Skip to main content

Jesus And The Disciples At A Wedding At Cana (John 2:1-12)

 Weddings in this time and place were big social events. Distant family, neighbors, and friends were all expected to come. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph may well have been related somehow to the couple.

Also in this time, the wedding celebration lasted about a week. This culture was even more an "honor-shame" culture than our own. It would have been a huge social embarrassment for the family to run out of food or wine. So Mary steps in. It's awfully hard for any decent son to say no to his mother, especially when she recognizes the problem, and knows Jesus can help.

Why does Jesus answer the way he does? Isn't he speaking harshly to his own mother? No; Jesus does know, however, that when he does this miracle, attention and opposition will be drawn to him. Jesus is concerned that everything will begin to happen sooner than it ought to. In the end, I suppose Jesus understood from the Father that he could do this, without disrupting the Father's plan.

Also, there is a spiritual mystery in Jesus addressing his mother as, "woman". In the same way that Adam had a partner in Eve, Jesus has a partner in his mother Mary. St. Paul will tell us later that Jesus is the new Adam (see Romans 5). Like the new Adam, the new Eve succeeds where the old Eve failed.

One other bit of background explains why Jesus answers the way he does. In the Old Testament, wine was a symbol of God's generosity and favor. Jesus is saying that it's not quite time to celebrate yet. It will be, but not yet. Even so, Jesus does the miracle.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...
Post a Comment
Read more

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...
Post a Comment
Read more