E9 Jesus' First Miracle

In this episode we'll look at the events of Jesus' first miracle to uncover a lesson learned from Mary's relationship with Jesus. Additionally, we'll test some often-repeated claims about the discourse used and consider the tension placed on Jesus to please both His mother and His heavenly Father.

Closing and Credit remarks

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Greetings and so very glad you’re here to listen today to God is Near. We’re going to cover John 2, verses 1-11 to see if there is a moral for us today. According to the 1995 NASB, it reads, “On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.’ His mother said to the servants, ‘Whatever He says to you, do it.’ Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus said to the, ‘Fill the waterpots with water.’ So they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, ‘Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.’ So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and id not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him, ‘Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.’ This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.”

I was in an adult Sunday school class recently, where this passage was covered. Jesus’ first miracle is only recorded in John and I find it a very interesting story. First, few details are given by John, especially of the dialogue between Jesus and Mary. It’s hard to discern context. It’s the first miracle so Mary wasn’t expecting a miracle to solve the problem of the wine running out. Or perhaps was she, since this was after Jesus’ baptism and He was now full of the Holy Spirit? The “now” referring to just after His baptism as recorded in Luke 4:1. The particle, de, should be translated “now”, picking up with Luke’s story in 3:22, but often this particle goes untranslated. But Mary definitely knew Him as a wise and capable man growing up; no doubt blessed by God in all His endeavors. Perhaps her trust was in his capable human talent. We’re not sure what her expectations were.

Second, we also aren’t given many details about the wedding. We don’t know who’s getting married, and why Mary is involved or concerned with the wine running out. Many surmise the bride or groom must be a relative to Mary for both Mary and Jesus to be in attendance and for Mary to be in the loop of the issues with the lack of wine, and then trying to solve it. Or possibly her past with the social embarrassment of being pregnant before marriage made her empathetic to the host’s plight when she somehow overheard of it. Or perhaps, Mary fell into an earthly state of mind, and simply acted as a busybody? John leaves out so many details.

But Jesus’ response to Mary’s statement about the lack of wine is to the point. “What does that have to do with us,” as stated in the NASB. This version makes it sound like Mary doesn’t have a reason to be concerned about the wine and should butt out. The actual statement in Greek has low informational content, and as commonly done in these situations, verbs “to be” are added for English translation. Literally, Jesus said, “What to me and to you,” or possibly, “why me and you?” Jesus didn’t have to speak this way. He’s known for colorful parables, wise retort, but here he chose simplicity, much like we might use colloquial speech today when saying, “What’s it to you.” What’s it to me and to you is His response. But there is a little variety in Bible translations on how to deal with the short Greek statement. The KJV translates this as, “What have I to do with thee?” The NIV translates it as, “why do you involve me?” And the HCSB fills in a lot of gaps with, “What has this concern of yours to do with Me?” The HCSB is generally a good translation, but I’m not sure about all the additions here. It could be setting the wrong tone or attitude that Jesus had. The reality is He spoke not harshly, but minimally and directly…what’s it to me…and to you. So the translation you’re using could influence you that Mary and Jesus shouldn’t be concerned about the problem at hand, and the Greek might suggest that but it’s ambiguous. Jesus simply may not have wanted to get involved for other reasons. Such as, perhaps it would take a miracle to solve the problem of the lack of wine. And according to Jesus’ second statement, His hour has not yet come. Thus, He didn’t desire to perform a miracle, at least not publicly which might cost Him His life or derail His ministry.

As a quick sidebar, John records Jesus speaking about His hour not yet coming multiple times. He mentions it in chapter 7 verses 6 and 8, and again in chapter 8 verse 20. The latter is very clear about the context John perceives when Jesus says His hour has not yet come. It says, “These words He spoke in the treasury as He taught in the temple; and no one seized Him because His hour had not yet come.” Jesus’ hour was a reference to His death and resurrection, sometimes referred to as His glorification. This is reinforced in John 12:23-27, where Jesus refers to His ultimate purpose of glorification. This is the essence of Jesus’ lengthy prayer in John 17, where in the first verse Jesus reiterates that His hour was at hand, which preceded His betrayal, trial, and crucifixion. All of these references indicate the hour represented Jesus’ final days on earth. It seems a little strange to me that the same author, John, and speaker, Jesus, would mean anything other than Jesus’ death and resurrection in John 2:4. I don’t think Jesus was being flippant with Mary in John 2. I can’t help but think that Jesus knew a public miracle would derail something truly important to Him. Afterall, Jesus healed a demon-possessed man and the scribes and Pharisees claimed Jesus casts out demons by being the ruler of demons. What would people say about Him if He began publicly changing water into wine at a party?

Well, returning to verse 5, we learn that Mary tells the servants, not Jesus’ disciples who were also invited from verse 2, but the servants to do as Jesus said. If you’re a wealthy individual or splurged at your wedding for a lot of attendants, not just any invitee can tell them what to do. And if someone did tell them to do something, I wouldn’t expect them to obey just anyone. Not that there’s enough to be dogmatic about, but I think from this interaction between Mary and the servants, that this wedding included someone known closely, if not a relative, of Mary and Jesus.

Though John does not give us many details about the wedding, bride, or groom, he does, however, give us details about the waterpots (v6). These waterpots could have been used to satisfy OT law requirements for purification. See Exodus 30, verses 17 and following, as one example where the priests were required to wash themselves prior to ministering. Other washings are required by people when they have become defiled, examples are found in Leviticus chapters 12-18. If you’re interested in learning more about required Old Testament ceremonial purifications, research ablution. A-B-L-U-T-I-O-N. That’s the terminology used to cover this topic. However, we also know that human nature had the Jewish teachers and scribes try to outdo each other in their ceremonial duties over time. Matt 15:1 begins with an example where Jesus is questioned about why he lets his disciples break the tradition of the elders. My point here is that we aren’t sure if these pots served a legitimate ceremonial OT purpose for washings or manmade ceremonial cleansings, but either way there is rich symbolism of Jesus being Lord of the OT and ritual cleanings. There must be a reason John wrote with some specificity of the vessels. Was it just to give us an idea of the volume of water that Jesus changes to wine? Meaning, this wasn’t some sip of wine where some half-intoxicated person convinced himself he tasted wine when it was actually water. No, this was a miracle of 20-30 gallons per pot, which displayed without a doubt Jesus as a miracle worker! Or maybe John’s details were to show the purity of the miracle in that they occurred in ceremonial vessels. We also have a vantage point of looking through Jesus’ ministry and teaching to see many times where He demonstrated the futility of Jewish ceremonial cleanings. They were concerned with cleaning the outside of a cup in Matt 23:25, but Jesus instructs them to be concerned with cleaning the inside of the cup. Jesus taught a person needs to be made pure in the heart, and that something more perfect than ceremonies and traditions were needed. Jesus used waterpots, vessels considered necessary for purification, and He turned the very water used for washing into wine. Turning water into wine inside a Jewish vessel that should be filled with water for cleanings…well, that shows Jesus’ Lordship over the OT law. 

Well, this was all backdrop to what I would like to cover today, and that is the first point most people make when covering this passage. Returning to verse 4, Jesus’ first statement in response to Mary is, “momma, what’s it to us?” Only, He didn’t say momma, or mom, or even mother. He called her woman. Calling Mary, woman, was one of the first things brought up in the Sunday school class, it was discussed most in the class, and I bet if you own a study Bible it most likely contains a footnote about the term. The note probably reflects what Halley’s Bible Handbook states, which is that Jesus using the term woman was a term of respect in His day. Looking at several study books and sites, I can’t find a reference to this oft repeated claim. Is it true? Before we look into this further, I want to highlight that I don’t want to come across as thinking less of Mary than the honor she deserves. She deserves the accolades she has earned. Afterall, she’s unique, being the only woman in history chosen to carry, bear, and raise the God incarnate. But we can’t take her special status so far to think she was perfect, after all, Jesus said no one except God alone was good (Mark 10:18).

So let’s address the footnote about the term woman being a sign of respect. If you have looked into apologetics of Christianity, inevitably you’ll come across an argument that Jesus first using women to proclaim His resurrection bolsters the authenticity of His resurrection. Women were first to witness the empty tomb, and Jesus first appeared resurrected to women. How can such an argument be made, that Jesus appearing first to women reinforce support for the Christian claim of Jesus’ resurrection? Because in Jesus’ day, women were 2nd class citizens to Romans and much of the gentile world. There were even limitations and hierarchy in Judaism, where rabbinic teaching prevented 1st Century women from being reliable witnesses in court. I wouldn’t want to oversell the lowly status of women in Jewish culture, as the divinely inspired Old Testament had some protections and rights to women, and we have plenty of examples in the New Testament of women having preserved these rights. You might find an interesting read from the article Jewish Women in the New Testament by Levine on the website Jewish Women’s Archive. 

Nevertheless, women throughout much of the world during much of history have had a demoted status than God intended when He created a coequal helpmate for Adam. And I have a hunch that the only reason why we keep seeing footnotes about the term “woman” being a respectful term was not because it was an honorable, exalting form of address, but simply because it wasn’t a crass, dishonorable, or bigoted address. In other words, recognizing a woman as a woman is respectful only in the sense that it wasn’t referring to her in a demoted class, a servant, or a dog. 

When Jesus speaks to female strangers, it is recorded that He respectfully uses the term woman, showing dignity to women, including showing dignity to the adulterous woman of John 8. It would be respectful to use the term in these circumstances to show boundaries between male and female strangers in public while also politely acknowledging the created status of a woman. It cannot be equated, however, to using the term to someone as well known, and as closely related, as a son’s own mother. In one instance Jesus lifts immoral women up in social class and showed the common dignity all who are made in God’s image deserve. Contrast to Mary, the closest relational bond one can have, He downgraded their relationship by referring to her as woman. Same word, different contexts.

Let me tell you, I’ve lived in several different places around the world. I’ve witnessed cultural differences between men and women. I’ve even witnessed Arabic women in the middle east refer to older male acquaintances as “uncle.” The men aren’t really a woman’s uncle, they could be a friend of the family, the two are unrelated but they know each other. You may see them out talking or together, but there isn’t anything romantic or concerning about the relationship. It’s a cultural matter of using familial language to show respect and honor in an otherwise non-familial relationship. Sometimes we use this today in America. Good male friends may call each other brothers, for example. Again, familial language is used to highlight something special in a non-familial relationship. But the case with Jesus and Mary are quite the opposite, isn’t it? Are we to think that somewhere and sometime in history it was respectful for a son to call His mother, woman? Here we have the tightest biological bond possible between a child and a parent. Now, I’m not saying Jesus says something disrespect or dishonorable. He really couldn’t have broken the commandment to honor your father and mother. Calling a woman, woman, isn’t dishonorable, but I can’t see how it is respectful or honoring to address a mom with the non-familial term, woman. Let’s test this claim about the respectful address a little more by studying their dialogue a little closer.

John, the author of the gospel passes over the details of Jesus’ birth, His baptism, and His temptation in the wilderness. Based on the information about John the Baptist in John 1, Jesus’ baptism and temptation have recently occurred. For example, Matt 3:16 states, “After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on him.” The he that saw the Spirit descend on Jesus is evidently John the Baptist according to John 1:33 and 34, which state, “I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.” Since the gospel writers sometimes vary the sequence of events or their focus of events, it can be difficult retracing the order of events in Jesus’ life. I recommend a helpful study aid like Halley’s Bible Handbook mentioned earlier, when studying the order of events in the Gospels. Jesus’ baptism and temptation recently occurred and after first going from the wilderness to near where John was preaching, Jesus returns to Galilee and attends a wedding that He and His disciples were specifically invited to (verse 2).

Picking up in verse 3, the wedding feast wine runs out and Mary says to Jesus, “They have no wine.”

Jesus responds to His mother, “What’s it to me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come.” Clearly Jesus wants nothing to do with the matter. 

Mary does not relent, but I perceive she fully understands Jesus’ point. She doesn’t directly bring the matter back up to Him. But instead, she commands the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Mary uses an imperative mood to command the servants to action. She could have a tone of entreaty, meaning, please do it. Or the aorist tense could be used as done more commonly in a call to urgency, such as, do it now, or do it immediately. Either translation is possible.

I want to pause here for a couple points. First, you may run across a few study guides suggesting that Mary commanding the servants to do as Jesus says is her way of showing her submission to Jesus. My Ryrie Study Bible is one such example. There may be good intentions here, but honestly, this can’t be the case. Jesus just said He wants nothing to do with the problem, and inferred Mary shouldn’t either. She’s forcing conflict here by bringing the servants into the mix and indirectly communicating with Jesus what she still expects from Him. The only thing she’s submitting to is her original intention: taking care of a problem that isn’t really her problem to solve.

The second thing I want to point out is predicament Jesus is in. On one hand He wants to love and honor His mother. But on the other hand, He desires to honor God the Father first and foremost. He must have knew only a miracle can solve this problem, providing sufficient quantity of wine for the number of guests. So, He mentions His hour has not come for He does not yet want to publicly show His divine power. Not only that, He already downgraded Mary’s status with Him by calling His mother, woman. He knew life was about to change drastically for both of them, and she needed to hear that the relationship was going to change. Afterall, Jesus was also Mary’s Lord and Savior. She had to transition to that relationship at some time. So, I believe Jesus wished to communicate that His will should be honored, and His desire to honor God’s timing should be respected, as well as communicate to Mary her new relationship with Him after His baptism. Only Mary doesn’t seem ready to hear any of this. Rather than reacting to Jesus calling her woman, and humbling herself or pleading with Him gently, she persists in her desire to see more wine brought to a wedding, and does so in an almost passive-aggressive maneuver to remind Jesus that she is His mother.

If we didn’t try to read this story by maintaining all the preconceived notions of Jesus and Mary’s flawless character traits, then I don’t believe we would come to the conclusion many have with this story. Let’s try recreating the example today between a young man and his mom and see what we think the tone and reactions are. The family is at a Sunday wedding and the liquor stores are closed. Mom learns the host is out of wine. She tells her son, “They have no wine.” The son says, “That’s not our problem, woman. I don’t want to get involved.” Rather than address why her son just called her woman, the persistent mom escalates the conflict by likely placing her hand on her hip, and points at the nearby servants and says, “Whatever he says to do, do it,” with a glare at her son. The son releases a deep sigh, and probably mutters, “oh, mother.” I mean after all, even Jesus became frustrated with His disciples, asking how long must He put up with them in Mark 9:19. Jesus was frustrated by different types of people. Adding a few details of gestures with this dialogue, and I don’t think anyone would read this transcript and go away with a notion that this relationship is tight. No, I think Mary probably frustrated Him here.

In true Jesus’ perfect fashion, He complied with His mother’s request, and creatively did so in a way to honor His Father by not making a public display of His divine power. And in His wisdom, He performed a secret miracle that not only honored Mary and the Father, but was also repurposed to gain trust of His disciples (see v11). 

If anything, I believe Jesus’ discourse with Mary was a mild rebuke. In short, He responds to her desire that it was not their problem, He addresses her as woman, and explains His hour had not yet come. His dialogue was short yet significant. She didn’t submit to Him, however. You know, we don’t hear much about Mary after this interaction. In John 2:12 it is recorded she left with Jesus after the wedding. But she is not mentioned again until the middle of Jesus’ ministry. In Luke 8:19-21, Mark 3:31-35, and Matt 12:46-50, Jesus’ mother and half-brothers sought to meet with Him. But because of the large crowds, they were unable to reach Him. So, they sent word through messengers to tell Jesus they were beyond the crowd wanting to speak with Him. Do you remember what His response was? He used this as a lesson to explain that whoever does the will of God is his brother, sister, and mother. There’s not a recording by any of these authors that He ever went out to meet with His mother and brothers. This does not sound to me that his immediate family was ready to follow Him as the Messiah, and possibly Mary was not yet on a firm foundation with Him. Rest assured, by the time Jesus was placed on the Cross, Mary had come around to seeing Jesus as Lord, not just a child to obey and honor her. 

Usually, it can take looking at an idea from multiple angles before one is persuaded. So I’d like to address another reason for seeing this interaction between Jesus and Mary as a mild rebuke of Mary is by comparing how Jesus commonly addresses other personal friends and family members. I’ve looked at as many instances I could find. Jesus praying for current and future disciples in John 17, Jesus’ prayer at Gethsemane recorded in Luke 22, or praying for salvation in John 12, in each instance Jesus addresses God, not as “God”, but as “Father.” Unless I’ve overlooked an example, it seems Jesus never used a generic, yet respectful address of God, or any of His other devout names, in direct address to God. He called Him Father. And in the Lord’s Prayer in either Matt 6 or Luke 11, Jesus teaches His disciples to refer to God as Father. This is worth noting. The cultural and religious method for Jesus to addresses God would be a method ensuring He does not take the Lord’s name in vain to prevent breaking the third of the 10 commandments; You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. This law was preventing more than swearing. Using the term God had to be done with reason and reverence. Many faithful Jews were not comfortable with even saying “God” to protect themselves from sinning. Having this fear is a likely reason why Matt varies from Mark and Luke when referring to same dialogue from Jesus. For example, in Matt 4:17, Matt says that Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Mark’s parallel passage in 1:15 states, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel.” Jesus likely used both phrases, as recorded in Matt 19, verses 23-24, which state, “And Jesus said to His disciples, ‘Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again, I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” So, Matt is not against using the phrase kingdom of God, but he certainly seems partial to using Kingdom of heaven when possible. Many believe this was due to his reverence to the third commandment. The point is, there was a cultural respect and religious expectation for using God’s name. Yet Jesus breaks down the barrier and tradition by introducing familial terms for all believers to call on God. He enforces the doctrine that Christians are adopted sons of God. We are His children, and He is our Father. And Jesus honorably, respectfully, and relationally, always addresses Him as Father.

Another example seems could be made from His addressing the disciples. I do not see an example of Jesus referring to His disciples and loved ones as “man” or “woman” outside of the two examples of Mary, His mother, and with Mary of Magdalene in John 20. The second occasion of calling His mother, woman occurs in John 19:26. The reason for this could be twofold. One, Gen 3:15 is called the protoevangelium; that is, the first gospel. In this verse, God says He will put enmity between the serpent and the woman. Jesus might be referring to this fulfilled prophecy while on the cross. The other reason of course, is because it is within context of His message to John and Mary. Mary was to find her relationship transferred from Jesus to John, who is now charged to take care of her. Yes, Jesus calls Mary, woman, in John 19, but this is a completely different setting than in John 2. Regarding the instance of Mary Magdalene, that was a special circumstance too. Jesus had just risen and Mary Magdalene was in despair. He intentionally concealed Himself from her at first, possibly to build suspense or test her. Once He desired to reveal Himself to her, He calls her by name.

In closing, I want to draw a parallel between Mary’s situation with Jesus and our relationship with Jesus. I think the gospel evidence is likely that Mary became a little too familiar with Jesus, the son she raised over the years. Perhaps she had difficulty accepting her new role, not as mother, but as servant. She once had angels speak to her and bless her. She was special; she was unique. But if Jesus could be tempted, then so could Mary. 

With limited details, we cannot be certain of how great the discord might have been between her and Jesus at the wedding. But this much I know. 1) Mary had to have sinned in her life (Rom 3:23), 2) woman is almost certainly not a respectful address from a son to his mother, and 3) the danger of getting too comfortable with a relationship with Jesus is real. 

It was John who recorded Jesus connecting obedience to love. John 14:15 says, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” The moral today is don’t get so comfortable with Jesus and the friendship He offers that you forget to see Him as Lord. 

That’s it for us today! I hope you enjoyed today’s message from God is Near. I pray our Father blesses your studies and increases your knowledge of Him. Hope you can join us again soon.