2nd Sunday after the Epiphany
John 2:1-11
1 Corinthians 12:1-11
Exegetical Notes by Brian Stoffregen
2 Epiphany C: John 2:1-11 -- Exegetical Notes
EPIPHANY & PAGAN MYTHS
The story of Jesus changing water into wine is a traditional passage
for Epiphany. It concludes with the statement that Jesus revealed
(φανερόω - phaneroō -- a verb that is a close cousin of epi-phany) his
glory.
Philip H. Pfatteicher (_New Book of Festivals and Commemorations_)
writes the following about Epiphany.
> Easter and Pentecost both have Jewish antecedents. The Epiphany
also has ancient sources, but the origins of the feast are disputed.
Older studies suggested that both Christmas and Epiphany are related to
pagan solstice festivals. Epiphanius (ca. 315-403) notes that in Egypt
there was a night festival on the 11th of Tybi (January 5-6)
celebrating the birth of the god Aion, god of time and eternity and
protector of Alexandria, from a virgin, Kore. The waters of the Nile,
it was thought acquitted miraculous powers and turned to wine that
night, and the celebration involved a ritual drawing of water form the
Nile at the beginning of the year. A festival in honor of Dionysus on
January 5, Pater Liger, is mentioned by Pliny the Younger. The
Christian celebration focused on the Baptism of Jesus because the
Egyptian Church at the beginning of the year began the reading of the
Gospel according to St. Mark, which begins with Jesus’ baptism. There
came in existence, at least in the East, a Christian festival that
echoed the ancient solstice celebration and which was called “the Holy
Day of Lights” or “the Day of Holy Lights,” commemorating the
manifestation of God in the birth and baptism of Jesus. (p. 16)
However, he also notes that a different theory has developed in the
twentieth century based on the relationship between the date of Jesus’
death and conception and birth. That is, his conception – the
beginning of his human life – would have happened on the same date as
his crucifixion – the ending of his human life. When the Jewish lunar
calendar was replaced with the Roman version of the Julian calendar,
the date for Jesus’ crucifixion was April 6. This, according to the
theory, would have been the date of his conception, with birth
occurring nine-months later: January 6. (pp. 16-17)
I like to think that at least some of our Christmas/Epiphany themes
were part of pagan worship, but isn't that the power of the gospel? To
take what is pagan and sinful and corrupted, and redeem it, forgive
it, and transform it so that they now serve the one true God?
CONTEXT
For an overview of the larger context, I quote Gail O'Day (_John_, The
New Interpreter's Bible):
John 2:1-5:47 is the first realization of the "greater things"
promised by Jesus (1:51). The events of this unit -- the two "signs"
(2:1-11; 4:46-54), the cleansing of the Temple (2:13-22), Jesus'
conversations with Nicodemus (3:1-21) and the Samaritan woman
(4:4-42), the renewed witness of John (3:22-36), the healing of the
man beside the pool (5:1-9) -- all demonstrate the authority of Jesus'
words and works. Jews and non-Jews, men and women all see and hear the
"greater things" Jesus says and does. These chapters contain the full
spectrum of responses to Jesus, from the faith of the disciples (2:11)
to Jesus' rejection by the Jews (5:16-18). These chapters establish
the central themes and tensions of the entire Gospel: the
possibilities of new life and faith made available through the words
and works of Jesus, and the decisions individuals are called to in the
face of those possibilities. [p. 535]
I also note the contrasts between the natural and the miraculous that
are presented in these opening verses:
natural / miraculous
water / wine (2:1-11)
the temple building / Jesus' resurrected body (2:13-22)
human birth / being born from above (3:1-10)
water from the well / living water (4:7-26)
"natural" healing in the well / miraculous healing from Jesus (5:2-9)
What Jesus ushers in is something miraculously new and different from
anything that has been before.
TIME LINE
Bruce Malina & Richard Rohrbaugh (_Social-Science Commentary on the
Gospel of John_) write the following about John's opening time line:
> The story opens "on the third day." Note the enumeration of days:
the first day covers 1:1-28; "the next day," 1:29-34; "the next day,"
1:35-39; and a presumed next day: 1:40-42; with a final "the next day"
in 1:43-51. With these five days over, "the third day" here 2:1-11)
would be the eighth day. And this eighth day marks the first day after
the close of the first (creation) week since the beginning 1:1). That
first week is John's creation week. After this eighth day, there is no
more counting of days (so in v. 12 we read "a few days"). "On the third
day" also reflects the day of Jesus' being raised, the eighth day of
the week (see vss. 19-20: "after three days"). [p. 66]
ΓΑΜΟΣ (GAMOS) - WEDDING FEAST
In the first century, a typical wedding feast lasted at least seven
days. This wedding may have been its third day -- so there are a
number of days left for the celebrating.
The image of a γάμος (gamos) = "wedding [banquet]" is used in synoptic
parables:
"The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding
banquet for his son" (Mt 22:2-12)
The kingdom of heaven will be like this....while the ten maidens went
to buy more oil, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went
with him into the wedding banquet; and the door was shut (Mt 25:10)
"be like those who are waiting for their master to return from the
wedding banquet" (Lk 12:36)
"When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet,... (Lk 14:8).
In Revelation we have the image of the "marriage [supper]" of the Lamb
(19:7, 9).
ΟΙΝΟΣ (OINOS) - WINE
Wine was very important. It was the normal beverage at meals -- and
especially at festivals. Wine was a symbol of joy. One ancient rabbi
stated, "Without wine there is no joy." At the same time, drunkenness
was a great disgrace throughout scriptures. I don't believe that Jesus
intended all the guests to drink up all the wine that night. There was
enough wine to satisfy a large number of guests throughout the rest of
the wedding feast week.
Although the Greek word οἶνος (oinos) is not used in any of the
eucharist accounts -- they all use "cup" and the synoptics also use
the phrase "fruit of the vine" -- the Cana miracle and the
multiplication of the loaves early in church history became symbols
for the bread and wine of the eucharist.
In the OT, an abundance of good wine is an eschatological symbol, a
sign of the joyous arrival of God's new age:
On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast
of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines, (Is 25:6a)
The mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with
it (Amos 9:13cd)
In that day the mountains shall drip sweet wine, the hills shall flow
with milk (Joel 3:18a)
I once heard a speaker criticize the Lutheran Church by saying, "We
have all the right words to a party, but we haven't learned how to
pull it off, yet." Seldom do our worship services feel like wedding
celebrations -- where 180 gallons of wine would be served during a
week-long celebration. Maybe all this talk about 180 gallons of wine
can encourage us to be more celebrative and joyful in our receiving
and sharing of God's grace. At the same time, I often wonder what
Sunday services would be like if we put in as much time, effort, and
money as families do for weddings.
THE PROBLEM(S)
The obvious and stated problem in our text is that the wine gives out.
Bruce Malina & Richard Rohrbaugh (_Social-Science Commentary on the
Gospel of John_) suggest the great dishonor this creates:
> The fact that the family hosting the wedding has run out of wine
threatens a serious loss of honor. Friends, especially those from the
inner group of wedding celebrants, usually sent gifts such as wine
ahead of time to be available for the wedding celebration. Lack of wine
thus implies lack of friends. If Jesus was among the "members of a
wedding association" of this bridegroom, he was among those obligated
to provide such gifts. [p. 66]
and later:
> By providing wine for the wedding celebration, Jesus rescues the
honor of the bridegroom. Traditional Western theological comment that
Jesus here usurps the role of host (thus turning this into a
sacramental story) misses a key point in the story. By providing wine
for this threatened family, Jesus honors the bridegroom and saves his
own prestige. [p. 69]
Perhaps less obvious is the problem that Jesus' hour has not yet come.
Even less obvious might the problem of a human (Mary) telling God
(Jesus) what to do. Although, if she were part of the women serving at
the wedding, she would have known about the lack of wine.
Dealing first with the second and third (possible) problems, O'Day
(_John_, New Interpreters Bible) states:
> The reference to Jesus' hour in v. 4b explains why Jesus adopts a
posture of disengagement toward his mother. While "hour" is used in the
Fourth Gospel to indicate the passing of time (e.g., 1:39), it is also
used metaphorically to refer to the time of eschatological fulfillment
(e.g., 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28) and, most characteristically, to refer to
the hour of Jesus' glorification -- i.e., his death, resurrection, and
ascension (see 7:30; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; 17:1). Jesus' reference to his
hour thus establishes a link between what Jesus does during his
ministry and his glorification, Mary's' concerns (v. 3) must be placed
in the larger context of Jesus' death and resurrection. Verse 4 thus
points the reader beyond this particular story to a broader theological
context by asserting Jesus' freedom from all human control. Not even
his mother has a privileged claim on him. Jesus' actions will be
governed by the hour set by God, not by anyone else's time or will.
Verse 4 also points beyond the immediate context by alluding to Jesus'
passion. Any act of self-revelation by Jesus during his ministry is of
a piece with Jesus' self-revelation at his "hour."
> The preparation for the miracle concludes with the words of Jesus'
mother to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you" (v. 5). Her words
echo Pharaoh's words about Joseph in Gen 41:55, in which Pharaoh
expresses unconditional confidence in Joseph's ability to resolve the
situation of scarcity; they also give full authority to Joseph. The
words of Jesus' mother do the same thing. She has not been dissuaded
from her initial position that Jesus can do something about the lack of
wine (v. 3), but in the light of Jesus' words in v. 4 she cedes the
initiative for acting to Jesus. She continues to trust in Jesus'
ability to act, but will not curtail his freedom. [p. 537]
How often do we wish that we could order Jesus to do what we want him
to do? Somehow, like Jesus' mother, we need to have the faith and
confidence that Jesus has the power to act, and yet give Jesus the
freedom to act however he deems best.
NOTE that Jesus' reply: "What concern is that to you and to me,
woman?" is not a phrase of rudeness. Jesus frequently addressed women
with "Women" (e.g., Mt 15:28; Lk 22:57; Jn 4:21), although it is not
usually used to address one's own mother. It may be a way of
distancing himself from his family relations. "What is that to you and
to me" may be a common expression in the Semitic world (cf. 2 Kgs
3:13; 2 Chr 35:21) that indicates non-involvement.
On one hand, Jesus' answer may indicate that he doesn't want to be
involved with such mundane details of human life, like whether or not
there is enough wine for a party. On the other hand, his actions
indicate that he does get involved with such mundane details of human
life.
THE EMPTY JARS
The six stone water jars, each holding 20-30 gallons equals 120-180
gallons of wine! That's a lot of wine. I noted above that an abundance
of wine was an OT eschatological symbol.
The abundance of God's grace is a theme that can flow out of these huge
jars.
Something I hadn't noticed before is that these jars were empty. The
servants have to fill them with water before the miracle occurs. Jesus
did not miraculously make water appear in the jars; the servants had
to fill them. Jesus is not transforming the purification water that
already was in the jars into the wine; but he is transforming new
water that has been placed in the old containers. Often, Jesus’
miracles involve a lot of work by disciples: filling jars with water,
passing out food to thousands and then picking up the leftovers,
hauling in the nets that are full of fish. Whenever we pray for divine
miracles, we might consider what work God would have us do.
I find it interesting that the only other occurrence of this word for
"fill" (γεμίζω gemizō) in John is when the disciples fill up 12
baskets of left-over bread after the miraculous feeding (6:13). Is
there an intended connection between bread and wine?
O'Day suggests: "New wine is created in the 'old' vessels of the
Jewish purification rites, symbolizing that the old forms are given
new content."
In contrast to Mark 2:21-22 -- new wine needs new wineskins -- here
the image seems to be that the new wine can be held by the old
containers.
To make two applications from this interpretation: Speaking from my
Lutheran heritage, I believe that new expressions of the gospel can be
contained in the old "containers" of our traditional liturgical form.
I might also suggest that the "old container" could be our bodies, and
that Jesus can transform what is inside the "container" -- the sinner
becomes a saint, the pagan becomes a child of God, the polluted
becomes pure -- if I am not mistaken, water in that area in those days
was not fit to drink, but wine was.
FROM WHERE DID THIS WINE COME?
The question of "from where?" (πόθεν - pothen) is pivotal throughout
John:
where does the wine come from 2:9
where does the Spirit come from 3:8
where does the Living Water come from 4:11
where does the bread for the people come from 6:5
The question is most important in terms of Jesus' origins; 7:27-28;
8:14; 9:29-30; 19:9. The recognition that Jesus comes from God, which
we were told in the opening verses of John, is an essential part of
the faith.
I like a contrast that O'Day suggests between the responses to the
miracle by the steward and by the disciples. The steward responds to
this exceedingly fine wine by summoning the bridegroom, the host of
the party, because he assumes that the presence of this good wine can
be explained by conventional reasoning. Even though it would make
better sense to serve the best wine first, he assumes that it was
through natural means that this good wine appeared. I don't know
whether he is criticizing the bridegroom for saving the best until
last or complementing him.
In contrast to the steward's response, the disciples believed in
Jesus, because they have recognized his glory in this act.
> The miracle of the wine shatters the boundaries of their
conventional world, and the disciples are willing to entertain the
possibility that this boundary breaking marks the inbreaking of God.
The steward tried to reshape the miracle to fit his former categories,
while the disciples allowed their categories to be reshaped by this
extraordinary transformation of water into wine, and so they "believed
in him" (2:11) as the revealer of God. [O'Day, p. 540]
How often do we try to make God fit into our frame of references?
There are those who would discount all miracles, because they won't
fit into their it-must-be-scientifically-proven-before-it-is-real
frame of reference. There are others who strongly believe in divine
miracles, but they only see God working in the super-natural events of
life. They don't see God being active in seemingly natural events that
occur.
A SIGN
This "miracle" is called "the first of his signs" or "the beginning of
his signs". The Greek word ἀρχή (archē) is used in 1:1, 2 to refer to
"the beginning" -- prior to the time of creation. This same meaning is
probably intended in 8:44 when Jesus talks about the devil being "a
murderer from the beginning". However, in 8:25 (footnote); 15:27; 16:4
it refers to the beginning of a relationship between Jesus and the
disciples -- perhaps a reference to this "beginning" miracle and
illustration of Jesus' glory.
The importance of the word "sign" is pointed out by O'Day:
> John uses the term sign to refer to Jesus' miracles, because for
John the significance of the miracle does not rest solely in the act of
the miracle itself, but in that to which the miracle points. That is,
the deed reveals the doer and points to the significance of the deed as
an act of eschatological salvation and God's abundance. [p. 539]
If a sign draws attention to just itself, it has not fulfilled its
purpose. A sign points to something else.
May we be signs that point to God's abundance.
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Avenue, Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com
__._,_.___