Monday, January 27, 2014

The Signs of Jesus: Wedding at Cana as Case Study


[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.

The reason Jesus never proves who he is or what his purpose is in the Gospels through miracles is that it would not prove all that much. It might be able to convince people to recognize Christ as some type of divine being – but it would not lead them to what is true faith – the faith expressed at the end of the gospel, “for those who have not seen and yet have believed.”[10]


[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.

No comments:

Post a Comment