A Latin poet named Martial, who lived just a few years after the time of Jesus, provides us with yet another interesting picture of the honor and shame culture that played out at the banqueting tables of the ancient world. From his work we read: “Since I am asked to dinner… why is not the same dinner served to me as to you? You take oysters fattened in the Lucrine lake, I suck a mussel through a hole in the shell; you get mushrooms, I take hog funguses; you tackle turbot, but I brill. Golden with fat, a turtle-dove gorges you with its bloated rump; there is set before me magpie that has died in its cage. Why do I recline with you?” It is easy to observe that there is a significant dichotomy of quality at work here. By now, can we not begin to make the mental analogy to Jesus’ conversion of water into wine?
As we consider what has been reported by both Pliny and Martial, and as we attempt to thrust ourselves into that foreign and ancient world of which we know woefully little, would we not find ourselves amazed---indeed, would not all those in attendance at such a function find themselves amazed if the best food and the premium wine was served at the end of the banquet? Yes, we would, because such a thing would be a scandalous reversal of the expectations of those in attendance. Is that not what happens in Cana? Let’s look at the text, doing so with a far better mental framework by which to gain proper context as we do. Remember, Jesus was initially unconcerned, but eventually involves Himself in the situation that has been brought to His attention by His mother. When He finally gets involved, “Jesus told the servants, ‘Fill the water jars with water.’ So they filled them up to the very top. Then He told them, ‘Now draw some out and take it to the head steward,’ and they did. When the head steward tasted the water that had been turned to wine, not knowing where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), he called the bridegroom and said to him, ‘Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the cheaper wine when the guests are drunk. You have kept the good wine until now!’” (John 2:7-10)
As we read this passage, let us be sure to avoid falling into the trap of thinking about parties in contemporary terms, thereby applying anachronisms or ideas too broadly that might naturally occur to us. This is not an issue of simply throwing a party, making sure that everybody at the party gets the good drinks first, and then, once everybody at the entire party is drunk, bringing out the lower quality beverages, doing so at a time when people are less likely to care what they are imbibing. This is, quite simply, not the situation at hand in Cana. There is an order of quality and an order of service, with the best food, and the largest amount of food, along with the best and largest amount of wine, going to the more honored or honorable guests, with the guests at the far end of the table, and therefore at the lower end of the social spectrum, left with items of much lower quality.
Jesus has created a problematic situation for all involved. This should not be overlooked. We tend to romanticize the words of Scripture that we have just read, looking at them through goggles that distort the image that would have been easily seen and obvious to the first century author, reader, and hearer. That distorted image has us seeing and hearing the head steward going to the bridegroom and offering him a compliment in regards to his generosity and his unexpected grace, which is put on display by lavishing the best wine upon his guests at the end of his party, clearly sparing no expense in so doing. From there, we make an analogy about the grace of God, as shown through Jesus, and perhaps even toss around a couple of ideas about the law as good wine, gifted by God, whereas the Gospel is an even better wine that has been saved for the end, therefore placing Jesus in the role of head steward, God the Father as the obviously generous bridegroom, with the servants that filled the purification jars (now clearly representing the strictures of the law---with an associated new wine versus old wineskin paradigm) representing the church, and the historical Jesus that speaks to the servants now functioning as more of a Holy Spirit figure, commanding the servants (the church).
This sets off something of a spiritualized, proof-texting binge in which we take this miracle and fold it up with other miracle reports in the Gospels as little more than evidences of the divinity of Jesus, as if the Gospels were merely meant to function in such a way. In an even more entertaining venture, some attempt to use this event as Jesus’ own approbation of drinking alcoholic beverages, as if this occurrence was God’s way of legitimating a questionable activity. Amazingly, and in the same vein, some individuals, with equally narrow fields of vision as those who actually want to use this event as a sanction for the drinking of wine, endeavor to employ the miracle at this wedding feast as a polemic against the drinking of alcohol. As surprising and antithetical as that may sound, the claim is made with the argument running along the lines of “because the wine was new, it had not had time to ferment and was therefore non-alcoholic, meaning that it was nothing more than grape juice, which is Jesus’ (and therefore God’s) way of informing us that this, since this ‘wine’ (though it’s really just grape juice) is clearly recognized as being better than what had gotten everybody drunk to that point, this is what God would prefer His people imbibe from this point.” Both sides, of course, are equally ridiculous. Any attempts to draw inferences for Christian practice in the area of beverage consumption from this miraculous intervention by Jesus and its presentation by the author of John, is an exercise in missing the point.
No comments:
Post a Comment