Water Into Wine (part 5)

It has been previously said that Jesus created a problematic situation.  What was that situation?  Why was it problematic?  Was it a problem for Jesus?  Responding to the last question first, the answer is “no,” it was not a problem for Jesus at all, at least directly.  It could be an indirect source of problems for Him, which will come to be understood as this analysis is continued. 

So it was not a problem for Jesus, but rather, it was a problem for the bridegroom, who was the host of the meal.  How was it a problem for him?  One would think that Jesus had solved a problem rather than creating one, but reaching that conclusion would be unfortunately short-sighted and fail to take cultural norms into consideration.  At least initially, if the story is viewed from too great a distance, one might be tempted to think that the bridegroom would be appreciative of Jesus’ actions, as He intervenes to “save” the party (at least according to a customary way of thinking), but it is useful to be quickly disabused of this notion. 

One should not look at the fact that His mother presents the information that the party had run out of wine as indicative of a problem that the bridegroom would be looking to rectify, as the fact that they had run out of wine would actually be of no real concern to either the head steward of the party or the bridegroom himself.  Running out of food and wine was a common occurrence, and based on what is revealed later in this story, would have hardly constituted an emergency for this particular event.  Sometimes, guests who were slated for service later in the function would receive nothing at all, and this was simply accepted as part of the prevailing meal culture that was a subsidiary of the honor and shame culture.  It might very well be the case that Jesus, His mother, and His disciples were going to be part of the group that would not have received any wine, as, remembering Pliny and Martial, it is possible that they were sitting at the “wrong end” of the table. 

With this in mind then, and this has been said before, it is necessary to look at this as a situation into which she believed Jesus would want to enter, based upon what she knew about her Son, and about His conception of the kingdom of God which He is said to have preached.  One might even be able to surmise an intrusion of her own sense of His status as Messiah, and based upon that, her interpretation of the great messianic banquet of Isaiah, with this interpretation possibly informed by Jesus’ own thoughts on such (though this is pure and unsupported speculation). 

Again, the fact that there is no wine is not a problem.  Why is that?  It is not a problem because the bridegroom would, presumably, though he would have some type of concern for the enjoyment of all of his guests, be most concerned with providing wine and food to the most honored guests, which had (again, relying on the way the story unfolds) already taken place.  As the service of food and wine reached further and further away from his seat and that of his honored guests, so too would his concern with their provisions recede.  As long as a certain group of individuals had been able to eat and drink to their heart’s content, all was well.  The wedding feast would be looked upon as a success. 

Additionally, it must be pointed out that the bridegroom was now going to gain stature in the community due to the fact of his marriage.  That can be coupled with a successful wedding feast, which would also contribute to his and his family’s enhanced stature in the community.  Because Jesus has done what He has done, this is now at risk of being undone.  The bridegroom, while he is lounging at the banqueting couch with his honored guests, is being unknowingly put at risk of a diminished stature in the community.  How is this so?  It is because the best wine is now being served at the end of the banquet to the less honorable guests.  

Water Into Wine (part 3)

A Latin poet named Martial, who lived just a few years after the time of Jesus, provides yet another interesting illustration of the honor and shame culture that played out at the banqueting tables of the ancient world.  In his work one finds: “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 a simple thing to observe that there is a significant dichotomy of quality at play here in this setting.  By now, one should be able to begin making the mental analogy to Jesus’ conversion of water into wine? 

Considering what has been reported by both Pliny and Martial, and as one attempts to take up a position of observation and participation in that foreign and ancient world of which woefully little is known by most readers of Scripture, one would simply be amazed---indeed, all those in attendance at such a function would find themselves amazed if the very best food and the premium wine was served at the tail end of the banquet?  Amazement would be the order of the day, and the fact that such a thing happened would be the talk of the town for weeks on end, because such a thing would be a scandalous reversal of the expectations of those in attendance, and it would fly in the face of cultural norms.. 

So is that not what happens in Cana?  It is now possible to look at the story with a far better mental construct from which to operate.  Remember, Jesus was initially unconcerned but eventually involves Himself in the situation that has been brought to His attention by His mother.  When He does finally get 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 this passage is considered, the reader must 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 based on experiences that would be foreign to the Scriptural setting.  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 and doing so at a time when attendees are less likely to care what they are imbibing.  This is, quite simply, not the situation at hand in Cana. 

As indicated by both Pliny and Martial, and as would be understood by all that would observe the events firsthand or learn about them secondhand (through the oral telling or the written Gospel record), there is an order of quality and an order of service.  The best food and the largest amount of food, along with the best and largest amount of wine, would as a matter of course go 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 (less honor), left with items of much lower quality.

Water Into Wine (part 2)

Returning then to the wedding banquet that Jesus would have been attending, with it taking place in the context of a culture that overtly operated on the premises of honor and shame, those considered to be possessive of the least amount of honor would be seated at the far 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 would seem that 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, it is necessary to do some historical contextualizing so as to recover an aspect of the ancient world and its feasts that has been almost completely lost to the modern, western world. 

This effort at contextualization turns first to Pliny the younger, a magistrate of ancient Rome, who lived from the late first century into the early second century.  As a part of his writings, he provided information about feasts and community meals in and before his day, and his reports speak 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 (and so would have been seated adjacent to or quite near the host), 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 one can see how this report might be applied to painting an appropriate picture of the wedding feast at Cana and the attendant miraculous 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. 

It can here be seen that 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 perceived (and thus actual) societal ranking as adjudicated in the court of public opinion, the quality of the food and wine which he would find offered to him (which would also be connected to his seating position) would be a further indicator. 

Naturally and as one would expect, the host would have the finest wine and food served to his most honored guests, with the lesser wine served to those that were understood to be slightly less honorable (in this honor and shame society in which all competed to accrue honor and eschew shame---this would not be a commentary on someone’s character, but merely their public standing), 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 fortunate enough to be seated at the table at all (women, for instance, would not be seated at the table, but would be positioned in seats along the walls).