[As a proviso, this paper was written as a homily given to the Concordia University community at their daily chapel. As such, it is not as academic as much of my work usually is and cannot stand up to a barrage of academic scrutiny. I have limited the citing of sources to the bare minimum and have not contributed anything especially "new" about the text. However, I do think that the general argument is sound and I present it as it might be of interest to a larger audience.]
The infamous “wedding at Cana” pericope has the
danger of being so familiar that readers do not pause to see the confusions in
the text. Here, this essay will present some of the odd components of the text
and then discuss the key to understanding the theological significance of the
pericope by discussing the concept of signs.
First, the text as it stands is unusual, not only
in the Gospel of John, but in any gospel. What is striking is first how Jesus
performs the miracle. Miracles are often categorized as such because they are
very public acts. This miracle, the reader will note, is something that Jesus
does with seemingly relatively few people recognizing. The chief steward is
confused and all he can do is marvel at the situation. We are told that the
servants knew what had happened, but there is no seeming transference of that
knowledge. The disciples, at the end, are told that on account of this, they
believe, so we assume that they must have knowledge of what happened. However,
this is formally different than the miracles Jesus did in that it is not a
public event.
Another oddity is how Jesus performed the miracle.
Here, Jesus is asked to perform a miracle (even though he seemingly had never
done one before), refuses to do it,[1]
then does it in a very inconspicuous way. All Jesus does is tell the servants
to fill water jugs and then bring them to the chief steward. Usually (but not
always) when Jesus does miracles it is accompanied by a gesture or saying. Here
there is nothing except for a few seemingly mundane directions.
The largest oddity is how brief this narrative is.
There are several characters introduced who then have nothing else to do with
the story. For instance, it begins with Jesus’ mother who asks Jesus what to do
and then gives a direction to the servants and then disappears. Then the
servants are discussed, they do what Jesus commands and the water has turned to
wine. They have a brief aside mentioning that they know what happened, but then
the author moves away from it and we don’t know where that is going. The chief
steward is mentioned and is perplexed, completely misunderstands the situation
and never receives resolution. The disciples are mentioned at the end of the pericope
with no seeming part in anything that preceded it – readers are left to assume
the disciples knew what occurred, but there is really nothing that says that.
What is most striking is Jesus’ role in the text. He has a terse conversation
with his mother and two directives to the servants and he is not mentioned
again. The entire text is clipped.
The reason this text is so clipped is that it is
present less to tell the precise story of what happened at the particular
wedding as much as it is completing the call of the disciples and giving the
reader a clue as who Jesus is and how he will operate throughout the gospel.
First, it should be noted that this is called “The first of his signs in Cana
of Galilee.” The word “first” here can mean chronologically first, but it can
also have the sense of first in value. The word arche has the meaning of something far closer to “type” or
“pattern” and rather than this merely being a comment about this text being the
chronologically first sign that Jesus did (which it probably is), it is telling
the reader to watch for this pattern and style of behavior.[2]
Jesus will work in signs (and indeed will perform 6 more) with this same
effect.
The effect of the sign is “Jesus did this, the
first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his
disciples believed in him.” From his action, the disciples believe in him. The
signs, in the Gospel of John, eventuate belief. What is particularly
interesting is how they do that. To understand that, it is necessary to discuss
what a “sign” is and why that term is particularly used in this text.
To understand the use of the term “sign,” it is
necessary to look to its parallel in the Old Testament. The term itself could
be used in a variety of ways, but when paired with mighty works of power, it
leads immediately to think of the “signs” Moses performed among the Egyptians.
These signs of course, are the ten plagues that God, through Moses and Aaron,
inflicts upon the Egyptians. The text shows the use of this term:
Go to
Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials, in
order that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may
tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and
what the signs have done among them – so that you may know that I am the Lord.[3]
What is notable is that the term “sign” is used
for a powerful act. In the case of Moses, the powerful act was one that was a
destructive act, but the pairing is helpful.
The second piece of information about signs is
that they are called “signs” because a sign points to a referent. Miracles are
not done in order to convince people to believe. Miracles are done to present
something that otherwise could not be. In the Gospel of John, by calling them
signs, the miracles are linguistically always reminding the readers that the
signs are to lead them to some larger point.
This is precisely what is found in Exodus. The
plagues continue not because God needs to convince Pharaoh to allow the people
to go (he was already convinced, God had to harden his heart), they were done
“so that you (Hebrews) may know that I am the Lord.” The signs are done to
point to the identity of God and how he acts upon his people.
The Gospel of John uses this same idea to great
effect. The miracles are never done just so people can be convinced to follow
Jesus (in fact it does not work that way at all); rather, the miracles are done
to point to a larger truth about Christ. In the Gospel of John the signs point
to Christ’s glory – which then leads to belief. This is displayed after Jesus
changes the water to wine, “Jesus did this, the first of his signs in Cana of
Galilee, and revealed his glory, and
his disciples believed in him.” The signs are present so that his disciples
might understand who he truly is.
The key to understanding the significance of the
revelation is in the definition of the term “glory.” Glory is a term that
implies the presence of God. It is impossible to see God and live. God is too
powerful and other for humans to comprehend this side of eternity. However,
when God is present, what emanates from him is glory. Therefore, glory is what
humans can see of the divine. This is now explaining the significance of the
scene – the sign points to Jesus’ true identity
– as being one with the Father. This is foreshadowed in the prologue: “And the
Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as
of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.” (1:15) The disciples, after
seeing the sign, are led to the referent – Jesus himself as he really is.
The conclusion of the text concerning the
disciples helps illustrate what the purpose of this first sign is – to complete
the original call of the disciples themselves. Just before this text, Jesus has
called his first disciples and he says,
Jesus
answered, ‘Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree?
You will see greater things than these.’ 51And he said to him, ‘Very
truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending
and descending upon the Son of Man.’[4]
The text promises that the disciples, in the
future, will see the Son of Man as he truly is (using a reference to Jacob’s
ladder). They have been told, but through his work, the disciples will see.
Just as with God, it is not possible to see the Son completely, but they
certainly can see his glory. This is precisely why the text says that Jesus
“revealed his glory.” A revelation is something seen. Therefore, this sign (and
all of the signs) are set in order to complete the calling of the disciples.
This leads to the fundamental element of all of
Jesus’ miracles – they are relational. Jesus does not do miracles merely to
convince people that he is real (despite modern thinking to the contrary), he
performs miracles in relationship. Usually it changes every relationship – with
the one receiving the miracle, the disciples, his opponents and the like.[5]
It is very rare for anyone to see the miracle and not define their relationship
with Christ based upon that reaction. That makes this text slightly odd in that
we are told of two characters in the text who knew what happened (Jesus’ mother
and the servants) and we do not know their reactions. However, the reason the
Gospel of John has not presented it is that the focus, as stated above, is on
the disciples. The sign is something that points them to the referent – namely
Christ as he truly is.
Given the function of signs, it is in only this
gospel that the signs are disputed. If one “sees the sign,” then it
necessitates that it points out the referent. Therefore, opponents of Jesus,
who do not recognize the referent, have no choice but to question if Jesus
actually performed the miracles or not. This is most famously illustrated in
John 9 at the healing of the man born blind: “The Jews did not believe that he
had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the
man who had received his sight.”[6]
This is in direct contrast with the synoptic gospels where Jesus performs
miracles (rather than signs) and there is no question by anyone in the crowd
that he performed them. The question rather is the source of his power (from
God or from Satan): “And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, ‘He has
Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.’”[7]
This is not done in the Gospel of John because if someone admitted the sign, it
leads directly to the referent. That is precisely what the Gospel of John wants
and how it functions for people.
Finally, signs are not everything in the Gospel of
John. Signs lead one to see the glory of Christ, but that does not mean that
one understands them or accepts why this is the case. Throughout the gospel of
John, people see the signs, it leads them to see Christ’s glory, but they do
not truly believe. Most famously, in John 6, after Jesus has performed the sign
of the feeding of the five thousand, he explains that one should not follow
simply because they saw the sign (and implied its referent), but because they
are truly followers. He then explains that it is only those who drink down his
blood and gnaw on his flesh who truly follow him and a large number of the
followers leave.
The signs therefore, are a first step. Jesus makes
clear throughout the text that he wants far more than someone who admires his
glory and therefore follows. He wants a mystical relationship with the
community that is as united with him as he is with the father. After the first
sign, he then has his activity in the temple. After this, Jesus reflects on the
signs:
When
he was in Jerusalem during the Passover festival, many believed in his name
because they saw the signs that he was doing. 24But Jesus on his
part would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25and
needed no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what was in everyone.[8]
Jesus knows what is in everyone and thereby also
knew he was not there. His goal for humanity was unity with him: “I am in the
Father and you are in me, and I am in you.”[9]
It is this type of unity that Jesus seeks in the Gospel of John. This can begin
with the signs, but it depends upon something far more than that.
[1] As a very
brief note, it should be pointed out that Jesus’ curt response to the request
for the miracle is consistent throughout the gospel whenever someone asks him
to perform a sign. He does it, but only after making a rather short comment.
See 4:47 and 11:3.
[2] John P.
Meier, The Marginal Jew: Rethinking the
Historical Jesus, Volume II: Mentor Message and Miracles (New York:
Doubleday, 1994), 943.
[3] Exodus
10:1-2.
[4] John
1:50-51.
[5] John P.
Meier, The Marginal Jew: Rethinking the
Historical Jesus, Volume II: Mentor Message and Miracles (New York:
Doubleday, 1994), 543.
[6] John 9:18.
[7] Mark 3:22.
[8] John
2:23-25.
[9] John 13:20.
[10] John
20:29b.
