"On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." (John 2:1-2) It is doubtful than John the Baptist would have been invited. He of the harsh garments of camel's hair and the strange diet of locusts and wild honey. (Although the word translated "locust" in the Gospels probably refers to the fruit of the carob tree.) John was a thundering prophet, austere and ascetic, far removed from the ordinary events of daily life. Some scholars believe that John had taken the vows of a "Nazirite" and was something of a monk. Others, that he belonged for a period of time to the community of "Essenes" down by the Dead Sea. Either way, he would have been removed from such ordinary events as a wedding in a small town in the Galilee. I have a friend who visited a friend of his who had abandoned his wild and dissolute life to enter a monastery. He told my friend, "You know, I used to be a real live wire." To which my friend replied, not too tactfully, "Well, I see that you're pretty well insulated now!" John the Baptist was pretty well insulated from life. Even if he were invited to a wedding party, it would be doubtful that he would go. But the Fourth gospel records that Jesus was invited to one, and He went. And He seemed right at home. According to John, Jesus was the life of the party!

What was Jesus doing there, and why was He invited, anyway? That question has intrigued scholars over the centuries. Jesus must have had some special relationship to the bride and groom, for the Gospel says that His mother played a significant role in the whole affair. When the wine ran out, she had some responsibility and authority over the occasion, for she spoke to her Son about it, and even had authority to command the servants, "Do whatever He tells you." (John 2:5) That was odd. Whose wedding was it, anyway? There is an ancient Coptic version of the Gospel which never made it into our New Testament which says that it was the wedding of John, the son of Zebedee, and that John's wife was the cousin of Mary. That would explain a lot. You remember James and John, the two boys who worked with their father in the fishing business known as "Yohanan and Zebedee and Sons Fishing Industries, Inc."

Another possibility is that the wedding of one of Jesus' own brothers or sisters, for the Gospels record that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. Thus, it might have been a family affair. Later on, after the tradition that Mary never had any other children than Jesus began to take root in the Church, these brothers and sisters were called "cousins" or children of Joseph by a previous marriage, but the New Testament calls them brothers and sisters, and most Protestant scholars have been content to take the words at their face value. In any case, the Gospel says that Jesus was Mary's "first-born" Son, which seems to indicate that there were more children later on. (Cf. Luke 2:7)

One wonders where Joseph was in all of this. Another legend says that he had already died by this time, and that may be the reason why Jesus stayed at home so long - perhaps until He was thirty years of age or so - carrying on the family business, fulfilling the responsibility of the first-born Son. So it might have been the wedding of one of Jesus' brothers or sisters.

The most radical suggestion about the wedding at Cana comes from a Presbyterian writer named William Phipps who asks us to consider the possibility that Jesus Himself was married, and that the marriage at Cana was nothing less than Jesus' own wedding. Phipps argues primarily from circumstantial evidence, but he makes a good case. Why are we then never told anything about Jesus' wife in the Gospels? Well, we never hear much about the wives of any of the ancient personages in the Bible or in other ancient literature. Who can recall the name of Socrates' wife? (It was Xanthippe, but the name does not immediately come to mind.) And then there was the ancient bias against women. In the Gospels Jesus' brothers are named, but His sisters are not. We know that Peter was married, for Jesus healed his mother-in-law, but nowhere is recorded the name of his wife! So it would not be at all unusual for Jesus to have been married, and the name of His wife never mentioned. Some have even suggested that His wife was Mary Magdalene, but there is absolutely no evidence for this. Was Jesus married? I don't really care which way you vote on the question, but what troubles me is the fact that some people seem shocked to even consider the idea. They believe that somehow the unmarried state is more holy than the married one. That idea began to permeate the life of the Church long about the fourth century, due in no small part to the efforts of St. Augustine, but there are records that even the bishops were married in New Testament times! (Cf. I Timothy 3:2) "He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord." We might not wish to make that a universal rule, but on the whole, the Bible is in favor of marriage. In the Genesis account of Creation, it is only when God creates humankind "male and female" that God pronounces Creation "very good." (Genesis 1:31) Of everything else, God says simply, "It is good."

Was Jesus married? As I say, I don't really care which way you vote on the question, but we must always beware of the heresy of "Docetism" which insisted that Jesus only "seemed" to be human; He never really touched the same earth upon which you and I live. On the contrary, orthodox Christian theology has always said that He was really and truly a human being. For my own part, I have an idea that Jesus was invited to the wedding party at Cana in Galilee simply because He was a fun person to have at a party. This may come to some as an even greater shock than the notion that He might have been married! In the New Testament you can trace Jesus' progress through the country by the trail of joy which he left behind. Wherever He went, sorrows were healed, shadows lifted, diseases cured, spirits raised. One of the harshest accusations His enemies made against Him was that He seemed to be having too good a time to be taken seriously as a rabbi. He was always mingling with the wrong kinds of people, going to weddings and parties and such things. Jesus loved life, and could never understand those people who did not. He was not like the people who always bring their wet blankets to every party. He brought joy wherever He went. For Him life was a good gift from a loving God, and was to be savored and enjoyed to the full. He was continually amazed that so many people all around Him seemed to be wasting their lives groveling around on the ground, snatching the leftovers of life, when God's sumptuous banquet was spread before them. Indeed, that was Jesus' favorite metaphor for the Kingdom of God: a banquet, specially prepared, with you as the guest of honor!

Jesus' radiance rubbed off on His first disciples so much that at first people thought that they were drunk with wine, when they were merely intoxicated with the joyous love of God. (Acts 2) Now, the real question is: what happened to this picture of Jesus down through the ages, for this is not the usual picture most people have of Christ or of the Christian life. A lot of people picture God as a Cosmic Killjoy who is forever looking around to see whether anyone is having a good time so he can put a stop to it! What was it that H.L. Mencken called Puritanism? "The haunting feeling that somebody, somewhere, might be enjoying himself?" Jesus would never have understood that kind of religion. But where did we go wrong? How is it that Christians and the Christian Faith have gotten such a bad press? The Norwegian poet and playwright Henrik Ibsen in a play called Emperor and Galilean, which was written in 1873, has Julian, the pagan emperor of Rome in the fourth century say, "Have you looked at these Christians closely? Hollow-eyed, pale-checked, flat-breasted all;they brood their lives away, unspurred by ambition; the sun shines for them but they do not see it; the earth offers them its fullness, but they desire it not; all their desire is to renounce and suffer, that they may come to die." That may describe some Christians, but it certainly does not describe Jesus Christ! Jesus would never have recognized that version of Christianity. "A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," He was, certainly; but the primary impression he gave His contemporaries was that of unspeakable joy. "I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete," He said. (John 15:11) I can imagine that Jesus would have been an eagerly-sought-after guest to grace a wedding party. He might have been there at Cana in Galilee simply as a guest...One whose presence would guarantee that a good time would be had by all. In contrast to some of His later disciples, Jesus would not have been One to bring along His wet blanket to every party. How often He said that the kingdom of God is like a wedding feast to which we have been invited! Have we forgotten that beneath the cross and Bible hides a banquet table? There is one group of Christians who have not forgotten: they call themselves "The Fellowship of Merry Christians," and you can learn about their organization and even become a member by writing to them at: P.O. Box 895, Portage, MI 49081-0895. Their publication titled The Joyful Noiseletter is filled with good, clean humor, cartoons, and jokes which can even be used from the pulpit!

What was Jesus doing at the wedding? He may have been the most popular invited guest. Now comes the more difficult question: What did He do there? John tells us that it was at this wedding in Cana of Galilee that He performed the first of his "signs." "Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him." (John 2:11) What was this sign? The story seems pretty straightforward, but in John's Gospel we must always remember that the author often has more than one meaning for the events he describes.

It used to be a popular axiom among Biblical scholars that the thought forms of the Gospel of John were primarily Greek, but today we have come to appreciate the essential Jewishness of John. When he writes of events, whether in the Galilee or in Jerusalem, he knows whereof he speaks. For instance, he knows the customs of Jesus' day very well. He goes out of his way to explain them to his Jewish readers sometimes, for by the time this Gospel was written the good news of Jesus Christ had begun to permeate the Graeco-Roman world, and so he throws in little details that indicate he knew exactly what he was writing about. He says that the wedding at Cana took place "on the third day." The "third day" was the traditional day for Jewish weddings. They were usually held on Tuesday night, the third day of the week. Like the Quakers of more modern times they would never have thought of using the pagan names for the days of the week: "Sunday" for the sun-god, "Monday" for the moon-god, "Tuesday" for an ancient Teutonic god, the equivalent of Mars, the god of war, etc. No, they would say "First day," "Second day," "Third day," etc. And weddings would begin on the evening of the third day. Eagerly the guests would wait for the bridegroom to come, for he was the last to put in an appearance. (Remember Jesus' metaphors comparing Himself to the bridegroom and the Church as His bride; His story of the wise and foolish young women who were keeping their lamps burning for the bridegroom to come?)

In Jesus' day the wedding feast was the major celebration for families; perhaps the one most important event in their entire lives! They would begin with a great wedding banquet, and after the feast the bride and groom would be led to their new home, led the longest way possible through the streets, waking everybody up, walking under a canopy, wearing wedding garments and thrones upon their heads. They would be dressed up as king and queen and were given (we might say) the "keys to the city." They would be literally "king and queen for a week." Now, that sounds pretty good, right? But there's a catch. They had to hold open house for the first week of their marriage. That's not the most auspicious way to have a honeymoon! But that was the custom.

So, Jesus came at the right time, during the wedding feast on the first night, the evening of the third day of the week. But as soon as He arrived, there was a problem. The wine had run out just as the party was getting started. Some have even suggested that the shortage of wine occurred because Jesus and His friends "crashed the party," for He undoubtedly had with him the "Bethsaida Boys": Peter and Andrew, James and John and Philip, and probably Nathanael, for Cana was his home town. Jesus had been invited to the feast, but He arrived not alone, but with five guests or more. Five extra people might have caused complications for the wine steward. And the wine ran out. For a Jewish feast, wine was essential. Wine was the symbol of joy. "Without wine," the rabbis said, "there is no joy." William Barclay comments, "It was not that the people were drunken, but in the East wine was an essential. Drunkenness was in fact a great disgrace, and they actually drank their wine in a mixture of two parts wine to three parts water." ("Daily Study Bible," Phila.: The Westminster Press, 1956, p.97) At any time the failure of provisions would be a problem, for hospitality in the East is a sacred duty. For the provisions to fail at a wedding party would be a humiliation that would haunt the families who were the hosts for generations. So Mary comes to her Son Jesus, and tells Him about the problem. One wonders just exactly what she expected Him to do about it. Perhaps she was merely hinting that inasmuch as He and His fishermen friends had caused the shortage, the least that they could do is send out for more wine! One scholar suggests that it was really a broad hint that Jesus and His motley crew of friends should leave forthwith. John Calvin suggested that Mary wanted Jesus to make a speech and thereby relieve the situation. How effective that would have been, one can only speculate.

Scholars have also puzzled over what seems to be a rather rude reply on Jesus part to His mother's request: "Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come." (John 2:4b) All one can say is that the words appear harsher in English than they do in the Greek. Jesus used the same expression which we translate "woman" when he spoke to Mary tenderly from the cross, and turned her over to the care of John, the beloved disciple. "Woman, behold your son." A good modern translation might simply be, "Lady." Barclay translates Jesus' words, "Lady, let me handle this in my own way!"

And handle it He did! Some sort of miracle happened, and there was wine enough for all. I know, there are some Christians who think that Jesus got the whole thing backwards, and that he should have transformed the wine into water, considering what damage alcoholic beverages have done to people's lives over the years. To them all I can say is that in Jesus' day, as today among Jews, drinking wine was perfectly acceptable; drunkenness was not. But how do we explain the miracle? I have read several ingenious attempts to explain it away. Some suggest that the water jugs held some sediment in them from previous banquets, and the water was mixed with the grape sediment and by that time the guests were so far gone on the wine they had already drunk they didn't know the difference. Others suggest that Jesus performed something like mass hypnotism or auto-suggestion. There has even been fruitless debate over whether the wine was alcoholic or not, but I doubt that Jesus turned the water into Welch's grape juice or Kool-Aid! Still others wonder why Jesus would perform such a mundane "sign" when, during His temptations in the wilderness He specifically rejected the offer to try to win the world by doing miraculous "signs." Just two chapters later He rebukes those who come to Him only for the miraculous signs, saying that "Unless you see signs you will not believe!" (John 4:48)

For my part, I have no real problem with the miraculous element here. I find it perfectly in character that Jesus, who would not turn stones into bread for His own benefit, might very well turn water into wine in order to spare a poor family from embarrassment. Why should we doubt the miracle? Every Spring, in vineyards all over the world God does the same thing: drawing water up from the ground and transforming it into the pungent juice of the grape. C.S. Lewis argued that the God who through the natural order can turn water, soil, and sunshine plus grapes into juice which, under proper conditions, can become wine, could, through Christ, shorten the process. Maybe we should leave it to the poet who said, "The modest water saw its God and blushed!"

But John seems concerned about something even deeper here. Something more than merely a "miracle." For John, this was a "sign," that is, a teaching aid, something which points to something else, something deeper. We must look at the story from the Jewish point of view of the writer. In the Fourth gospel we often find that beneath the simple stories there lies a deeper meaning which is only open to those who have eyes to see. Sometimes it seems as though in all his Gospel John never wrote an unnecessary or insignificant detail. Everything seems to mean something more beneath the surface and all things appear to point beyond themselves. He says that there were six stone water pots. Why six? According to the Jewish tradition, seven is the number which is perfect and complete. Six is the number which is unfinished and imperfect. And the pots were for the Jewish rites of purification - that is, for religious ceremonial washings. If the family belonged to the Pharasaic school of Rabbi Shammai, they would have had to undergo seven ritual washings before eating. Jesus, however, came from a more "liberal" school, and His disciples washed but once, according to the Gospels. (Cf. Mark 7:5ff) Is John trying to tell us here that Jesus came to do away with the imperfections of the old Law and replace it with the new wine of the Gospel of Grace? I have a hunch that it is so.

Then there is the matter of the size of the jars. Each held 20-30 gallons. That is, the whole amount would be between 120-180 gallons of wine! Certainly more than any imaginable wedding party could possible use! Can it be that John is trying to tell us again that through Jesus Christ God provides us with far more than we can ever possibly need? Grace heaped on top of grace!

But the real miracle, of course, is that Jesus first chose to "reveal His glory" not by jumping off the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem where everybody could see it, nor in the courts of the Pharisees where wise men could debate over it, but in a sort of offhand way in a humble home in a village in Galilee which we cannot even identify with certainty on the map today. Some years ago David Redding, a Presbyterian writer, said, "Who could guess that He would fling away His first miracle as a lighthearted bouquet to romantic love and friendly laughter in the middle of a noisy wedding party?" Who, indeed?

Have you ever stopped to consider that from that day to this, almost every Christian marriage remembers this event? In the traditional wedding ceremony, the couple stand before the altar and the officiating clergyperson reminds them that marriage is a good thing, "which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified by His presence in Cana of Galilee." Why do we bring Christ into the wedding ceremony? Because if we would only bring Christ into our marriages, we would have better marriages! A few years back psychologist Dr. Joyce Brothers was quoted as saying that for about half of all American couples, marriage is a "quiet hell." Many other marriages have degenerated into a "tired friendship," as someone put it. I submit to you that this is a tragedy, and in order to prevent such tragedies, we ought to take the traditional marriage ritual seriously and invite Christ to be a guest at our weddings, just as He was invited to the wedding at Cana in Galilee. Above all, in this quaint and lovely little story, John is proclaiming the Good News that Jesus Christ is the Life of every party, that he is the one who livens things up, brings life abundant for all, even anonymous brides and bridegrooms in an out-of-the-way peasant village located somewhere (where, we are not sure) in the Galilee. As William Barclay put it in his commentary on this passage: "...whenever Jesus comes into our lives there enters a quality which is like turning water into wine. The trouble with life is that we get bored with it. Pleasure loses its thrill. there is a vague dissatisfaction about everything. But when Jesus enters our lives there comes a new exhilaration!"

The most ancient tradition says that the author of the Fourth Gospel wrote near the end of his life, reflecting upon the wondrous events that he had witnessed, and trying to put it all into perspective. Then he affirms his faith that God actually does save the best wine until the last, for Jesus is not only "the life of the party" at a wedding back there somewhere in the Galilee, He is also the Life of all life, the One who continually brings meaning and hope and joy to millions who believe in Him throughout all of the ages. And so our short visit to Cana in Galilee fades away into a rich sunset of color as we see the puzzled wine steward slowly twisting his cup in his hand and shaking his head with wonder, and asking himself, "Who is this strange Galilean who can do such mighty works?" At the conclusion of his book The Feast of Fools, Harvard theologian Harvey Cox gives us the happy reminder that our destiny is not simply a place "where injustice is abolished and there is no more crying. It is a city in which a delightful wedding feast is in progress, where the laughter rings out, the dance has just begun, and the best wine is still to be served!" Thanks be to God. Amen.