This sign is often used in the following way. Vs 11 is quoted with the question ‘To what extent does this verse accurately reflect the purpose of signs in the 4^th Gospel?’

So we’ll look at this aspect first, dears. Remember that we must always begin with what it says in Ch 20 vs 30-31. So I suggest you get out a bible, have markers in both passages, and let’s compare what the two say.

Firstly, both passages refer to signs. Specifically, in Ch 2vs11, this incident is referred to as ‘a sign’. So it’s pointing to Jesus, and saying somehing about His power, his authority and/or His identity.

Secondly, Ch 2 vs 11 says that in this sign, Jesus ‘manifested His Glory'. This word ‘glory’ always refers to Jesus relationship with the Father, so we should be thinking ‘Messiah (Christ)’, and pre-existent ‘Son of God’ 20vs31.

Finally, Both passages refer to belief. Notice, however, that whereas in Ch 20 vs 30-31, the signs are written that Notice, however, that whereas in Ch 20 vs 30-31, the signs are written that YOU may believe, in Ch 2 vs 11, the sign elicits belief from Jesus’ disciples.

You ought by now to have some idea of the way this question is going. Ch2 vs 11 clearly contains some vital truths about the purpose of signs, but there may be other points that need to be considered, and the signs are intended to be more than just proofs for people who are already disciples of Christ.

We’ll now explore these points with reference to the sign itself.

This event is a sign, not only because it involves a clearly supernatural occurrence, but because it points to truths about Jesus, specifically, His Glory. The two aspects of this can be divided into Messiahship (his Authority) and Sonship (Identity).

For Messiahship we need to consider any possible OT clues. The context gives the first one – a wedding. As Israel is fairly often identified as God’s bride (see Hosea, for example), the wedding banquet is often used as an eschatological sign, and that doesn’t take into account the obvious Messianic Banquet symbolism, either! Some Johannine irony here, because Jesus is attending the wedding as a guest, when in fact He is the ‘True Bridegroom’, the consummation of the hopes of Israel as expressed in the OT prophecies. The point is made clearly by John the Baptist in the next chapter 3:26-30, where John identifies Jesus as ‘the bridegroom’. Scholars point out that there is no tradition in the OT of the Messiah being the bridegroom, but I’m not so sure. What about the Song of Solomon, where the bride was widely regarded as being the nation of Israel, or even the heartbreakingly lovely passage in Isaiah 62 vs 1-5 (often read out at Midnight Mass as the OT reading), with its marriage and consummation background to the redemption of Israel?

So Jesus is truly the one promised by Moses in Deuteronomy 19:15 & 19, a prophet who will be raised up from among the people of Israel, one like Moses.

The second clue is the use of Jewish items. The water jars were one used to gather rainwater for the Mikveh – the bath used for the ritual washing of household items, and people. When pilgrims went to offer sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem, the first thing they did was to enter the mikvot. There were enormous reservoirs in Jerusalem to service them. They symbolised the purity needed to enter God’s presence in order to offer the requisite sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins according to the Torah. We can therefore surmise that the sign has something to do with what one has to do to enter God’s presence.

The third point is to do with the nature of the act performed by Jesus. He transforms one thing into another. Only the one who has creative power over nature can have the authority to perform such an act, and this suggests that the man Jesus shares, therefore in the creative nature of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and Moses.) Moses certainly acted on God’s instructions in the wilderness to provide water for the Israelites when he struck the rock, but he never had authority to perform such a miracle as this. Jesus act shows that His power and authority has a quality that Moses’ never had. He has superseded Moses in both. He is not just a prophet, he is the pre-existent, creator God made flesh.

Finally, we have the number of waterpots – six. Now some people might want to say that there are six in the story because there were actually six there. They may be right. But elsewhere John’s use of symbolism is so self-conscious that I think probably we are intended to take meaning from this. In Jewish tradition, six was the number of days on which God worked in creation (another clue as to Jesus’ identity). It is also the number of humanity, and one short of the ‘perfect number’ – seven, thus the number of incompleteness. Most scholars are inclined to think that all these elements are trying to point to the incomplete nature of Torah and Temple ritual in providing a way to God. God has now provided His own way, Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. In order to reach God, people no longer have to go to the Temple. Instead they must come to Jesus, the Messiah, the anointed one of God, the Creative Logos made flesh. It is no coincidence that the prophetic act of destruction of the Temple (Cleansing of Temple) follows immediately after this sign. The temple, with its reliance on the Torah of Moses, and its ritual, will be destroyed. But the Body of Jesus, the new temple will be raised incorruptible three days after its ‘destruction’. (Ch2: 13-22)

So here, we have a forerunner of the Messianic Banquet of Isa. Ch 35, where the Messiah, Israel’s Bridegroom, serves good wine, aged on the lees to His Guests, and his disciples believed in Him. Not everyone, you notice. (Jesus’ mother believed in Him even before He did this sign.) When addressing the possible essay question above, you should contrast the wider faith brief of Ch 20v31 with 2:11, but to some extent, at least, 2:11 does provide insight into the nature and purpose of signs.

But there is more to be gleaned from the sign that this. Three issues strike me particularly. The first is the place of Temple worship and Torah observance now that Jesus, the Messiah has declared his authority and credentials. You could say that this is linked to believing that ‘the Messiah is Jesus’, and so it is, but it goes a little further. The ‘water’ of purification has been replaced by the ‘new wine’ of the Messiah coming to gather His people. Moses has been at once fulfilled and superseded by Jesus.

The second is a lesson about discipleship. In 2:1 the 4^th Evangelist says ‘On the third day …’ Well, apart from the obvious ‘third day’ in the gospels (of which more later) it is the third day of Jesus gathering disciples around him. Here Jesus, as Marsh says, is ‘the bridegroom coming for his bride, and (he) has indeed begun to find a response in thefollowing of the disciples.’ The Messiah must have a Messianic people. So although we have no developed ecclesiology (theology of the Church, dears) in John, nevertheless, we do have a community gathering about him which will develop into the Church.

The third element is sacramentalism. John does not give his readers an account of the Institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. However, he does not ignore the Eucharist, but comments upon it in several places, including here. Later, he will (in Ch. 6) expound upon the necessity to ‘eat’ His flesh and ‘drink’ his Blood. Here, John tells his readers that whilst the water of Judaism has done up to now, it is the wine of Jesus’ blood which is necessary for ‘knowing God’ from now on.

Which brings me to the last point in this section, one to which I shall return in all the signs. It is always a good idea to refer back to the prologue and forward to the passion/resurrection narratives to place the signs in the context of the whole gospel. In the case of the water into wine, I think that the parts of the Prologue that are most helpful to consider are Ch 1vs 1-3, in which the Logos’ part in creation is described, and vs 17-18 in which Jesus is specifically contrasted with Moses, are particularly relevant. There are two verses which direct the reader forward towards the Passion/ Resurrection narrative – "2vs1 – ‘on the third day’ (well I said I’d return to this) and vs 4 ‘My hour has not yet come’, which refers to the passion. This sign, then is, as Marsh says, a symbol of ‘that final event which would also take place ‘on the third day’, when the final glory of the Son would be manifested, and belief could be claimed of all men in his name.’

1. It is not recorded in the Synoptic gospels. But it does interpret certain concepts to be found in them, eg. Jesus as heavenly bridegroom, the Eucharist, the relationship of Jesus to Moses, the Father etc.
2. R Browne, B Lindars and others suggest that this story has its origins in apocryphal tales (legends) about Jesus prior to his public ministry (like stories of miracles performed in his childhood recorded in various apocryphal gospels.) Reasons for this are (1) In the synoptic tradition, Jesus does not perform miracles in the Galilean Highlands because of the lack of faith of the people. (2) Jesus does not appear to have ‘left home’ in this account (3) His mother appears to have expected him to use his miraculous powers here where elsewhere she does not appear to have any faith in him (see Mark 3:31-15)
3. The nature of the miracle, in creating 120-180 gallons of wine for a wedding out of water seems a bit far fetched for many readers.
4. Given ‘3’ above, it is perfectly possible for the 20^th Reader to glean much theological truth from the narrative with perfect integrity even allowing for a mythical source. (I bet some of you won’t agree with that one!)

On the other hand (as Tevye would say – you haven’t watched Fiddler on the Roof?? Why not??)

1. The gospel claims eyewitness sources for its reliability.
2. Why shouldn’t Jesus intervene to save friends and (possibly) family from an extremely embarrassing situation if there was something he could do to help?
3. Why shouldn’t the creative Logos be generous in providing lots of (jolly good) wine for a party. We know from the Synoptics that he enjoyed parties. In fact, that’s what adds the ring of truth to me. It was such an unnecessary act of generosity – just like God.
4. Details of the story (the mikvot, the convention of the steward of the feast, the location at the groom’s house etc) smack of 1^st C. Palestine.
5. Is it really so difficult to believe that Jesus could do unusual things if He is who he claims to be?

It’s for you to decide.

Return to Sign Base Page