The Synoptic Gospels put Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness between his baptism and his public ministry, but not John. John puts the marriage in Cana of Galilee between Jesus’ baptism and public life. Did you ever wonder, if there is any significance in this? This is where Jesus changed water into wine and is the first of seven signs or specific miracles, which John refers to. John mentions that Jesus did many miracles, but he refers us to seven particular miracles, saying these have special significance and reveal Jesus as the Messiah or Christ, in order that we may believe and have life (John 20:30-31) Therefore, what does this first miracle mean, or what significance does it hold in revealing Jesus as the Messiah?
The most obvious point of the miracle is that the elements of creation have been changed. Water was made wine. In the beginning man (Adam) was placed as ruler over all that God had made. Jesus shows us by changing the very elements of water that he rules the elements of creation. If he can change these things he can also change us into what we need to be.
Secondly, there is a reference made to truth in this miracle. Later, Jesus would proclaim to his disciples that he is the Way the Truth and the Life. Here, in John 2, reference is made to six water vessels made of stone. Their purpose was to hold water for washing or cleansing, both of men’s hands and of the vessels for eating throughout the meal. The Jewish custom involved several washings of one’s hands, feet and eating utensils—all to symbolize one’s purification before God. The scriptures tell us that the word of God cleanses us from sin (Ezekiel 36:25; Zechariah 13:1; Ephesians 5:26). We also know that the word of God was originally written on stone. From this we learn that not only does the word of God lend stability (stone) to our lives, but cleanses (water) us from all our wrongdoing. This, however, isn’t enough. As the miracle implies, a transformation must take place. Wine is able to add joy to life and change one’s behavior. It has a power of its own, and it is able to control us without our feeling controlled. In fact, we freely yield to its power.
This is a little like our surrendering to the power of the Lord’s Spirit within. We are always gladdened in our hearts, when we do, and we discover a power, not our own, when we freely yield to his commands.
Another point to consider is that this occurred on the third day. We are told in the text that Jesus’ time had not yet come, so an element of anticipation is present. Moses told the people to prepare themselves for on the third day almighty God would appear to them (Exodus 19:10). Immediately following the marriage feast in John’s Gospel, Jesus cleansed the Temple at Jerusalem, and, when asked for a sign, he told the authorities that he would rebuild the Temple (of his Body) in three days, if they destroyed (killed) him. Is this mere coincidence? Perhaps, but when viewed with everything else, coincidence seems to yield to a pattern, which points to Jesus being God.
Finally, the reference to the marriage itself points to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, that is, of Jesus and of the believer. John does not identify the bride and the groom; neither does he call Jesus’ mother by name. In the symbolism of the miracle she represents our free moral agency, which transfers mastery of the body from our old man, the governor of the feast, to the new man, Christ’s Spirit in us. We are wedded together in a manner that destroys the curse of Adam. We partake of the Tree of Life (Christ in us), rather than the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (the Law) through which we know sin (Genesis 3:7; Romans 3:20; 7:7) and are separated from God (Genesis 3:9-10; Isaiah 59:2). Without the wine, the Law can only accuse us, and show we are in need of cleansing. The Law is good and the stone and the water symbolism are needed, but without the wine, the Law kills. It is the wine (Christ) that changes man and allows him to freely yield to another power within. This power points to the power of God—Christ in us, our hope of glory.
Smoodock's Blog 
4 responses to “The Marriage at Cana”
This passage was a bit of a stumbling block to me in the first few days of new life in Christ. Footnotes in the Douay Bible and the teaching I had received said that Jesus didn’t WANT to do anything but His mother FORCED Him into action. Therefore, we should pray to Mary because SHE will intercede and ensure our prayer is answered. Blasphemy!
I grew up Roman Catholic, so I understand what you are saying. I am not Catholic now, but most of my family (uncles, aunts, cousins etc.) are. I often thought about them and have come to the conclusion that being a Catholic doesn’t make one NOT a Christian as some would have us believe. Jesus told us it is by our fruits (not our doctrines) that we would be known. It is blasphemy to pray to anyone but God, but God is not interested in how many he can accuse of sin but in whom he can save. Jesus died for all our sins–and the sins of everyone. What it comes down to is what we do with Jesus. People my confuse us into believing wrong doctrine, but they cannot erase what Jesus can do in our hearts. If we love him and respond to him, though there is a price to pay for believing wrong doctrine (and that price seems to be our freedom) Jesus would still save those who love him.
I say this because I know you have had a very difficult childhood (that’s putting it mildly), but you may know people whom you care for who are Catholics. Jesus is (as you know) a wonderful Savior, and he can reach anyone. No man can prevent him–not even his enemies. It is the heart that is most important, not the mind. All are important, but the heart is most important.
Lord bless,
Eddie
I fully agree that Catholics CAN be Christians. I know of some who have a great love for the Lord and leave Christians for dead when it comes to giving love to others.
I do wonder how they can sit at Mass and participate in Christ being crucified over and over again, and how they can depend on their good works for a hope of salvation – but I cannot say they are NOT saved. Wouldn’t they really SHINE if they were released from the bondage of their tradition?
We all have traditions we could do without, as I’m sure you understand. I cringe with I think of early Protestantism warring against one another — all in the name of the Lord. It is sad — all of it.
Concerning the Mass, it is a matter of how one looks at it and the vocabulary used. If we permit Catholics to interpret Catholicism they would tell us that the whole worship service is centered around the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. They believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation where the elements are changed just as Christ changed the elements of water into wine at the marriage at Cana. Even Protestants consider the elements take on a sacred meaning due to what they represent. For example, my church will collect all the little plastic cups that contained the grape juice. It isn’t treated as common garbage after we use them. How far one wishes to take this is a matter of conscience.
Concerning works, here again there seems to be a fine line in interpretation. Catholics conclude we are saved by grace plus our works and Protestants disagree saying we are saved by grace alone. However, when asked if grace can be without works, they will say no–works are the natural fruit of grace. So, where does one draw the line. The epistle of James is an interesting read in this regard.
As for me, I have concluded to believe according to my conscience and to let God judge all the fine points. I accept anyone as my brother and sister if they claim Jesus as their Lord. Sometimes this is a bit difficult, I admit, but I endeavor to make this my first response to all people claiming Jesus as Savior.
Lord bless,
Eddie.