Prom Water to Wine
Jom 2:1-11
Pebruary 2, 1969
John Ii. Buchanan

Of all the situations in which Jesus is portrayed by the Gospel writers,
the wedding at Cana is perhaps the most provocative - and one of the nost
unlikely. Of all the miracles, or mighty deeds, related in the iow wJtestament,
this transformation of water into wine is, by far, the strangest and the most
difficult for the moder reader.

' Everybody has problems with this one. At a base level very fow of
us are totally comfortable with this whole matter of the "miraculous" in the
liew Sestament. It doesn't correspond with our experience or our undorotanding
of the laws of nature. And yet most of us are sensitive enough to sec that it
makes no more sense to categorically deny that the miracles happoned than it
does to blindly and unthinkingly accept them as recorded. We have cone to a
lind of modus vivendi with the healing mircles. These we can fit into our
pettorns of thinking, and if we don't understand at least we have a "fcel"
for their significance. Not so here. This is different - in a fmdonental
way. This - to use Time Magazine's favorite cliche, "boggles the mind."

One of the ordinary ways of discussing the miracles is to focus on
their significance. In a matter of healing, for instance, it is not too
difficult to relate the miracle to Jesus' compassion and concern; his re-
conciling work among men. But you can't use this method here. ‘The only person
helped in this instance was the host who apparently hadn't preparcd for this
nony guests. The only affliction relieved was his anxiety and embarrassment at
running out of wine. All in all - a relatively trivial matter for Cod Incarnate
%O concern himself with.

And if you think we logical Presbyterians have difficulty horc, imagine
what it mast be like for the good ladies of the W. C. T. U. People don't
ccolebrate a wedding by quaffing great quantities of unfermented srcpo juice.
They drank wine — and they drank wine because it added gaity and scsi to the
occasion. When they ran out Jesus didn't just provide another sip for the
celecbrants - he provided somewhere between 120 and 180 gallons. That's a lot
of wine — and it's all a bit much for the W. C. T. U.

We all have problems with this incident and so we are inclined to
ignore it, to pretend it isn't there — which is precisely what I've done in my
ministry until now.

Now, let's take another and deeper look. The wedding involved a family
which apparently was on intimate terms with the family of our Lord. Thoy were
invited guests, but beyond that, Mary seems to have been acquainted with the
servants and they with her. When she gave an: order, they listened. lUedding
cclebrations of the day were quite extensive, sometimes lasting ac long as
a week. The fact that the wine ran out shortly after Jesus and hic party arrived
indicates that the celebration mist have been several days old. tihen the wine
vas gone, Mary instructed the servants to fill six stone jars, acwolly large
crocks used by good Jews for ceremonial washing, with water. Thios done, they
took a sample to the steward - who was a kindof Maitre de and Toestmastor.

By the time he tasted it - it was wine, — good wine. The custom was to serve
the best wine first — and the fact that this was better than any drunic this
fav was a matter of some surprise to the steward. He commented on this fact
and the Gospel writer concludes the account with the observation: ‘This, the
first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana of Galilee, and manifested his clory:
and his disciples believed in him."

Some scholars make much out of the fact that the account docs not
actually say that Jesus turned the water into wine - only that the ucter becam e
wince. An interesting observation, the significance of which elucos me.

Eh tce

In any event, that's the story and it seems to me the con tenporary
reader has at least two different methods at his disposal for interpretation.
the first, of course, is the literal approach. That is, the event happened
oxactly as described and there is no other intentional significance other
then that «hich is clearly defined. The literalist assumes that this is
all the author iad in mind and cites the obvious literary effort to noil
the event down in terms of time and place. Such positive, factual ctatoments
os "on the third day", "in Cana of Galilee", "the mother of Jesus uss there",
seen to infer that the author is trying to document explicitly an historical
occurrence. That much is clear, but if we play the game by this pasticular set
of rules, some glaring deficiencies become apparent. In the first place, in
that day when protocol and etiquette were rather important, it is odd that a
host would make such a gross miscalculation when preparing for a narty. In

the secon .place ~ 120 gallons is an enormous quantity of wine. In the third
place this miracle is totally different from all the others. Thorc is nothing
here that relates to Jesus' ministry of compassion. Fourth - thevc is an air
oF uireality about the entire account, such as the strange conversation be-
tween Jesus and his mother when he said, "O woman, what have you %o ¢o with
me? Iiy hour has not yet come?" Thus the literal approach and its struggles
anc: weaknesses.

The other interpretative approach may be called allegorical. ‘that is
to soy, the author had no intention of describing an actual event, but rather
used an event as the contextual framework for the purpose of telling 2 story.
Perhaps there was a wedding early in Jesus' ministry. Perhaps it ios an
event of some significance for the disciples. Perhaps the author usod the
event to express his primary point - that Jesus of Nazarcth was, in fact, the
divine ‘Son of God.

Like the literal approach there is much to be said both fox and
against this method. In the first place, if the author's intent was to use
symbolism, why didn't he raise some kind of warning flag? And yet this
method has some very strong points to commend it. Particularly the image of
old wine and new wine reminds us of other instances in the New Tecteront.

The water jars ~ symbolic of the ritualistic law of Judaism - now full of
fresh wine —- may be more than coincidental.

On it goes, and in the final analysis every individual must make up
his owm mind regarding an approach to this particular text. No one was there
taling notes; Jesus had no official biographer recording his every word and
ceed for posterity. What we have are religious tracts filtered through the
intelligence, world view and literary sensitivity of men who belicved Jesus
wes the Christ. Their writings contain God's word for this and cvez>y age.
They do not contain a biography. And so I would suggest that here, isnéd in
other instances of Biblical difficulty, the really important mattor is not
uhether the events happened precisely as -described, but what the cuthor
vac trying to communicate when he described the events as he did. "What
cid he mean? What does the text mean for us?" These are the real cucctions
for the modern reader of the Biblical record: -— not "Did it really happen
ize: this?”

This done, however, our difficulties with this text are for from
over. ven after we've bypassed the question of historic acauracy, tho
meaning of the text is’ still not immediately evident.

I would suggest, for your consideration, three meanings.

First, I believe it both edifying and significant that the onc
ve lnow as Lord was invited to and participated in a joyous celebration, an
event that would be condemmed by many of his contemporary followors as a
worldly, sinful affair. I think the story is significant because it portrays

—j—

2 “yorldly" Christ, that is; a man without the neurotic dichotomy botirecen
the holy and the secular that characterizes other "religious" mon. I think
the story is significant because it portrays an immensely appealing Christ
who wont out of his way to share in the great joy of one of his foicnds.

How often have you done likewise? We well understand Jocus Christ
as "the man of sorrows". All of us have experienced the comfort in o time
of grief that comes from knowing our Lord mows our predicament anc chares
it with us. Most of us, moved by this authentic comfort, have tricd,
in some way, to communicate it to and share it with someone else. Dut how
about when a friend experiences great joy? Is there anything about our
faith that has to do with this?

I think there is: and I think we don't know much about it.
illic torically we Christians have always felt a little guilty about hoving
a good times The Church, down through the years, has allowed the pover of
Coc to operate within it in times of adversity! but in good times wo ar
inclined +o feel we mist be doing somethitig Wrongs And so We come across
+o the world as a pompous institution, staid; boring; morose: and ow’ worship
experience, which initially was a celebration of thé Resurrection,
has become an ordeal to be endured,

This runs deeply in the collective Christian conscience, and I firmly
believe we miss the relevance of the Gospel when we get caught in i+.

Our Lord was one who knew the beauty of human joy. He woo one
who Inew the importance of sharing - not only the low points, the dazl: valleys
of human experience - but also the mountain-tops. And so he went to &
wedding feast, and he celebrated. That ought to tell us = too = that he
shares our sortows and disappointments = but also our victories; that
loughter is as blessed astears: that the good times of life are full of the
very Grace of God.

Second, and not unrelated to the first meaning - is the foé4 that
tho celebration he graced was a wedding. I believe the presence of Jesus
Christ at the wedding feast in Cana is significant for an understanding
of marriage. The event is invoked in every Christian wedding. ie renenber
that his ministry began at such an event. We remember that marriage is a
roligious covenant, not just a legal contract, and that Jesus Christ is
presont even in the most intimate relationships between @ man and 2 woman.

Third, and perhaps tmost important, this incident means that the work
Jesus Christ came to do among men can be understood primarily as “«rens-
formation". At the wedding the old wine was gone, and Jesus transforned
uater into something even better than the old. Whether or not the author
intended it, this is exactly what he did with the religion of Judaisn.

On one occasion he even referred to the religion of the Pharisees as old
wine — and suggested that the container - the skin — would brea if the
now wine of the Gospel were poured in.

The affect of Jesus Christ, for those who followed him, was
troncforming. ile changed their institutions: in the place of the dead
lette: of the law he gave them the grace of living in freedom and
cosponsibility. And out of the old Israel came the new. To those
iho believed he gave new life - new lives; to broken man, immoral non,
poor men, hated men — he gave new life.

We don't know much about the "transforming" Lord. You and I have the

—L—

r

audecity to come before him feeling that wo are all we can becono:
feoling secure and comfortable and inoculated agdinst change; And this
story calls us up short.

The water he changed, you will remember, was for the sake ov purifi-
cation. As such it stood for all the ritual of religion. It was ‘his he
transformed into zestful, delicious wine.

The incident leaves a question in my mind, and I would share it
with you. Is our Christian faith like that water - or that winc? Arc we,
ac Christians, more concerned with the commofily accepted rites of »cli-
ciosity, or are we concerned with living joyful; authentic lives.

Jesus Christ can transform ug; our lives; even our religions Life
can be, in Hemingway's words, "A Moveable Feast". That is the promise
of the Gospels And it is good news indeed!

Amen «