Below is a rough translation and some initial notes regarding John 2:1-11, the Revised Common Lectionary gospel reading for the second Sunday after Epiphany. The first twelve chapters of John’s gospel are sometimes called – for good reason – the ‘book of signs.’ I suspect it could be called – for equally good reasons – the ‘book of hours.’ Both terms come into play in this story.
1 Καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ
τῇ τρίτῃ γάμος ἐγένετο ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἦν ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκεῖ:
And on the third day a wedding took place in
Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
ἐγένετο: AMI 3s, γίνομαι, 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence,
begin to be, receive being 2) to become, i.e. to come to pass,
happen
ἦν:
IAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present
1.
WHEN? I am curious about the “third day” reference. This is the only time that
John uses the term, since he does not have the passion predictions that the
synoptics share, each of which refer to Jesus rising on the third day. Prior to
this story, John has used the phrase, “the next day ...” three times in c.1 –
vv. 29, 35, and 43. So ... the “third day” of what?
2.
WHERE? Cana of Galiliee: In Jn. 4:46-54 Jesus returns to Cana, where the
narrator specifically remembers the sign of turning water into wine. He heals
the dying son of a royal official, which the narrator says is the second sign
that Jesus did after coming from Judea to Galilee.
3.
WHO? The mother of Jesus. Since John has no birth narrative, this is our
introduction to his family. To this point, we only know him as Jesus of
Nazareth. In v.12, Jesus, his mother, his brothers, and his disciples will go
to Capernaum for a few days. It doesn’t appear to me that Jesus’ mother is ever
named, although she is mentioned quite a few times. Joseph is named, in 6:42,
but not his mother. There are other Marys – the sister of Lazarus and Martha,
the Magdalene – who are mentioned often.
2 ἐκλήθη δὲ
καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν γάμον.
Yet Jesus also was invited and his disciples
to the wedding.
ἐκλήθη: API 3s, καλέω 1) to call 1a) to call
aloud, utter in a loud voice 1b) to invite 2) to call i.e. to name,
by name
3 καὶ
ὑστερήσαντος
οἴνου λέγει ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν, Οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσιν.
And the wine having run out the mother of
Jesus says to him, “They have no wine.”
ὑστερήσαντος: AAPart, gms, ὑστερέω, 1) behind 1a)
to come late or too tardily ... to be in want of, lack 2) to suffer
want, to be devoid of, to lack (be inferior) in excellence, worth
ἔχουσιν: PAI 3p, ἔχω, 1) to have, i.e. to hold
1.
This is a very interesting set up to what follows. The fact that they ran out
of wine is not stated directly by the narrator. It is given indirectly in a passing
phrase, and then stated directly by Jesus’ mother. Only, she does not say,
“They have no wine. Fix it!” - unless, in that culture, when a mother says
“They have no wine” it means “fix it!”
4[καὶ]
λέγει
αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου.
[And] Jesus says to her, “What to me and to
you, woman? My hour does not arrive
yet.”
λέγει:
PAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak
ἥκει: PAI, 3s, ἥκω, 1) to have come, have
arrived, be present 2) metaph. 2a) to come to one, i.e. to seek an
intimacy with one, become his follower: to come upon one
(unexpectedly) 2b) to come upon one, of things endured
1.
If I were to address my mother as “Woman” in this way, I’d need healing shortly
thereafter, because that kind of disrespect would not be tolerated. I get the
feeling that this response from Jesus sounds much sassier than it should
because of cultural differences. I wonder if we substitute “Ma’am” “Señora” or
“Milady” for “woman,” maybe we would be closer to the respectful tone that is
intended.
2.
There is no verb in Jesus’ question to his mother. There is the pronoun Τί –
which has been interpreted as an interrogative pronoun ever since someone added
the punctuation to the text and chose a question mark. Otherwise, Τί is often
interpreted as “this.” And there are two other pronouns, ἐμοὶ and σοί, which
are in the same dative case – “to me and to you.” I can understand why various
translations add a verb – usually “is” – to make this question work (e.g. “What
is this to you and me?”).
3.
Most translations make the question an oppositional question between Jesus and
his mother. The most extreme may be the KJV: “Woman, what have I to
do with thee?” While this is grammatically questionable – if the dative σοί is “to
thee,” then the equally dative ἐμοὶ should to “to me” – it is influenced by the
point of the second sentence in this verse. Jesus’ time has not yet come – that
is why he questions his mother. By itself, the question might sound like “This
has nothing to do with us.” But, with the second sentence, the issue is not
that someone else’s ‘wine fail’ is not their business, but that Jesus is not
ready to address matters like this yet.
4.
Of course, it is far from clear what “my hour does not yet come” means. But,
references to “the hour” are important in John. Here are some of them and they
are worth studying:
· 4:21-23: Jesus said to her,
‘Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither
on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ... But the hour is coming, and is
now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and
truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him.
· 5:25-28: ‘Very truly, I tell
you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of
the Son of God, and those who hear will live. ... Do not be
astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves
will hear his voice and will come out....”
· 7:30: Then they tried to arrest
him, but no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come.
· 8:20: He spoke these words
while he was teaching in the treasury of the temple, but no one arrested him,
because his hour had not yet come.
· 12:23: Jesus answered them,
‘The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.’
· 12:27: ‘Now my soul is
troubled. And what should I say—“Father, save me from this hour”? No, it is for
this reason that I have come to this hour.’
· 13:1: Now before the festival
of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world
and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them
to the end.
· 16:2: Indeed, an hour is coming
when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship
to God.
· 16:4: But I have said these
things to you so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you
about them.
· 16:21: When a woman is in labor,
she has pain, because her hour has come.
· 16:25: ‘I have said these
things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer
speak to you in figures, but will tell you plainly of the Father.
· 17:1: After Jesus had spoken
these words, he looked up to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come;
glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him
authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given
him.
5.
From these references, one can see that “the hour” is a significant idea in
John’s gospel. It is not necessarily a specific unit of chronological time as
much as a fulfillment of the right time. Together they give a picture of the
right time for Jesus to be revealed, to suffer and die, and to be glorified.
5 λέγει ἡ
μήτηρ αὐτοῦ τοῖς διακόνοις, Ο τι ἂν λέγῃ ὑμῖν ποιήσατε.
His mother says to the servers, “That which
he might say to you, do.”
λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak
λέγῃ: PASubj, 3s λέγω, 1) to say, to speak
ποιήσατε: AAImp, 2pl, ποιέω, 1) to make 1a)
with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion,
etc.
1.
Jesus’ mother’s command to the servers implies that a) When she said “They have
no wine,” she meant “Fix it!” and b) when Jesus responded as he did, his mother
did not accept that as a “no.” We seriously need facial expressions for this
story. The pursed lips, arched eyebrows and slight nods would say volumes.
2. While
we do not have facial expressions, we do have grammar at our disposal, which in
Jesus’ mother’s words are subjunctive. The subjunctive mood signifies the
possible, not the definite. My guess is that Mary’s words do not imply that
Jesus might or might not tell the servers to do something. I think the
subjunctive mood (represented by the word “might” in my translation) means that
Mary has no idea what Jesus will tell them. Or, we could say that the subjunctive mode implies contingency, so what is contingent is not whether Jesus will say something but what he will say.
3. I love how - the way this story is told - Mary brings the servants into the action and Jesus follows suit. Other miracles or "signs" of Jesus don't need the employ of servers, but Mary's mother sets that direction for this sign.
6 ἦσαν δὲ
ἐκεῖ λίθιναι ὑδρίαι ἓξ κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων κείμεναι, χωροῦσαι
ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς.
Yet six stone water jars were there being
situated according to the purification of the Jews, each yielding two or three
measures.
ἦσαν: IAI 3p, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist,
to happen, to be present
κείμεναι: PMPart, nfp, κεῖμαι, 1) to lie 1a) of
an infant 1b) of one buried 1c) of things that quietly cover some
spot 1c1) of a city situated on a hill 1d) of things put or set in
any place, in ref. to which we often use "to stand" 1d1)
of vessels, of a throne, of the site of a city, of grain and other things
laid up together, of a foundation
χωροῦσαι: PAPart, nfp, χωρέω, 1) to leave space
(which may be filled or occupied by another), to make room, give place,
yield 1a) to retire 1b) metaph. to betake one's self, turn one's
self
1.
An interpretive question arises whether one should translate “two of three
measures” into a contemporary equivalent and, if so, what that would be. I
prefer the KJV “two or three firkins,” but that might be even more obscure than
“two or three measures.” The Greek word, μετρητὰς, has this explanation (via greattreasures.org): “At Athens the
usual liquid measure containing 33½ English quarts or 8⅜ English gallons. (Eng
“firkin” equal to 9 gallons).”
2.
The point would be that these are large vessels, not small communion-size
pitchers, since they were intended for sourcing a ritual washing, and not for
serving into cups.
3.
In my experience, I think of a pila
that we use in El Salvador for washing hands, dishes, and clothes. They are
large containers. One does not actually immerse hands, or dishes into the pila water, but one draws water into
another vessel and washes there, so that soap and dirt do not get into the pila. Then the pila water remains clean for all uses and not contaminated by use. In
communities with well-drawn water and not running water, that kind of purified
container is necessary to minimize the effort.
7 λέγει αὐτοῖς
ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Γεμίσατε
τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος. καὶ ἐγέμισαν
αὐτὰς ἕως ἄνω.
Jesus says to them, “Fill the water jars with
water,” and they filled them all up.
λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak
Γεμίσατε: AAImperative, 2pl, γεμίζω, 1) to fill, fill full
ἐγέμισαν: AAI 3pl, γεμίζω, 1) to fill, fill
full
1.
Presumably the jars would have been depleted somewhat by the ritual cleansing
of the guests already. The process of re-filling them could be laborious,
depending on where the nearest water source is.
8 καὶ
λέγει
αὐτοῖς, Ἀντλήσατε
νῦν καὶ φέρετε
τῷ ἀρχιτρικλίνῳ:
οἱ δὲ ἤνεγκαν.
And says to them, “Now, draw out and carry to
the head of the table.” Then they carried.
λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak
Ἀντλήσατε: AAImp 2pl, ἀντλέω, 1) to draw out of a
ship's bilge-water, to bale or pump out 2) to draw water
φέρετε: AAImp 2 pl, φέρω, 1) to carry
1a) to carry some burden 1a1) to bear with one's self 1b) to move
by bearing; move or, to be conveyed or borne,
ἤνεγκαν: AAI 3pl of φέρω
1.
The term ἀρχιτρικλίνῳ generates great translations: “Governor of the feast”
(KJV) “Master of the feast” (ESV), “Master of the banquet” (NIV), “Chief steward”
(NRSV), and my favorite, “Director of the apartment” (YLT). The prefix ἀρχι,
means ‘ruler’ or ‘head’ of some sort. Apparently, the stem τρικλίνῳ, literally
means ‘three couches.’ Hence, ‘the ruler of the dining room’ might work also.
The question seems to be whether this is a top-level service role or a guest of
honor. (In my opinion - The compliment that he pays the bridegroom would be a
lot more impressive coming from Don Corleone than Mr. Carson. Let the reader
who watches too many movies and television shows understand.)
9 ὡς δὲ ἐγεύσατο ὁ
ἀρχιτρίκλινος τὸ
ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον, καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει πόθεν ἐστίν, οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν
οἱ ἠντληκότες
τὸ ὕδωρ, φωνεῖ τὸν νυμφίον ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος
Then when the head of the table tasted the
water that had become wine, and is not having known from where, but the servers
who had drawn the water having known, the head of the table addresses the
bridegroom,
ἐγεύσατο: AMI 3s, γεύομαι, 1) to taste, to try
the flavor of
γεγενημένον: PerfPPart, ans, γίνομαι, 1) to become,
i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
ἐστίν: PAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present
ᾔδει: PluperfectAI, εἴδω, to see, the other to know.
ᾔδεισαν: PluperfectAI, 3s/3pl, εἴδω, to see, the
other to know.
ἠντληκότες: PerfPPart, nmpl, ἀντλέω, 1) to draw
out of a ship's bilge-water, to bale or pump out
φωνεῖ: PAI 3s, φωνέω, 1) to sound, emit a sound, to speak
1.
Such tenses in this verse! It is a great verse when one has the present,
aorist, perfect, and pluperfect tenses all together. The point of the tenses is
to connect the real-time players with what had just taken place prior to the
tasting and speaking.
2.
It is intriguing to me that the sign itself – water into wine – is referred to
in passing. (If I were grading John’s essay, here is where I would put in red
ink the marginal note: Introduce, then refer. Alas.) The point – I suppose – is
that as significant as the “sign” is (see v.11), the actual “miracle” (not
John’s word) is not the point. The significance is the point. The details of
when the liquid transmogrified from water into something entirely different is
left up to the readers’ imaginations. That it happened: yes. How it happened:
no. What it means: absolutely.
10 καὶ
λέγει αὐτῷ, Πᾶς ἄνθρωπος πρῶτον τὸν καλὸν οἶνον τίθησιν, καὶ ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν τὸν ἐλάσσω: σὺ τετήρηκας
τὸν καλὸν οἶνον ἕως ἄρτι.
And he says to him, “Every person serves the
good wine first, and when they are drunk, the inferior; You have retained the
good wine until last.
λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak
τίθησιν: PAI 3s, τίθημι, 1) to set, put, place
1a) to place or lay 1b) to put down, lay down 1b1) to bend
down 1b2) to lay off or aside, to wear or carry no longer 1b3) to
lay by, lay aside money 1c) to set on (serve) something to eat or
drink
μεθυσθῶσιν: APSubj, 3 pl μεθύω, 1) to be drunken
2) metaph. of one who has shed blood or murdered profusely
τετήρηκας: Perfect AI, 2s, τηρέω, 1) to attend to
carefully, take care of 1a) to guard 1b) metaph. to keep, one in
the state in which he is 1c) to observe 1d) to reserve
1.
An interpretive question of this story is the significance of the sign. Let me
explore some possibilities that I have heard, read, and probably said myself
over the years.
· It might be enough to say that
Jesus turned water into wine for the sake of a marriage feast and at the
insistence of his mother.
· One might focus on the miracle
itself, interpreting “sign” as a miracle that proves that Jesus is the Son of
God. I worry that this approach gives too much credence to magic and ignores
the fact that John does not dwell at all on the ‘miracle.’
· Some interpreters have noted
how deeply embarrassing the faux pas
of running short of wine would be for this couple and their host. It would not
just be a scene from “Cana’s Funniest Videos,” but a true burden in a culture
where honor and shame play a significant role. But, the idea that Jesus would
rescue the wedding hosts may seem too trivial to be the first ‘sign’ of the
messiah.
· Others take an allegorical
approach to the story, where everything symbolizes something, or a more
measured approach where there is a single central allegory – such as ritual
cleansing being transformed into the cup of salvation.
· The “head of the table” started
the allegorical process with his enigmatic words. This signifying wine is
better than the original and it is contrary to habit that one would save the
better for last. Are those just observations or indications of a deeper
meaning?
· One might wonder if the initial
words, “on the third day,” invite us to think of this story as a resurrection
story. Perhaps it is about Jesus’ resurrection (hence the reference to “the hour”) or
the resurrected life in general. What if resurrection is to life as we know it, as fine wine is
to inferior wine?
11 Ταύτην
ἐποίησεν
ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν
τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν
εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
Jesus did this first of the signs in Cana of
Galilee and revealed his glory and his disciples believed in him.
ἐποίησεν: AAI 3s, ποιέω, 1) to make 1a) with the names of things
made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
ἐφανέρωσεν: AAI 3s, φανερόω, 1) to make manifest or visible or known what
has been hidden or unknown,
ἐπίστευσαν: AAI 3p, πιστεύω, 1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to
credit, place confidence in 1a) of the thing believed
1.
The narrator says that this sign reveals Jesus’ glory. There are numerous
references to “signs” throughout John’s gospel, including what I believe to be
the original ending of the gospel in 20:30-31: “Now Jesus did many other signs
in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these
are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the
Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in
his name.”
2.
The significance of Cana as the spatial location of this story is just as
curious to me as the significance of ‘on the third day’ as the temporal
location of this story.
Mark, thank you as always for your fine work with the Greek. I've been kicking around this whole "On the third day" as well. I'm wondering, since recent scholars have been talking about John paralleling the Creation narrative from Gen. 1 with Jesus as the Word in chapter 1, could this be an allusion to the third day of creation? On that day, plants and fruits appeared...just spit-balling here, but thought I'd throw it out.
ReplyDeleteI have always made that connection, Anonymous. Connect back to the third day of creation, and connect ahead to the third day = resurrection. Today, I'm thinking about how Jesus' first sign, in the Gospel of John, was one of abundance. And thinking about how that ties in with his gift of abundant life.
DeleteI really noticed "Cana of Galilee" framing the story for the first time in many, many years of reading it, and like you, wonder at the significance, especially when, as you note, this story is referenced again when Cana returns in chapter 4. In John, I've got to believe that has significance -- but I'm clueless as to what it might be.
ReplyDeleteDeeply grateful for this. (Also appreciate the "wine fail" expression and Mr. Carson reference). I am going to spend more time on the "hour". Thank you very much!
ReplyDeleteI will begin using the phrase "wine fail" at parties I go to, and expect a miraculous turn of events.
DeleteThank you for this helpful work. Does Jesus do this miracle in Cana (and John frame it) because of the tension between public and private ministry which is discussed in John 7. Cana being a safer place to do ministry until the hour is right? There is a sense of drama development here moving towards crisis though the cleansing of the temple is fairly full on!
ReplyDeleteHowdy all,
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this passage, there are a lot of questions hidden in the text....why the first miracle at a wedding? Why in Cana? But the one that I keep contemplating was why did Jesus have the servants fill up the jars with water first? This is Jesus...he's going to make the blind see, the lame walk...he will drive out demons and raise the dead...all without anyone's help. So, why did he have the servants fill those jugs with water first? Was it to teach us about being a servant, about trusting and obeying God, about being blessed in helping in miracles?
I'm glad you brought this up. While I do not know the answers to your questions, it is the servants who have caught my imagination. They were only ones who witnessed the occurrence. Even as it is surmised that the bridegroom had left the best for last, the stewards alone knew this was not the case. I think the role of the stewards, the easily marginalized servants, is an interesting aspect of this story.
DeleteIt is interesting here that so much attention is given to the details of what the servants did, what the chief steward says, etc., and the fact that some water turned into wine is simply mentioned in passing. It seems that John is downplaying the part of the story that we most emphasize. And, to your point, focuses on the participation of others - namely servants - as meriting the attention.
DeleteWhat do you think of F.F. Bruce's idea that the water turned to wine was the water drawn from the well, after the vessels had been filled . . .
ReplyDeleteThis is a great blog
ReplyDelete