What “third day” was this? Since John had been speaking of a sequence of days (see 1:29, 35, 43), it might be easy to think that this was the third day after disciples began to follow Jesus (see 1:35ff). But because the trip to Cana would have begun from near “Bethabara beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing” (see 1:28; just north of the Dead Sea), and would have been over 50 miles, the “third day” would have most likely been from the time that Jesus had invited Philip and met Nathanael. That Jesus’ mother Mary may have had a part in the wedding preparations could be suggested by the fact that we’re told, “and the mother of Jesus was there” (v. 1); and it may even help explain why she was so ready to suggest a solution to the situation in the wedding that is mentioned later in this passage. Note also that we’re told, “Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding”(v. 2); which may suggest that, not only was Jesus’ mother involved, but that Jesus’ family may have had a connection with the bride and/or groom. Countless wedding ceremonies have been begun by noting that the Lord Jesus sanctified weddings by His own presence at a wedding in Cana. How blessed is any wedding in which the Lord Jesus is invited—and how much more the marriage!

B. It’s then that a significant crisis occurred. We’re told that they ran out of wine. Such wedding feasts often went on for several days; and to have ran out of wine—most likely because of a lack of careful planning and preparation would have been and an offense to the invited wedding guests, and would have been considered a social faux pas of significant perportions! Later on in the story, the master of the feast offered comments to the bridegroom that suggested that the bridegroom was responsible for making sure all the provisions were there. Because of the customs of the day, such a failure might have resulted in a ruin of the reputation of the new couple. John tells us, “And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, ‘They have no wine’” (v. 3). Mary’s interest may have been because she was somehow involved in the proceedings of the wedding feast; but it may also have been because of a deep concern for the difficult situation into which this would have placed the young couple—and perhaps the extended family. A large supply of wine to make up for the loss would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain while in the midst of the feast.

C. This appears to have been an opportunity for Mary to turn to her divine Son. One can almost detect a tiny bit of motherly manipulation involved in her telling Jesus—who was merely a guest—that they had run out of wine. But what was she seeking in bringing the matter to Him? Certainly she would have hoped that He would meet the need and resolve the crisis that the lack of wine presented. But more than even that appears to be involved. After all, she knew some things about her Son that, perhaps, only a very tiny handful of people knew. She knew that the angel had announced to her that the Son she had born was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that “therefore, also, the Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). She knew that the mother of John the Baptist—filled with the Holy Spirit—spoke and said, “But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:42). When the shepherds came and reported to her the things that the angelic hosts declared to them, she “kept all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). She kept these things within her for three decades; and perhaps she could contain them no longer. Now a need arose that only God could solve; and perhaps now was the time for her divine Son to reveal His identity to the world. All of this might have been involved when she said to Him, “They have no wine”; as if to say, “And will You now prove Yourself before the world to be the Son of God that I know You are?”

D. Jesus’ answer to her seems—to the ears of a different culture such as ours—to have been harsh and disrespectful: “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come’” (v. 4). But two things need to be noted.

1. First, Jesus’ reference to His mother as “woman” was not harsh or disrespectful. We should never think of our Lord—who was the pre-existant Son of the very same divine Lawgiver of the Old Testament that gave the commandment to honor father and mother—as, in any way, speaking in a disrespectful manner to His mother. The name that He used to her was the same one that He used on the cross when, looking upon His desperately grieving mother, He said, “Woman, behold your son!”; and then, turned to John and said, “Behold your mother!” (John 19:26-27). The name “woman”, in this case, can be understood to have the same respectful connotation as, “Dear Lady”.

2. And second, Jesus’ reason for speaking to her was not because she was burdening Him with a problem that should have someone else’s to solve. His statement, “. . . what does your concern have to do with Me”, may be understood as “Dear Lady, why do you turn to Me?” And its intention is governed by His next statement, “My hour has not yet come”—as if she were trying to bring something of God’s divine program for the Lord Jesus to pass long before its appropriate time. The “hour” of Jesus that He was speaking of can be understood by the way it was spoken of later in this Gospel. When His unbelieving brothers taunted Him to ‘reveal’ Himself at the Jewish feast, He told them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always ready” (John 7:6); and that they should go to the feast without Him, and that He was not yet going up to the feast, “for My time has not yet fully come” (v. 8). The leaders sought to lay hands on Him at the feast; but we’re told that “no one laid a hand on Him, because His hour had not yet come” (v. 30). Later on, in the treasury of the temple, they sought again to apprehend Him, “and no one laid hands on Him, for His hour had not yet come” (8:20). But as He entered into the city of Jerusalem to die on the cross, He declared, “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified” (12:23). And in His great prayer to the Father, just before He was betrayed, He said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You” (17:1). Clearly, the “hour” in which He would be fully revealed as the One that Mary knew Him to be was coming; but it had not yet arrived, because it would only come when He would be lifted up on the cross.

E. Nevertheless, as John tells us, He did in a sense grant her request—both in meeting the immediate need and in revealing something of His glory. He did so, however, in a way that only anticipated the full revealing of His identity—giving only a hint of what would be most fully manifested in “the hour” yet to come. Perhaps, for this reason, we’re told, “His mother said to the servants, ‘Whatever He says to you, do it’” (v. 5). She submitted to His willingness to solve the immediate crisis; but also submitted to the fact that His hour had not yet fully come. What a lesson, by the way, Mary teaches us here! She turned the people in the state of crisis to the Lord Jesus and said, “Whatever He says to you, do it!” What a great help we’d be to people if we did the same thing as her!

II. THE NATURE OF THE SIGN: THE WATER WAS MADE INTO WINE (vv. 6-9).

A. In solving this crisis, there is an infinite variety of ways it could have been done. The Lord Jesus—who was able to multiply a feast for thousands through a small portion of bread and fish—certainly could have made wine appear from out of nowhere. But the way that He solved this crisis was significant to what was being revealed through this “sign”. We’re told, “Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece.” These large water pots sat by as a quiet testimony of a religious ceremonial ritual of the Jews. As Mark 7:3-4 tells us, “For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.” The fact that they were “stone pots” suggests the deadness of the religious rituals that were characteristic of the Old Covenant; and the fact that they were “empty” speaks of the vacuousness of those rituals to meet the needs of the heart. What a picture it was that the Lord Jesus was giving of Himself as the One who brings the life and joy of New Covenant realities!

B. What’s more, Jesus—in solving this crisis in this way—was showing something of His identity as the Creator God in human flesh. We’re told, “Jesus said to them, ‘Fill the waterpots with water.’ And they filled them up to the brim” (v. 7). The fact that they were filled to the top would have made it clear that it was water only—not wine—that had been put into the pots. Then, we read, “And He said to them, ‘Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast.’ And they took it” (v. 8). It was not simply taken to the guests, because that would not have been proper protocol at the feast. The “master of the feast” was the proper authority to which it should be given. And note that, even though what was drawn out was water, and not wine, it had become wine by the time it had been taken to the master of the feast. “When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom” (v. 9).

C. Here, the Lord Jesus revealed Himself to be the Creator. Every year, God the Creator turns water into wine through a long and natural process—on countless hillsides and in countless vineyards. But here, Jesus did what God the Creator made His created world to do ordinarily—but did it in a moment’s time and at His own command. Thus He proved Himself to be what Paul said of Him in Colossians 1:15-17; “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” John was simply giving confirmation to us of what he told us at the very start of his Gospel; that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:1-2); and that, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (1:14).

III. THE RESPONSE TO THE SIGN: HIS DISCIPLES BELIEVED ON HIM (vv. 10-11).

A. The next thing that John tells us gives us a little insight into the way things were done in a feast. We’re told that the master of the feast called the bridegroom after tasting what had been given to him; “And he said to him, ‘Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!’” (v. 10). Whatever else this may tell us, it shows us that the water that Jesus had turned into wine was not simply watered-down-wine. It was wine that an expert had recognized as being of very high quality. In a sense, Jesus again shows His greatness with respect to New Covenant realities. When He brings about the realities of the New Covenant, those realities are truly joyful and fulfilling. This makes us think of the glories and joys of the New Covenant that were expressed in Matthew 9:14-17; “Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.’” The fullness of New Covenant realities is so great that it won’t even fit in the narrow confines of the Old Covenant forms any longer. Jesus brings the very best wine to the feast!

B. We’re not told of any affect that this had on the spirit of the master of the feast. All that seems to have impressed him was that the wine was the best. But we’re told very clearly what effect this had on the disciples: “This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him” (v. 11). It’s hard not to imagine that our Lord’s mother also told them something of what she knew of Him; and now that they saw with their own eyes what He did—and having already known something of Him from what John the Baptist had declared—they believed on Him even more!

* * * * * * * * * *

This is only one “sign”—one out of only seven that John writes about in his Gospel. This certainly isn’t all that Jesus did. But as John himself tells us at the end of His Gospel, “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”