My Hour Has Not Yet Come: An Exposition of John 2:1-12

My Hour Has not Yet Come: An Exposition of John 2:1-12. On the surface, this passage is a cute story which demonstrates the compassion Mary and Jesus had on a bridegroom and his family when they ran out of wine at a wedding feast. When it is preached this way, emphasis is placed upon Mary’s intercession to what seems a somewhat reluctant Jesus to do something about it. This text is applied by an appeal to intercessory prayer. And this is certainly valid. Others would say that we need to help the poor to take away their shame. Again, this is valid. But there is more to this text than that. The passage begins with another time marker. The previous three had said “on the next day.” Here it says: “on the third day.” If this refers to the end of chapter one, this would have been the third day after the calling of Phillip and Nathaniel. Scholars such as Warren Gage have another take on the term “on the third day” and say that this is a reference to the third day on which Jesus rose from the dead. This opens up the text to allegorical treatment where the details of this story all point to something else. In support of this is at the end of the passage, John tells us that this is the first of signs which Jesus performed. There are seven of these signs in the gospel, although John implies that he could have added many more. Seven is the number of completion. So should we treat this as an allegory? In answer to this, we must realize that a sign points to another reality. But the sign has its own reality in itself. The event literally happened as recorded. It has its own story to tell. But a literal event can point to a greater reality as well. An allegory says that every detail in the story has a deeper meaning. I would hesitate to agree with this. But we must be open to details that point to the greater story of Jesus. The text says that on this day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee. When we look at verse 12, it says that Mary, Jesus’ brethren and His disciples returned home to Capernaum. From what we understand of the wedding practice of that day, the extended family of the bride travelled to the town of the groom. So the bride was related in some way to Mary. It was the groom who was responsible to provide a feast large enough to feed two villages who came together for the wedding. This amounted to quite an expense. After the engagement and before the wedding, the groom’s responsibility was to add a room to his father’s house for the new couple to live and to provide for the feast. It would certainly be shameful in that culture if proper preparations had not been made. The bride’s family was to remain on watch until the broom and the best man came back to the bride’s family. Then the village would go out and follow them to the groom’s town. Some have suggested that the groom’s family miscalculated on the amount of wine needed and that this was due to Jesus bringing extra guests (His disciples) to the feast. However, it seems that the calculations were considerably short of what was needed. Perhaps the groom’s family was financially stressed. What we do know is that the wine ran out in the midst of the feast. Wine was a symbol of joy in what was a hard Palestinian life. The text implies that the guests became quite drunk at these feasts. If they were drunk, they might not have noticed the lack of wine so much. Or really cheap wine might have been brought out in the hope no one would notice. Maybe an uncle of the groom had some ordinary wine which could have been brought to the feast. The trouble is that the guests, at least the master of the feast, was able to distinguish good wine from bad. Mary had become aware that the wine had run out. The grooms family would have done everything to conceal this shameful fact from the bride’s family. So by the time Mary had found out about it, the word had already gotten out. The groom and his family were already shamed. Mary intercedes by coming to Jesus for help. The bride’s family did not bring a cart of wine with them of course. By natural means, there was nothing that Jesus could have done. Even if there was a stash of wine in Capernaum, it would have taken hours to retrieve it. Some cynics could accuse Mary of spreading gossip as though she was telling Jesus and everyone else about the shameful lack. This is not the case. Mary knew there was something special about her son. The gospel of John is silent about the physical birth of Jesus, but Matthew and Luke fill us in on the details. She came to Jesus knowing that Jesus could fix the problem. At this point, he had done no miracles, and the much later accounts of Jesus doing signs and miracles as a child is fantasy. Jesus’ answer to her as translated into English seems to show some annoyance to Mary’s request. He doesn’t address her as “mom” but as “woman.” In a feast that represented the establishment of new family relations, it seems a bit cold and impersonal. The words that follow carry the sense of “What do you want me to do about it” or even “Why should I intervene?” Allowing that some of this tension is due to translation distortions in which Jesus’ answer was not as harsh as it sounds, it is still quite odd. Then Jesus says “My hour has not yet come.” In the context of the story, it could be understood as saying, “I am not ready to begin working miracles” or “it is not yet the proper time.” But Mary is undeterred by the answer and speaks very appropriate words to the servants and us. “Whatsoever he tells you to do, do it.” The historical present “She says” is used. As we have learned from the historical present, it is a literary device to immerse us into the story. We must be seen as one of the servants to whom Mary speaks. We must obey the words of Jesus. Who are these servants? The presence of servants at the feast could indicate that the groom’s family was wealthy enough to hire servants which would make them look quite bad. If this is true, then they were cheap and quite worthy of shame. They tried to do hospitality on a dime rather than lavish on the guests. Churches who have the means of showing hospitality to the poor and distressed are often guilty of this. Churches will spend lots of money on ministries and buildings which improve them. Yet when it comes to helping people we should see as guests, we throw a little change their way. This showing of favoritism was a great problem. James had to deal with it as well as other New Testament writers. And we struggle with this too. The servants obey, and Jesus directs them to fill six large waterpots with water which they did. Then he commanded them to draw out some and give it to the chief steward of the feast. It is interesting that this word “draw” occurs later in the gospel as the Father’s drawing of believers. They bring this to the man appointed to oversee the feast, and he tasted it. He was astonished that the wine was so good. He probably knew that the wine had run out and the groom’s family was desperately searching for more. He also was shrewd enough to know what was normally done in that situation. Get enough good wine to get them drunk, and then they would not be able to discern that poor-quality wine was brought out later. This is the way the world works. The bridegroom is called and rebuked for reserving toe good wine and only to offer the guests poor wine. He did not know what Jesus had done. The servants knew they had filled the pots with water, quite a task as that was over 100 gallons of water which would have had to have been brought up from a well or from the nearby Sea of Galilee. Now this water was excellent wine. Did they know the water had become wine? They must have. They could see the color and smell the bouquet of fine wine. “You! You have held back to best wine until last!” This is a strong rebuke. It was almost a greater shame that the groom’s family had held back the good wine until all the cheap wine had been used up. This could be an accusation the Jews could have brought against God concerning Jesus. As the writer of Hebrews stated, God had indeed spoken in the Old Testament, but only in bits and pieces. Even the Law of Moses, which is truly God’s eternal Word stood incomplete until the revelation of Jesus. The people had drunk but were not satisfied. But God had His reasons. After the miracle, it says that because of this first sign that His disciples believed on Him. This is the purpose of the signs. For those whom the sign was given, it is to draw them to faith. This is what should happen to us when we read of the signs which Jesus did. The entire purpose of the gospel is to have people believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. For those like Thomas who doubled, these signs were to remove doubt and confirm a weak and wavering faith. For others, it becomes the drawing into a new relationship with God. The text ends with Jesus, His brothers who did not yet believe on Him, and the disciples who did believe on Him went home to the town of Capernaum. There they remained for some time. Why does John include what seems like an insignificant detail? It is left out of the lectionary reading, for example. Was it because that this first sign was a long time before Jesus was supposed to start working signs? Perhaps a better answer can be made by comparing it to Luke 2:41-52. There the young boy Jesus at the age of 12 had so astonished the Rabbis at the Temple that Jesus was actually teaching them. It was He who was seated, and the Rabbis standing around Him. His parents were annoyed that Jesus had remained behind and rebuke Him. Jesus’ response was to tell them that they should have known that He would be in His Father’s house. Jesus’ teaching the Rabbis was a sign of future greatness. Yet He submitted to Joseph and Mary and returned. There He remained with them for a long time. We should look at Jesus’s response to His mother’s rebuke as saying that He had come to do the will of His Father, not his mother. And this is the point here in this passage when Jesus answers His mother “What have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come.” He had come to do His Father’s will, not His mother’s. The term “hour” is used throughout John to refer to the hour of the cross. At chapter 13, he knew that this hour had come. He had loved His own to the telos (end). Pretty soon, Jesus would say “teteleka” (It is finished.). The true definition of God’s love is revealed at the cross, where all who believe on Him become part of His intimate family. It is a time of new family relations. It is His family that is represented at the Passover by the disciples and not His earthly family. So Jesus in chapter 2 returns home with his natural and new family. He stays with His mother for a little while longer. Let us not go to the scene of the cross. Here Jesus addresses His mother with the same “woman.” It is the only other use of the word in John. She would have remembered this odd form of address, as she is recorded as treasuring the sayings of Jesus in her heart. What is being said is that this is the reason that He came, to do the will of His Father, not His mother. When we understand this, it clarifies what Jesus said to His mother in the second chapter. On the cross, he leaves Mary in the hands of John, and not His earthly brothers and sisters who were still unbelievers. We see a new understanding of family. Mary, your first identification must be with your Christian family and not your natural family. The Bible says that when our mother and father forsake us, the Lord will receive us. Sometimes our witness will cause us to be distanced from our natural family or even disowned. Jesus talks openly about this. Sometimes we can get along with both families, at least for a while. But when we must decide, we need to follow our heavenly Father and not our earthly parents.