Now on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. – John 2:1a (NET)
At the beginning of this story, we find that “Jesus and His disciples” (John 2:2a) were invited to this wedding and its associated feast. Quickly, we encounter the fact that there was a problem, which was that “the wine ran out” (2:3a). For some reason, this was of some concern to Jesus’ mother, so she took it upon herself to inform Him that “They have no wine left” (2:3b). Apparently, there was something about Jesus’ personality and character that caused His mother to think that Jesus would be interested in addressing this pressing issue. Jesus’ mother believed that Jesus would fix this problem.
At least initially, Jesus does not sense that this is an issue in which He wants to involve Himself, saying, “Woman, why are you saying this to Me? My time has not yet come” (2:4). Even though Jesus says this, Mary believes, with this apparently based on what she knows about her Son, that He is going to do something. She “told the servants, ‘Whatever He tells you, do it.’” (2:5) Most likely, though one knows not how long, some time elapsed between the time at which Mary speaks to the servants and Jesus’ act of intervention in the problem at hand. Eventually, and though we are not necessarily provided with an overt reason, Jesus is spurred into action. For some reason, though He had seemed uninterested when first told of the wine shortage, Jesus takes action to correct the situation.
Why is the fact that there is no wine a problem? Why is Mary concerned with this? Why does she think Jesus will be interested in involving Himself? Why does the author of this Gospel see fit to include this story? The answers to these questions come through an examination of the setting and the culture. In the end, this becomes an opportunity for Jesus to provide instruction to those in attendance, and ultimately, the author of John finds it useful to include this story because it serves to provide elucidating information about the nature of Jesus’ kingdom and His mission.
In order to understand the goings-on here in Cana, we must take it upon ourselves to understand the nature of feasts in the world occupied by Jesus. When it came to feasts, there were rules in place for the table. Meals were, for all practical purposes, miniaturized pictures of the society, and there were rules (unwritten) governing association and socialization. The positioning of guests around a table was a demonstration of social hierarchy and political differentiation. What was quite common in the ancient world, which we can safely presume was present at this particular meal as a matter of course, was a u-shaped table known as a “triclinium.” Banquets were organized around this table, using dining couches, with the host sitting at the center of the bottom of the “u”, with the two most prominent positions to the right and to the left of the host. Accordingly, the least honorable seats would be located at the end of the table. Thus, the banquet table in the ancient world would be an effective microcosm of the stratifications of the existing social order.
So how does this visible social stratification at the banqueting table have any bearing on Jesus turning the water into wine? It has much to do with the “when” of the miracle. To understand the significance of what has happened, and to continue layering in levels of understanding, we’ll need to do some historical contextualizing so as to recover an aspect of the ancient world and its feasts that has been almost completely lost in the western world. To do so, we turn first to Pliny the younger, a magistrate of ancient Rome, who lived from the late first century into the early second century. He wrote about feasts and community meals in and before his day, and his report speaks to the social order that is demonstrable in the service progressions in the meals. In reference to a meal at which he was an honored guest, Pliny writes: “Some very elegant dishes were served up to himself and a few more of the company; while those which were placed before the rest were cheap and paltry. He apportioned in small flagons three different sorts of wines; but it was not that the guests might take their choice: on the contrary, that they might not choose at all. One was for himself and me; the next for his friends of lower order (for you must know the measures of friendship according to degrees of quality; and the third for his own free men.”
What Pliny here describes is quite common, and we can see how this report might be applied to the wedding feat at Cana and the turning of the water into wine. Pliny makes the point that, while there were three different sorts of wines presented to the table, one should not be deluded into thinking that each person at the table was going to be able to choose which of the three wines they were going to take for themselves. If all were looked upon as equals, this might be the case, but this was not the prevailing situation. Again, there were clear delineations made between and among guests. In case the seating position relative to the host was not a sufficient indicator to a person of his societal ranking, the quality of the food and wine which he would find offered to him would be a yet further indicator. Naturally, the host would have the finest wine and food served to his most honored guests, with the lesser wine served to those that were slightly less honorable (in this honor and shame society), with the poorest quality wine and food offered to those that were the least honorable, who also would have been seated the furthest away from him at the u-shaped table, if they were seated at the table at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment