Clough John Lesson 12
Jewish Marriage and Christ’s First Miracle – John 2:1-11
In our study of the Gospel of John we have examined most of the first week of Jesus’ ministry that John records. It was on a Thursday that the Pharisee’s commission came out to investigate the claims of John the Baptist. Apparently on the next Friday, John first saw Jesus, introduced by John the Baptist. On a Shabbat, Saturday, John and Andrew met Jesus and began their walk with Him. On Sunday Philip joined and then later Nathanael of Cana. Monday and Tuesday they were traveling, and now in John 2:1 we pick up the scene on a Wednesday. We know it’s a Wednesday because by the Mishnah or the Jewish Old Testament commentary, the girls would be married on Wednesday; that was the day of marriage for a virgin and Thursday for widows.
And we noticed also in studying John 1 that John, being a very subtle writer has each day apparently standing for something though very cleverly he doesn’t tell us that, he just kind of shows us that, and one can see the Old Testament dispensation on that Friday when John, under John the Baptist’s auspices, sees Jesus. One can see the end of this Old Testament era on Saturday when John and Andrew meet, finally, Jesus face to face. One can see with Philip’s ministry the ministry of the Church going out and evangelizing and with Jesus’ discourse with Nathanael somewhere, either on that Sunday or perhaps later on, on a Monday or Tuesday when they got up north, they could see that Nathanael was a man who represented the Jewish faithful remnant to come into historic prominence during the tribulation. And then finally Wednesday, the day of the millennial kingdom.
And throughout this week we have seen a gradual escalation and a deepening understanding of Jesus Christ. We’ve seen Him called by fourteen different titles, and so the climax is reached in John 1:51, “hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” Jesus chooses the title, not the Lamb of God, as John the Baptist said, He doesn’t chose the Son of God or the King of Israel as Nathanael said, He prefers the title the Son of man. The Son of man is an inheritance of Daniel, in Daniel 2 and other passages, where the fifth kingdom, God’s perfect social order when it comes on the face of the earth is represented in the symbology of Daniel by a man; all the other kingdoms, all the other attempts to order society, whether it was the Babylonian attempt, the Medo-Persian attempt, the Grecian attempt or the Roman attempt, all were portrayed by animals, showing that society is organized on anti-humanitarian grounds, precisely what Solzhenitsyn has been saying. And that only when Jesus Christ returns to set up the perfect society do you have one in which it is really true fit for human habitation.
Now in this wedding feast of John 2:1-11, if this is the seventh day of that week, and if on every other day we have seen a gradual exploration and deepening of Jesus’ character, then surely we ought to be prepared, knowing John the way we do, that he is going to present something very special at this wedding feast. Jesus’ character is going to be revealed in a total climax here, of His being, of His Godness, of His manhood, and of His Saviorhood. Somehow this wedding feast, we would expect knowing John, that he has some very interesting surprises.
John 2:1, “And the third day there was a
marriage in
So we need some background to marriages in
those times. And marriage in
A further commentary on the Jewish thought behind marriage can be found in their commentaries to Leviticus 19:2; Leviticus 19:2 is a statement by God, “Therefore you shall be holy, for I am holy,” then from Leviticus 19:3 on it deals with the proper bounds of sex. And so in the Rabbinic commentaries on Leviticus 19 you read that they believed that one means of sanctification, the chief means of sanctification of man on earth was through the marriage relationship. Those of you who are married what the rabbis are talking about, those of you who are single do not. That’s all right, what you don’t know won’t hurt you now. But marriage was a means, the chief means of sanctification. This is why if you look in Genesis 1 when God says “Be fruitful and multiply,” and then “subdue the earth.” Notice the order, first there is marriage, then family, and by that means the earth is subdued. So the accomplishment of man’s sanctification is always viewed in the normal sense through the institution of marriage.
And the rabbis had a way of fiddling around
with the letters of the Hebrew language, not that this is inspired at all but
it kind of shows you what they thought; they took the words, the Hebrew letters
for man, it looks like this, ish, and
the word for woman, isha, that by the
way is the real reason in Genesis it’s talking about “therefore she shall be
called woman because she was taken out of man,” she would be called isha and this is just a feminine ending
for that noun; ish and isha.
By the way, Hebrew is one of the few languages where the word for the
man and woman is the same noun except for the feminine ending. For example, Spanish doesn’t have it, neither
does English, and most languages do not preserve this, which is an argument for
the fact that in the pre-Hebraic age whatever language they spoke before
To show you the importance of a marriage and to show you that actually in Jewish society they had all of the divine institutions properly set forth, remember, the divine institution of marriage predates the fall; marriage was given at creation and so if there was in the street a marriage processional and a funeral processional, the funeral processional always had to stop for the marriage processional; marriage had precedence over funerals, and obviously this goes back to the fact that marriage as an institution is made for unfallen universe. So therefore marriage has precedence and they carried it so far that if, say during the early morning of the particular wedding day the bride’s father dropped dead or the groom’s parents died or something, the marriage would go on and the funeral would be postponed until after the marriage feast, it wouldn’t [can’t understand word] at all, until all the marriage ceremony and celebration was finished, then they would have the funeral. So the funerals were always subordinated to marriage. So marriages take precedence because they speak of a more important thing than death.
Now it turns out that they had a pretty
standard procedure, except in
Here, briefly is an outline of the wedding day proceedings. The bride, dressed in her father’s home, and then the groom would send his friends, they’re technically called in Scripture “friends of the bridegroom,” to her house, to pick her up, he trusted his friends obviously, and bring her to his house. And there would be a procession and in the procession there’d be playing music and the bride would be surrounded by this bodyguard or phalanx of individuals called “friends of the bridegroom.” This is a picture of Jesus Christ rapturing the Church, is actually one of the things that is happening here. So you have the procession from the bride’s house to the groom’s house.
After the wedding party got to the groom’s house, before anything else was said or done they had the signing of the wedding contract, called the Ketubah, and this was a very detailed document; Jewish people believe in defining relationships, they didn’t get married because someone had a little titillating emotional experience called love; they got down to the business of marriage and they made it into a legal document. I have one here and I will read this document to you so you can get an idea of all the intricacies and how businesslike and how unromantic this Ketubah was:
“On the first day of the week,” so and so
day of the month and the year so and so, “since the creation of the world, the
era according to which we are accustomed to reckon here in the city of … how”
name of the groom, “the son of,” name of his father, sir name so and so, “said
to this virgin,” name of the girl, “daughter of” so and so, the name of her
father, sir name, family name, “be thou my wife according to the law of Moses
in Israel and I will cherish, honor, support and maintain thee in accordance
with the custom of Jewish husbands who cherish, honor, support and maintain
their wives in truth. And I herewith
make for thee the settlement of virgins two hundred silver zuzim,” which is
kind of a reversed dowry, “which belongs to thee, according to the law of Moses
in Israel, and I will also give thee food, clothing and necessaries, and live
with thee as husband and wife according to universal custom. And if this virgin consented and became his
wife, the wedding outfit that she brought unto him,” notice the stipulation
even of the clothing, “the wedding outfit that she brought unto him from her
father’s house in silver, gold, valuables, wearing apparel, house furniture,
bed clothes, all this in the name of the bridegroom, the said bridegroom
accepted in the sum of” so and so, and it gives you the property valuation,
“the bridegroom consented to increase this amount from his own property with
the sum of” dot dot dot, “making it a total of” thus and such. And thus saith,” name of the bridegroom, “the
responsibility of this marriage contract, of this wedding outfit, of this
additional sum I take upon myself and my heirs after me so that they shall be
paid from the best part of my property and possession that I have beneath the
whole heaven, that which I now possess or may hereafter acquire. All my property, real and personal, even the
mantle on my shoulders shall be mortgaged to secure the payment of this
marriage contract, of the wedding outfit and of the addition made thereto
during my lifetime and after my death, from the present day and forever.” And then they’ll have the name of the
bridegroom, “the bridegroom has taken upon himself the responsibility of this
marriage contract, that the wedding outfit and the addition made thereunto
according to the restrictive uses of all marriage contracts and additions
thereto made for the daughters of
So you see how different it was than many of our own weddings. So after the Ketubah was signed, which gave the marriage a definite foundation in law and in property, because you recall the Biblical norm for property is the family, the family is the chief property owner, not the state, therefore things like inheritance taxes are anti-Biblical and threaten to undo the property base of families. After they would have this Ketubah signed they would have the exchange of vows and they would have the ring, usually only one ring type ceremony, the man, and then they would have the washing of hands and the benediction. The marriage supper would then begin which would answer to our wedding reception and it would end, and this is important for John 2 here, the marriage supper would end with a toast using wine in order to make the benedictions and blessings to God. Then the couple would be led to their bridal chamber for Palestinian weddings by the group called “friends of the bridegroom.” However, this is never mentioned in John 2, only in John 3:29. And therefore it reflects Galilean weddings, which were simpler that the weddings further south. The important thing is not to get lost in the details but to remember form all this that we’ve read is that weddings were very, very important to Jewish life, and very important for man’s life, going back to creation.
Now let’s look at the verses and go through
and see what we can learn from John 2. “And
the third day,” this is the third day since the last day mentioned, “there was
a marriage in
John 2:2, “And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.” Usually the marriage festivities would be witnessed by rabbis, though it’s interesting, a rabbi was not necessary to a wedding, it had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the wedding. That may shock some of you to realize this but a wedding is not a Christian ordinance; a wedding is a state ordinance in our land, and it goes back before the days of the state it was just a family ordinance, just an agreement between two families and the witnesses were basically those of the two families. The rabbis would teach the families what to do but actually the signing of the documents and so on was completely in the hands of the families. Now over the years it’s been the custom that the minister, or the rabbi in a Jewish case, come into the service and it’s been the custom that the state supervise the licensing, but ultimately marriage is a separate, completely different divine institution and don’t ever confuse marriage with a Christian ordinance.
The only Christian ordinances we have are baptism and communion and marriage is not one of them. Marriage is something holy apart, marriage is something for both Christian and non-Christian; marriage is for believer and unbeliever. It is an institution wholly apart from the Church. The Church has no right to stick its nose in marriages except to teach what the Word of God has to say about it. The Church cannot regulate marriage any more than the state; the state is the fourth divine institution; all the state can do is legally recognize the marriage once it has occurred. But don’t ever think that, for example when we have a wedding, when I pronounce the person husband and wife I am making the marriage; the couple has just done it with their oath before God; the state had nothing to do with it, I had nothing to do with it, they were the ones that made their own marriage; that’s the second divine institution.
Now in John 1:3 we come to the running out of the wine. Since we have covered the doctrine of drinking and hopefully we have given you a balanced picture of drinking in the 1st century, it was not just grape juice but it was not strong wine either, it was a mixture, probably one to three. They ran out of this wine, and so now we have a very interesting picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. And to see this picture we want to reflect a little bit on the meaning of wine. Remember last time we said what wine basically was used for in Scripture; a picture of joy, a picture of happiness. Wine misused can be cursing; wine properly used, blessing. There’s no advantage of being a teetotaler unless you’re allergic to the thing or something; as far as Scripture is concerned wine is legitimate, it was given for happiness.
Now before we go further with this theme,
let’s think: John wrote this Gospel to two audiences, did he not? John wrote this Gospel for the Jew who was
seeking Messiah, but he also wrote this document for people of Hellenistic
background so we have to do with two cultures, two ways of looking at
happiness, the Greek way and the Jewish way.
John is going to show us that the Lord Jesus Christ used happiness that
both Greek and Jew want and desire very much.
We find wine a symbol associated with happiness in Scripture; marriage,
a symbol also associated with happiness in the Bible, and together in John 2
marriage and wine occur together. Now in
this picture, if we do a little reflection on Greek background we understand,
if we have studied Greek mythology, the Dionysian cult. Dionysus was the Greek god of the vine and
during the rise of the Grecian civilization they had various cults dedicated to
Dionysus; Dionysus was the son of Zeus, and Semele, he was a half-god
half-man. Zeus mated with Semele who was
a princess from
Dionysus had various hymns written to him. I will read briefly two to show you the twin theme of the god of the vine; one was happiness, and the other, ironically, was cruelty. For when the cults of the Dionysian religion got together it degenerated, it started out as a nice drinking bout and wound up with everyone under the table until people got real hostile and started slamming one another around and then the girls took their clothes off and everything went from there, and it was this kind of an orgy that is usually associated in history with the Dionysian cult. So it had happiness and cruelty and all sorts of masochistic and sadistic things were done in Dionysian’s name. But notice the two themes. Here is what some of the women who were frenzied with wine would chant: “Oh sweet upon the mountain, the dancing and the singing, the maddening rushing flight, Oh sweet to sing to earth outworn, when the wild goat has been hunted and caught, Oh the joy of blood in the raw red flesh.” So this is the theme of cruelty and chaos associated with Dionysus. And then on the other hand they would sing: Oh Bacchanalias come, oh come, sing Dionysus, sing to the timbrel, the deep voiced timbrel, joyful praise him, him who brings joy, holy all holy, music is calling to the hills, to the hills,” and it goes on and on. So there were two themes that were in this Dionysian cult: cruelty and joy in man’s search for happiness.
And the whole point was that the Greek concept of happiness that looked to the vine as a means had no control, had no guidance, had no guidelines, so the very thing, alcohol, that was to be a source of their happiness could be something the source of much cruelty. The Greeks sought and ached for happiness, yet the very device they used to get there was an uncontrolled device that would backfire often into cruelty. That’s the Greek concept of happiness.
Now the Jewish concept of happiness was at least a moral concept; they differed from the Greeks. The Jews and their idea of happiness realized something the Greeks had not realized, not because the Jews were better than the Greeks, simply that God spoke to the Jews and He didn’t speak to the Greeks. And the Jews realized happiness must be on moral terms and so therefore moral terms meaning be holy with God or be clean. So the great theme of Jewish means of happiness was cleanliness, physical cleanliness and spiritual and moral cleanliness, and thus there’s almost an avid obsession with cleanliness and they would have great, great baths and so on, and many, many different kinds of ceremonies.
For example, turn to Mark 7:1-4. The wedding service was part of this
continuing search for happiness and in a Jewish context instead of having a
Dionysian orgy they would have almost a religious orgy of cleaning, bathing,
purifying, washing hands, washing feet, washing utensils, washing eating
vessels, cleanliness, cleanliness, cleanliness, cleanliness, cleanliness. The bride before the wedding would take a
very important bath along with all special guests. And in Mark 7:1-4 this is a passage not
referring directly to the marriage but does refer to this obsession with
cleanliness. “Then came together unto
Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who came from
So washing includes not only the people that would be at the wedding feast but would include the utensils used in the wedding feast. So then we have, by way of preparation, as we turn back to John 2, the two things of happiness. John is speaking both to people influenced by Greek culture and people influenced by Jewish culture. The Greeks looked at the wine as a source of happiness but they are threatened by it because they can’t control it and the very thing that leads to happiness can lead to cruelty. Lawlessness of the Gentiles leads to an uncontrolled disorder. And then you come over to the Jews and they have the Law but they have this obsession with cleanliness first and then happiness.
Now in that kind of a situation John says I want both the Greek and the Jew, you Greeks who seek happiness through Dionysus, you Jews who seek happiness by cleansing, I want you to pay attention to what happened in that little wedding service. This is a little rural wedding, this is not some big urban smash. This is a small town, small wedding. He says there’s something happened there and I want both the Greeks and the Jews to watch because Jesus revealed His glory.
So in John 2:3, they ran out of wine; this is crucial because the wedding feast had to end in a toast, and at that toast they would take from the wine, remember they would mix the wine up and they’d drink and then they would say…the bride and the groom would both drink and they would say the seven benedictions and that would end it. But if their wine had run out it meant that the marriage supper could never be finished. It’d be a very embarrassing thing for the couple. Furthermore, we understand from history that not only would it be embarrassing but at certain times various families involved could sue one another for not providing enough food at this kind of a reception. So “they lacked wine” is not just a little minor point, it’s the whole point of the wedding service. The consummation of this wedding socially speaking is snagged. Man’s search for happiness is cut off; both in Greek terms and in Jewish terms; no wine for the Greeks and for the Jew who looks to marriage to be consummated nothing for him either. [3] “And when they lacked wine, the mother of Jesus said unto him, They have no wine.”
And now Jesus makes a very controversial remark back to His mother, one that people have found very hard to take. Does this show disrespect? John 2:4, “Jesus said unto her, Woman, what have to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” Now why did He make that remark to Mary for? What was on His mind. Mary is right and Mary is wrong. She is right in the idea that her Son, Jesus Christ can do something for these people. In that Mary is right. She has learned by this time to trust her Son; Jesus at this time is probably about 30 years old. So she knows enough of the character of her Son to trust Him. But Mary has a flaw in her character, as we all do as fallen creatures, and Mary has a mistake that Jesus is now going to correct, gently, not as harsh as you think you see it in the text, but He is very firmly, lovingly, going to correct His mother in a very bad misunderstanding she has of His character. Jesus, up to this point, has always been very meek, mild in the home. He has always obeyed, He has been very much under her control. Apparently He has cared for her when Joseph died, if he has died by this time, and Mary all during this time, though she had that strange thing that happened when He was twelve years old in the temple, year after year after year after year after year, life has gone on in this rural environment and Mary hasn’t had anything new to change her thinking and she’s got in a rut here, so that now she begins to presume upon Jesus’ apparent meekness. Mary is wrong in interpreting Jesus’ obedience to her in the third divine institution for the fact that she has a special “in” with Jesus because she is His mother, that somehow Jesus will do things just because Mary, His mother, asks Him.
Now what is wrong with this? Mary is right in the fact she trusts Christ
but when it comes to something that lies outside of the immediate family,
something that has to do with the spiritual realm in which she is calling upon
people to trust in her son as Messiah, Mary has no special “in” with her
son. She has no more “in” with her son
than any other person in history. This
is brought out in two other places in God’s Word, in Luke 8:19, a very
interesting incident occurs again involving Mary, and again we have the same
attitude demonstrated toward her. Jesus
is teaching in Luke
So Mary, in John 2, is about to learn for the first time in her life that she cannot utilize and play off her earthly relationship to Jesus. Jesus, in other words, at this point, asserts God’s sovereignty against all other human volition. If Jesus is to do something it will be because Jesus chooses to do it, not because His mother tells Him to do it; she can ask Him but she can’t tell Him, and she can’t presume upon Him. Mary has no further “in” than any other believer.
Now for a truth that is stated so clearly here in John 2:4, it’s stated again in Luke 8:19, stated again in John 19:26, one wonders how under the sun did we ever get the Romanist error of Mariolatry, of where somehow we all worship Mary because Mary has a special “in” because Mary is the mother of God, when the Gospels put all their weight against Mariolatry; there’s not one passage in all of Scripture to vindicate Mariolatry. In fact, every place you examine Jesus and His relationship to Mary He’s always cutting her off, cutting her off, cutting her off, refusing to permit His own mother a special “in” with Him. Now why does He do this? I think it’s because the Holy Spirit has warned us ahead of time to beware of the heresy of Mariolatry; beware! And so it wasn’t just by chance that these passages were collected and put in the canonical Scripture, they’re put in there as an advance warning against people who would say oh, because the third divine institution is there, somehow therefore if we get friendly with Mary we’re somehow friendly with Jesus. Mary could have lots of friends that Jesus would in no way tolerate. Because she was His mother meant nothing when it came to His spiritual ministry. He took care of His mother but that still was not letting her dictate the terms of His ministry.
Now at this point we have an application someone asked about: what about the relationship of parents to children who are becoming adults? What about that break off point. Here are some principles from Scripture that control that. Parents are given in Scripture to teach you wisdom to subdue the earth; parents therefore are absolutely necessary. We reject the concept that the state is the guardian of children, the concept of all public education today, the state’s responsibility is to teach children—bologna! It’s parent’s responsibility to educate children. We made a big mistake about 200 years ago when we started public education and we’re paying for now. We started a monster that we can’t control and we paid for it because it was Christians that started it, trying to get rid of their parental responsibilities, undoubtedly. So parents are to be the ones to teach children. Therefore the child, when he’s getting up to that break off stage ought to always have respect; don’t just rebel against the authority of your parents because your parents have been put into their office. Whether they know it or not is another thing. But they have been put into their office by God to serve a function toward you and you respect them because of the office, not necessarily because everything is going nicely in a person to person basis; it’s good if it does, but if it doesn’t that’s no excuse to disrespect; they have their position. Jesus treated His mother with respect in John 19, it’s the model, while He’s dying on the cross He provides for His own mother’s welfare physically. So Jesus always honored His parents.
However, there are two areas of Scripture
where children are not to be under the absolute authority of their parents. The parents have relative authority over
their children, not absolute authority over their children; they have authority
within bounds. When the child becomes an
adult and begins to pursue his own calling and that means he doesn’t sit around
and mooch off his parents and rebel against their authority, if he wants to
choose to rebel against authority he can live on his own. We have enough brats that are living off
their parents and telling their parents what to do. If you are being physically supported by your
parents you shut your mouth and you have no right to do anything until you can
supply your own way; then and only then are you biblically authorized to go
your own way. In Matthew
In Genesis
All right, separation; Jesus got to the point where he would pursue on His own His own ministry and now in John 2:4 He lets Mary know. “Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what Have I to do with you?” Now that sounds very abrupt in the English, it’s not so abrupt originally, it’s just a word for “lady” or “madam,” it’s a polite word of courtesy and respect. But the point was, and I’m sure Mary at this point must have been very hurt that her own son would talk to her like this because it is a formal name given to His mother with whom He had a very informal and open relationship. Suddenly, in the middle of the party, she comes up and says they have no wine, and He turns around, Lady, what have I to do with you? And you can’t help but see that Mary must have been hurt at this point. [Tape turns]
“What have I to do with you” is an expression used throughout Scripture when two people have two different agenda, when I have one thing and you have another thing, in other words, we’re going different ways. And this is Jesus’ announcement, lady, you are going one way and I am going another. He’s not saying we’re enemies, He’s not saying Mary is in total error, He’s just saying, Mother, recognize something, I have a ministry now and it’s going this way and you have your life and it’s going that way, and at this point we part. This is the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Painful though it may be to Mary, it must happen. Jesus must make this distinction. And yet we have in this case sometimes many young couples never make the break, either the fellow or the girl just can’t seem to wean themselves or bring themselves to just lay it on the line that from this point forward it’s marriage first and parents second. This is hard, but sometimes it requires that kind of a discussion that results in that position.
So Jesus says, “Lady, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come,” “My hour is not yet come” is an expression used throughout John for the crucifixion and the final accomplishment of His ministry. And what Jesus appears to be saying and tying it up and John apparently was right near, within a few feet of Him when He said this, he overheard it, this is a wedding feast, the wine has run out, there’s no happiness. And what Mary, John says, is really saying is not just serve the wine, yes, she’s saying that, but why is Mary concerned about the wine? So this young couple can be happy, so the families can be happy. Mary is concerned with their happiness, and John says this stands for something; this stands for the fact that men seek happiness and it is a legitimate need. But Jesus says the happiness will come to them when I get ready, on My schedule, on My sovereign plan and ladies, the cross has not come whereby I can give happiness and the abundant life yet. So He holds her up and He warns her that the sovereignty of God must be contended with; you can ask God but you can’t tell Him. You can plead with Him but you can’t order Him. You must respect God’s sovereign free will decision. And at this point He draws the line between Him and His mother; no longer can Mary presume that just because Jesus obeys her in everything therefore she can order Him around. He cuts her off, gently, firmly but clearly in verse 4.
Now John 1:5, you see the recovery of a mature believer. I know some women who, if they had that said to them would be moping around for a week. Or they’d go into a rage—what do you mean talking to me like that, something like this. That would be their response. And here is Mary who says to the servants, well, “Whatever He says unto you, do it.” You see what makes Mary a great believer here? She’s right in one area; she knows the sufficiency of her son, she’s sold on that. Her error is a minor one; she’s wrong in the fact that she can…we’ll say sort of just manipulate as mother here. That’s where she’s wrong, Jesus cuts her out of here but instead of reacting against it emotionally, as women are often prone to do, she says okay, I know one thing about this, that my hurt for Him to say to me, “Woman, what have I got to do with you,” but I know one thing, that He is going to solve this problem, on His terms but He’s going to solve it. And so she turns around to the servants and she says all right, whatever He is telling you, it’s present tense, do it, aorist. And she anticipates from that statement and the contrast of the tenses it appears she expects Jesus to tell them several things, a list of instructions what to do. So she turns around, she recovers from what could be an emotional snag; she rolls on smoothly and keeps in the Word regardless of her emotion. She is a woman who has her emotions under control; she is a woman who permits her emotions to respond but never lead her. So she goes on and she says okay, you do it.
John 1:6, John points out something. It wouldn’t be necessary that John point this out except John wants us to be cognizant of a few things that apply to this happiness thing. “And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece,” which is about 130 gallons, depending on whether they were two or three, so you want to get the exact figure, a firkin is about 8.5 gallons, you can figure an average of 2.5 gallons times 6, 127.5 gallons, those of you who want to be mathematical, but you have your plus and minus limits so don’t get too excited.
So these waterpots were sitting there. Now the thing that most people never understand is what were those water pots standing there for? Were those waterpots there to serve wine from? Negative; those waterpots were for the ceremonies. Do you know what that water was to be used for? To wash the dishes, to wash the hands, to wash the people. They didn’t have running water, that was the storage, that was the family’s entire water supply for that party, for that wedding, for everything they had to do, all baths, all washing of hands, all washing of utensils, all washing of dishes had to use the water stored in those waterpots. Translated into modern terminology that was the entire plumbing system of the house. Those waterpots were not what we spoke of earlier when we spoke of the fact that the doctrine of wine you have the amphora which were these big containers or jugs of pure wine and then they would pour the wine out into mixing bowls for their three to one ratio to get the water to wine and then from there they’d take the cup. This is not the waterpots, this is the entire water storage, the cisterns of the house.
Now this has a little different significance now; what Jesus is going to do, He’s going to fill the whole plumbing system up with wine. He is not going to use the simple bowl that they would have had on the table for wine; he could have done that, there was amphora around because they’d had a party and they would use this to store the whole wine in so they could mix it right there. Remember we said last time as they drank the wine they would mix the wine. So they obviously had these smaller vessels that had the original wine stored in them. But Jesus spots the plumbing system, the whole cistern. And so He says you fill all the cisterns up with water. And so the servants go ahead, following Mary, they go ahead and okay, they fill them all up And John has an interesting notice and as we study the Gospel further you’re going to notice something about John. John is a very, very careful observer. No one ever thought to notice when the soldier pierced Jesus’ side on the cross there came out blood and water. Nobody ever spotted that except John.
John is a very acute observer, and while John looks over at these waterpots and he stands there and he watches the servants fill them, the servants at that time did something very unusual and John tells us about it. He says “they filled them up to the brim.” Now that was unusual because they carried these things around; you don’t fill vessels that you carry around to the brim because it spills the water and water is valuable. Most of the time these were not filled to the brim, but this time for some strange reason the servants fill them to the brim. Now why do you suppose John wants us to understand that these jugs are filled to the very brim? To show you the miracle, because you see, if John hadn’t mentioned that one could also argue that here’s the water jug, they were just filled that much and somebody poured wine in and mixed the wine in there and that’s how you got your wine, three to one ratio, so it wouldn’t have been a miracle, it would have been open. But John says no, I paid very close attention that day and I looked over there and when those servants were filling them up they filled those things all the way up to the brim so it couldn’t have been that somebody added wine to those, I watched very carefully and my observation argues that that couldn’t have happened. See, John must have told this story many times before he wrote it. And so when he writes it he writes it answering the questions that he must have had to answer many, many times as he told the story as a younger minister.
So he makes us understand that they filled them up to the very brim, and then Jesus said, after they filled them up to the brim, now draw out the water, and the word “draw” is a strange word that commentators have noticed. The word “draw” here is the word that you use to go into a well, it’s not the word to dip out. Normally you would use a different word, take a cup, reach in there and take the water out. This is the word to raise a bucket up out of a well, it’s a picture of drawing from an almost unlimited source. And so the servants “draw out,” and you “take it to the governor of the feast.” The governor of the feast here can be either some sort of what would correspond to a caterer in our own generation or it could have been a friend, a toastmaster friend of the family that served that purpose.
John 2:9, “When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that had become wine,” we don’t know when it “became,” whether it became in the process of carrying or what, “he knew not from where it was, (but the servants who drew the water knew), the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, [10] And said unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine and, when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but you hast kept the good wine until now.” John is a very careful writer, he wants us to notice some more things in verse 9. “The ruler of the feast had tasted the water that had become wine, he knew not whence it was,” be careful of the little word “whence.” John, throughout this Gospel goes back and uses this word again and again and again. Remember the last time it was used? Remember Nathanael? Jesus makes some outstanding statement about Nathanael and Nathanael says whence do you know me?
“Whence,” it’s always the question because “whence” always points back to a work of Jesus Christ. That’s what, it’s always an act of God, that’s the source. And so the toastmaster or the ruler of the feast, he didn’t know the cause of all of this. Why do you suppose that’s interesting? What did we say John was doing? Presenting evidence for faith; what would be important preaching to a skeptical audience this account? That there was collusion, and so John says hun-uh, no opportunity for collusion either because the verdict rendered by the toastmaster was rendered by a man who was an impartial observer who didn’t know that this was special wine. He said the eyewitness report that we got from the toastmaster was the witness report of a man who had no reason to be biased in his observations; he knew not whence that wine was from. So we give you an unbiased observer.
So John carefully weaves in the story two observations that knock out all sorts of theories that this was a fakey thing that Jesus did, some sort of a magic trick. John says no it wasn’t because I sat there and I watched them fill it up to the brim so there was nothing added, and then the man who passed verdict on it didn’t know whence it was so he was an unbiased observer. See John pushing the evidence forward, pushing it forward. Why does John do this for us? For you? Because you cannot believe anything in the Word of God until you have thought about it and are convinced it is true. You cannot believe because we sing 40 stanzas of Just As I Am and ask you to come down the aisle, sign a card, stand on your head or do something else. You can’t believe because of that; you can only believe honestly when you’re convinced it is true. So there’s no pressure here for you to believe, but John says just pay attention to the evidence I’m submitting to you and then you do with it what you want to, it’s your choice. But John points these pieces out for us that our faith might be grounded in what is true, not grounded in what we hope is true.
So the governor “knew not whence it was, (but the servants who drew the water, they knew).” And even here John points out something, a theme which occurs again and again and again in his Gospel. Those closest to the Lord Jesus Christ see more of His glory. See, the servants were actually involved in the process of getting the water in the pot, moving it around, doing what Jesus said. And they had the benefit, having obeyed the words of Jesus, of seeing His glory. What’s John saying? Do you want to see the glory of Jesus Christ? Then obey Him for a change and you’ll see His glory. The servants obeyed, they did what He told them, and they, but not the governor, knew this.
So in John 2:10, the judgment is rendered that this is good wine. And I might add that this is even another point in favor of supernatural Christianity, the problem of apparent age. When you have creation, when you have a situation that involved a direct creation you must have apparent age of the object miraculously created because what does the force of verse 10 tell you. You don’t have to be a teetotaling fundy to plead ignorance for how wine is made. Wine takes time to ferment, so verse 10 is obviously saying by way of implication that this wine has an apparent age; it’s vintage. It’s got an age to it, it’s good, but we know, or at least the servants know, there’s no great age to this wine, it’s only a couple of minutes old, we just got through putting water in there. So here’s where man’s empirical senses looking at a miracle without revelation deceives you.
Why do I stop and mention this point? Because this is at the heart of the whole creation/evolution controversy about the age of the universe. If the Scriptures are correct and if the universe came into existence by a [can’t understand word] word of God, then of course they appear old; how else do you explain it. If you were there with a Kodak camera five minutes after Jesus Christ created Adam and took his picture, how old was Adam if you showed that picture to somebody? They’d say 30 years, 35… but if you had been there and God had filled you in on what had happened he was only five minutes old. In other words, empirical observations extrapolated back in time don’t function in this unique area of creation. Our normal assumptions break down and we logically can’t handle the data so we argue that no, the universe is very, very old because after all, how long does the light take to go from such and such a star, dot, dot, dot, and all the other arguments. But apparent age is a corollary logically to creation and that’s proven here in John 2. Jesus, no matter how you sliced it, when you took H2O, wine has a sugar base and you’ve got carbon atoms in the thing, so at least carbon atoms were made by fiat. Now if some nuclear physicist had been there I’m sure he would have been bombed out of his mind, not by the wine but by all of the nuclear manipulation that went on instantaneously by the generation of these carbon atoms already in organic bond with the hydrogen and oxygen added; amazing, right in front of his face.
So Jesus makes, in John 1:10 an issue of His omnipotence, just as with His mother He made an issue of His sovereignty. When Jesus speaks the Word, the Word has instantaneous and powerful results and the end result is man’s happiness, and this young couple was no longer embarrassed and they can close their marriage feast properly with the benedictions to Jehovah God seven times because both the bride and the groom can partake of the cup.
Now in John 1:11 is the final conclusion to this wedding, it’s a reflection. Years and years later John looks back and he says, “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana, of Galilee,” he’s kind of marveling, he says of all the places, it wasn’t Jerusalem, it was in Galilee that He chose, some little rural town out in Galilee, of all the places to choose for His miracle, that’s where He chose, “and He manifested forth His glory;” not the glory of the Mount of Transfiguration when everybody was shocked because of the glow that came from His body; not that kind of glory, the glory that Jesus showed at the wedding was the glory that if you had looked the other way for about two minutes you would have missed it.
See, Jesus was there hours, it only takes about two minutes to go through this narrative but you could have been sitting there at the party, gone out in the front yard, grabbed a few olives off the tree or something and walked back in and you’d have missed the whole thing. Maybe later on some of the servants… hey, you know something, the strangest thing happened at that wedding. But you wouldn’t have believed them because, you know, they’re servants, they were out in the kitchen, they were bombed out too, so you probably wouldn’t put too much stock in what they said. But those who were closest to the Lord Jesus Christ knew, and that’s why John says in verse 11, “And His disciples believed on Him.” Not everybody, all the guests at the party didn’t believe, in fact most of the guests didn’t even know what had happened, but those who were with Jesus most closely, they saw it. And they believed, and probably John includes himself.
So what have we learned from this unique wedding feast? We’ve seen that Jesus Christ supplied this couple in the small immediate sense with happiness; He did have their best interest at heart. Jesus is the kind of God that is interested in man’s happiness. He supplied what the Greeks sought in Dionysian religion; the Greeks could never get it because they had an amoral framework and always went off in chaos and an orgy. In fact, one of the stories of Dionysus is that he was on this boat and while they were imprisoning him in the boat he made wine flow all over the boat and here you have the God-man Savior making wine fill up the entire plumbing system of the house. This couple is not only blessed, they had cisterns of the stuff, the abundant blessing that Christ gave them. So what the Greeks had sought in Dionysian religion, happiness, Jesus supplied.
And then what the Jews had sought, cleanliness before God, Jesus supplied and what was the connection? Those waterpots; remember what they were, not for serving wine but for cleansing. Now doesn’t it strike you as a bit odd, certainly some of you must have asked this question as I taught so far, what’s the significance of filling up somebody’s plumbing system with wine? Because of what wine stands for. What is wine the sign of in the Scriptures? The blood of the New Covenant, and what is it that washes away men’s sins? The blood of the New Covenant. And so therefore the perfect plumbing system with potent blood of Jesus Christ on the cross, that’s what cleanses man and so Jesus also provides for the Jew and his quest for happiness. Happiness comes by cleansing, all right, I’ll see to it that you have enough blood for cleansing, total all sufficient cleansing. And so we find Jesus providing for both Jew and Greek and providing in two ways: He provides as sovereign on His schedule, woman, My time hasn’t come, don’t tell Me the schedule, it will be Mine. You can ask Me but don’t tell Me. And furthermore it shows immediate omnipotence, it’s a calm omnipotence in verse 10, no loud words are spoken, no hocus pokes, no slam bang magic show, just a quiet word, go ahead, take the wine, that water that’s in that pot, take it up to that guy over there. Take it out, very quietly, smoothly, and all of a sudden it’s wine. It’s a smooth powerful omnipotence.
The results: faith. Next week we’ll go on to see what else
happened in