6  Christ’s First  Miracle  (John 2:1–11)

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him. (2:1–11)

Ever since the fall, rebellious sinners have sought autonomy from God, rejecting Him and placing themselves at the center of the universe. At the heart of most humanistic systems of belief is the erroneous, rationalistic belief that people, beginning only from themselves, can construct an adequate worldview. Consequently, if modern man believes in a god at all, it is one of his own creation; as someone wryly observed, God created man in His image, and man has returned the favor. God rebuked such proud, sinful arrogance in Psalm 50:21, declaring, “You thought that I was just like you.”

Perhaps nowhere is fallen man’s sinful propensity for creating God in his own image more clearly illustrated than in the so-called “quest for the historical Jesus” that dominated nineteenth-century liberal theology. Based on their anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions, the critics

It is hardly surprising that those who begin by assuming the supernatural realm does not exist end up with a purely human Jesus. (Such blasphemous nonsense in the guise of scholarship finds its modern counterpart in the “Jesus Seminar,” whose members, like their nineteenth-century forerunners, also attempt to reinvent Jesus to fit their anti-supernatural worldview.) Yet despite the faulty reasoning on which they were based, the nineteenth century saw a seemingly endless parade of “lives” of Jesus—each interpreting Him in keeping with whatever particular world-view the author happened to espouse.

But all attempts to explain Jesus as a mere man fail to explain the facts of His life, death (why anyone would have wanted to crucify the innocuous, politically correct sage invented by the rationalist critics defies explanation), and resurrection. In the Incarnation, God entered the natural realm in a human body. Therefore it is impossible to remove the miraculous elements from Jesus’ life, as anti-supernaturalist critics have attempted to do. The historical Jesus of Nazareth and the divine Christ are inseparably linked, for they are one and the same person. Jesus was and is the God-man.

The miracles Jesus performed constitute one of the most powerful and convincing proofs of His deity (3:2; cf. Matt. 11:1–5; Acts 2:22). In keeping with his theme of presenting Jesus as the incarnate God-man, John catalogs eight miraculous signs that He performed. That list is, of course, by no means exhaustive; there were certainly many occasions when He did more than eight miracles in one day. Out of the countless miracles that Christ performed (cf. 20:30; 21:25), John selected these eight as examples that prove His deity. It is not the quantity of miracles that matters, or God would have given that number. It is the quality of every miracle, as a supernatural act, that proves who Jesus is. This passage describes the first of those eight miracles, which was also the first miracle Jesus did at the outset of His public ministry (which John records in chapters 2–12). It may be divided into four points: the scene, the situation, the supply, and the significance.

THE SCENE

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. (2:1–2)

The phrase the third day refers back to the call of Philip and Nathanael in the previous passage (1:43–51). It is the last in a series of time indicators (cf. 1:29, 35, 43) that suggest the events from John the Baptist’s interview with the Jewish authorities (1:19–28) to the wedding in Cana took place within the span of one week.

Cana of Galilee is probably to be identified with modern Khirbet Qana, an uninhabited ruin about nine miles north of Nazareth. Jesus and His disciples could have easily reached Cana on the third day after leaving the vicinity of the Jordan River. Thus, there is no need to speculate, as some have, that the third day indicates the third day of the wedding feast.

A wedding was a major social event in first-century Palestine, and the celebration could last as long as a week. Unlike modern weddings, which are traditionally paid for by the bride’s family, the groom was responsible for the expenses of the celebration. The wedding marked the culmination of the betrothal period. During that period, which often lasted for several months, the couple was considered legally man and wife (Matt. 1:18–19 refers to Joseph as Mary’s husband during their betrothal period), and only a divorce could terminate the betrothal (cf. Matt. 1:19). They did not, however, live together or consummate the marriage during that period (cf. Matt. 1:18). On the night of the ceremony (usually a Wednesday), the groom and his friends would go to the bride’s house. They would then escort her and her attendants to the groom’s house, where the ceremony and banquet would be held (cf. Matt. 25:1–10). The whole celebration ended with the actual wedding.

The mother of Jesus (John never refers to Mary by name in his gospel) was at this particular wedding. That both she and Jesus attended suggests the wedding involved relatives or friends of the family. That would explain why Mary seems to have been more than just a guest, but apparently had some responsibility for helping the groom’s family at the celebration. For example, she was aware of the situation regarding the lack of wine, and took the initiative to solve the serious problem. The different terminology used in regard to Mary (she was there) and Jesus and His disciples (they were invited) also suggests that she had some role in serving at the event. Since Joseph is not mentioned (the last time he appears in the gospels is in the account of the journey to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve [Luke 2:41–50]), it may be that he was already dead. At the crucifixion Jesus committed Mary into the care of the apostle John (John 19:26–27), so Joseph was certainly dead by then.

How Jesus and the disciples received their invitation is not stated. Some have felt, without evidence, that it could have been delivered by Nathanael, who was from Cana (21:2). More likely, however, Jesus was in Nazareth, and there received the invitation. The disciples were no doubt invited because of their connection with Jesus, since only Nathanael was from the vicinity of Cana.

By attending a wedding and performing His first miracle there, Jesus sanctified both the institution of marriage and the ceremony itself. Marriage is the sacred union of a man and a woman whereby they become one in the sight of God. The ceremony is an essential element of that union, because in it the couple publicly vow to remain faithful to each other. Both the Old Testament (e.g., Gen. 29:20–23; Judg. 14:10; Ruth 4:10–13; Song of Sol. 3:11) and the New Testament (e.g., Matt. 22:2; 25:10; Luke 12:36; 14:8) view the public ceremony as a necessary part of marriage. That Jesus attended the celebration reveals His ministry to be markedly different than that of His forerunner, John the Baptist (Matt. 11:18–19). Instead of being a voice in the wilderness, Jesus had the more difficult task of mingling socially with the people and ministering to them in their daily activities.

THE SITUATION

When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” (2:3–5)

Wine was the staple drink in the ancient Near East. Due to the warm climate and the lack of any means of refrigeration or purification, fruit juice tended to ferment. The result was an alcoholic beverage with the capability of inducing drunkenness. To help avoid the risk of inebriation, wine was commonly diluted with water to one-third to one-tenth of its strength. Though the Bible does not forbid drinking wine, and in some cases commends it (e.g., Ps. 104:14–15; Prov. 31:6; Jer. 31:12; 1 Tim. 5:23), it strongly condemns drunkenness (Gen. 9:20–27; Deut. 21:20–21; Prov. 20:1; 23:29–35; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:10; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim. 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7; 2:3; 1 Peter 4:3).

A major crisis loomed at the wedding celebration when the wine ran out because the supply was insufficient. Such an embarrassing faux pas could have stigmatized the couple and their families for the rest of their lives. It could even have left the groom and his family open to a lawsuit by the bride’s family for failing to meet their responsibilities. Thus Jesus’ turning the water into wine was not a sensational miracle, designed only to amaze His audience with His power. All of His miracles met specific needs, such as opening blind eyes or deaf ears, delivering those oppressed by demons, feeding hungry people, or calming a threatening storm. This miracle met the genuine need of the family and their guests, who otherwise faced a social catastrophe.

As noted above, Mary was apparently helping to oversee the catering of the celebration. Aware of the serious problem that had developed, she anxiously said to Jesus, “They have no wine.” If she was already a widow, Mary would naturally have learned to depend on her firstborn son. Whether she expected Jesus to perform a miracle is not clear, since He as yet had never done one (v. 11). Yet Mary knew better than anyone who Jesus really was. She was well aware of His miraculous virgin birth and the amazing things said of Him by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:31–33, 35), the shepherds (Luke 2:8–18), Simeon (Luke 2:25–35), and Anna (Luke 2:36–38), having pondered them in her heart over the years (Luke 2:19). She had experienced His sinless life and its perfection as He had “kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52). She may also have heard of John the Baptist’s recent public testimony about Him (1:26–27, 29–34, 36), confirming what she knew. It may be that she was prompting Jesus to reveal Himself publicly as the Messiah she knew Him to be.

Jesus’ abrupt and startling reply, “Woman, what does that have to do with us?” signaled a major change in their relationship. Woman was a polite, but not intimate, form of address (cf. 4:21; 19:26; 20:13, 15; Matt. 15:28; Luke 13:12), much like the English word “Ma’am.” Jesus’ reply, “What does that have to do with us?” (lit., “What to me and to you?”) is an idiomatic expression (cf. Judg. 11:12; 2 Sam. 16:10; 19:22), which asks rhetorically what the two parties in question have in common, and has the effect of distancing them. The statement, coupled with Jesus’ addressing Mary as “Woman” instead of “Mother,” politely but firmly informed her that what they had in common in their relationship was no longer to be what it had been while He was growing up in Nazareth. His public ministry had begun, and earthly relationships would not determine His actions. Mary was to relate to Him no longer as her son, but as her Messiah, the Son of God, and her Savior (cf. Matt. 12:47–50; Mark 3:31–35; Luke 11:27–28).

The phrase “My hour has not yet come” refers to Jesus’ death and glorification (7:6, 8, 30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:32; 17:1; Matt. 26:18, 45; Mark 14:35, 41). This supports the possibility that Mary was knowingly asking Jesus to reveal Himself at that time, since He had for years been in the fullness of mature manhood. Jesus made it clear that He would act according to God’s timetable, decreed before the foundation of the world, not hers or any man’s (cf. 7:2–8). It was not the appointed time for Jesus’ full messianic glory to be revealed; yet the miracle He would perform would make His divine power unmistakable, and preview His glory to come. The dark hour of the cross would precede the full revelation in His glorious messianic kingdom where wine, emblematic of joy and gladness, will abound:

Undeterred by the mild rebuke (cf. Matt. 15:22–28), and aware that He was not saying no to the request, Mary said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” She immediately turned to the servants, anticipating that He would respond. The servants were diakonois (from which the English word “deacons” [1 Tim. 3:8, 12] derives), not doulois (“slaves”), suggesting that they were not slaves or household servants. Most likely they, like Mary, were family and friends helping with the celebration. Her charge to them was necessary, since they might otherwise have hesitated to follow the strange instructions they would receive from a guest.

THE SUPPLY

Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” (2:6–10)

The stone waterpots were, as John explained for the benefit of his Gentile readers, used for the Jewish custom of purification. Ceremonial washings were an integral part of first-century Judaism:

The Jews used stone waterpots to hold the water used for ritual purification because they believed that, unlike earthenware pots (Lev. 11:33), they did not become unclean. Unlike the smaller one used by the Samaritan woman to draw water from a well (4:28), these were large pots, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Such a large amount of water was needed not only to accommodate the guests, but also because the cooking and eating utensils had to be washed (Mark 7:4).

Mary’s faith and confidence in her Son were not misplaced. As she had foreseen, He responded by commanding the servants, “Fill the waterpots with water.” In response, they filled them up to the brim, either by topping them off, or by emptying and refilling them. This seemingly insignificant detail, that the water was up to the very top, shows that nothing was added to the water, and that what followed was indeed a transformation miracle. By ordering the jars to be completely filled before He transformed the water in them into wine, Jesus also displayed His magnanimous grace (cf. 1:14, 16–17). Such a large amount of wine (120 to 180 gallons) was more than enough to last for the rest of the celebration. Jesus not only rescued the bride and groom from an embarrassing situation, but the leftover wine also provided them with a generous wedding present.

After the pots were filled, Jesus instructed the servants to draw some out and take the instantly created wine to the headwaiter. Jewish sources do not make clear whether this individual was the head servant, or a guest chosen to preside over the banquet. That he summoned the groom and spoke to him as at least his equal (vv. 9–10) suggests the latter. In either case, he served as the master of ceremonies at the feast. Since he was responsible for making sure that the guests were supplied with food and drink, the servants took the wine to him.

To make sure it was acceptable, the headwaiter sampled the food and drink before it was served to the guests. Therefore after the servants brought it to him, he tasted the water which had become wine. Though he did not know where it came from (though of course the servants who had drawn the water did), he was astonished at the high quality of this new batch of wine. He called the bridegroom, and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine.” There is some historical evidence that most hosts did, as the headwaiter suggested, serve the best wine first (D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 174). In any case, it was only common sense to serve the good wine first and save the poorer wine for later when the people had drunk freely. The verb methusko (drunk freely) literally means “to become drunk,” and is so translated in its only other appearances in the New Testament (Luke 12:45; Eph. 5:18; 1 Thess. 5:7; Rev. 17:2). That does not mean, however, that this particular banquet had become a drunken orgy; the headwaiter was speaking from his own experience. But much to his surprise (and no doubt the groom’s as well), it seemed that the groom had kept the good wine until the last. Surely it was the sweetest, freshest wine ever tasted. This wine did not come from the normal process of fermentation, from grapes, vines, the earth and the sun. The Lord brought it into existence from nothing. Truly this was evidence that He is the Creator (John 1:1–4).

THE SIGNIFICANCE

This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him. (2:11)

The result of this beginning (or first) of Jesus’ signs was twofold. First, He manifested His glory (cf. 1:14); that is, He put His deity on display. Jesus’ signs were not simply powerful displays of compassion, but were designed to reveal who He really was, since they unmistakably manifest God at work (cf. 2:23; 3:2; 4:54; 6:2, 14; 7:31; 9:16; 20:30; Acts 2:22). Signs, miracles, and wonders nevertheless do not necessarily convince people to believe in the Lord and the gospel (2:23–25; 12:37; 15:24; Matt. 11:20–24; 13:58; Luke 16:31). There is no record that any of the servants who witnessed Jesus’ turning the water into wine followed Him (cf. 2:12). Amazingly, Jesus seems to have left Cana with only the disciples who came there with Him, despite having performed a miracle, the likes of which had not happened since God created flour and oil in the days of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:8–16; 2 Kings 4:1–7). The obvious deduction that He was the Messiah escaped them; they saw the sign, but missed what it pointed to. As he does with all unbelievers, Satan “blinded [their] minds … so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4). This incident was another tragic illustration of the truth of Jesus’ saying, “A prophet has no honor in his own country” (4:44; cf. Matt. 13:58).

His disciples, however, believed in Him. Having heard John the Baptist’s testimony that Jesus was the Messiah (1:34), having heard Jesus’ own words (1:39) and believed in Him (1:41), they now saw firsthand miraculous confirmation of that faith. Many others, reading this gospel of John, would come to believe, as they did. And that was John’s purpose in writing not only his account of this miracle, but also his entire gospel: “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:30–31).