Calling His Disciples (part 4)

Utilizing Mark’s narrative, one finds that subsequent to Matthew’s (or Levi’s) leaving of the tax booth and following Jesus, that “Jesus was having a meal in Levi’s home” where “many tax collectors and sinners were eating with Jesus and His disciples, for there were many who followed Him” (Mark 2:15).  The language suggests that Jesus either had many disciples following Him, or that Jesus was eating with many tax collectors and sinners because many tax collectors and sinners were following Him.  Combining the two, one could surmise that many tax collectors and sinners were disciples of Jesus (always keeping in mind that there were more than twelve disciples---twelve were chosen and named because of the symbolic re-constitution of the twelve tribes of Israel, with Jesus presented to Israel as the leader a new exodus movement as a new Moses). 

Mark continues: “When the experts in the law and the Pharisees saw that He was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, ‘Why does He eat with tax collectors and sinners?’  When Jesus heard this He said to them, ‘Those who are healthy don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do.  I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.’” (2:16-17)  To this, Matthew adds a report of Jesus saying, “I want mercy and not sacrifice,” thus calling their attention to the entire story and back story of the prophetic work of Hosea, whereas Luke adds “to repentance” (5:32) to Jesus’ call to sinners.  Again, here one finds minor differences in detail, with these minor differences being commensurate with and playing to the overall movements of the Matthean and Lukan narratives. 

Sticking with Mark, and even though they are at a meal, the next thing that is heard is that “John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting.  So they came to Jesus and said, ‘Why do the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples don’t fast?’” (2:18)  Keeping in mind that the setting for this question is a meal being hosted by Matthew, “Jesus said to them, ‘The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they?  As long as they have the bridegroom with them they do not fast.  But the days are coming when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and at that time they will fast.  No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and the tear becomes worse.  And no one pours new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins will be destroyed.  Instead  new wine is poured into new wineskins” (2:19-22). 

So here, with Mark’s record adequately standing in for the three synoptic witnesses, the story has moved from the final record of a specifically called disciple to a feast where Jesus mentions a wedding and wine.  Why mention this?  Well, fascinatingly, and even though there is significant divergence between the synoptics and John when it comes to Jesus’ calling of His disciples, as has been seen, this is a similarity in theme (though not in detail) that does not pass un-noticed. 

In the synoptics, Jesus calls Simon, Andrew, James, John, and Matthew.  In John, Jesus “calls” (though there is not necessarily a call to follow) Andrew, Simon, Philip, and Nathanael.  In the synoptics, the final recorded call of a disciple is followed by a meal (or “great banquet” according to Luke), in which there is talk of wedding and wineskins.  In John, the final recorded call of a disciple is followed by Jesus and His disciples attending a wedding (which would have been accompanied by a meal or great banquet), at which Jesus will convert water into wine.   

Water Into Wine (part 4)

With his actions, Jesus has created a problematic situation for all involved.  This should not be overlooked.  There is a tendency to romanticize the words of Scripture, 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 can cause a distant or detached observer to hear the head steward going to the bridegroom and offering him a compliment in regards to his generosity and his unexpected grace, which has been 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 that distorted image, commentators often take it upon themselves to make an analogy about the grace of the Creator 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.  Consequently, Jesus is placed in the role of head steward, God the Father as presented as the obviously generous bridegroom, the servants that filled the purification jars (now obviously 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 eager servants (the church). 

This popular mode of comprehension of the story of the wedding feast at Cana sets off something of a spiritualized, proof-texting binge in which this miracle is taken and folded in 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 the Creator God’s way, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on the writers of Scripture, of legitimating what some consider to be 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.  This therefore means that the newly made wine was nothing more than grape juice, which is Jesus’ (and therefore the Creator God’s) way of informing the world that 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, then this is what the Creator God would prefer His people imbibe from this point.”  Both positions, 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 woefully missing the point.

Now, all of this is not to say that the world does not have a lavishly generous and unexpectedly gracious Creator God.  It is not to say that implausible or inappropriate to draw inferences from the events in the life of Jesus that will assist believers in their spirit-animated journey of faith as functionaries in this world on behalf of their God’s kingdom.  It is to say, however, that if one is not attuned to the real world importance of the life of Jesus, and if these stories are not properly shared and heard from within their historical, cultural, and social contexts, with every effort made to first understand them on their own terms as they would be understood by those who experienced them first-hand, then it is highly likely that the observer is going to miss out on the true theological richness that lies ready at hand, as Jesus does go about revealing the Creator God.  The fact must not be overlooked that this is, first and foremost, a real-world event happening to and with real-world people with real-world customs and concerns.

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). 

Water Into Wine (part 1)

Now on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. – John 2:1a  (NET)

At the beginning of this story, the author reports that “Jesus and His disciples” (John 2:2a) were invited to a wedding and its associated feast.  Quickly, the fact that there was a problem is encountered, which was that “the wine ran out” (2:3a).  As one might imagine, this is an issue.  For some reason, the fact that the supply of wine had been exhausted was of some concern to Jesus’ mother, so she is said to have taken it upon herself to inform Jesus 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 obviously pressing issue.  It would seem that Jesus’ mother was of the opinion that Jesus would take it upon Himself to fix this problem. 

However, based upon His initial response, 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 to His mother, Mary believes (with this apparently based on what she knows about her Son) that He is going to do something.  In accordance with that belief, 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’ reported act of intervention in the problem at hand.  Eventually, and though the story does not set forth an overt reason for it, 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 to rectify the situation?  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 (albeit indirectly) to those in attendance.  Ultimately, it appears that the author of the Gospel 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, one must make an effort to understand the nature of feasts in the world occupied by Jesus.  When it came to feasts (or really any public meal in general), there were rules in place for the table.  For all practical purposes, meals were miniaturized pictures of the society in which they were taking place, and there were “rules” (unwritten though they may be) governing association and socialization in meals and other areas of life.  Importantly, the positioning of guests around a meal table was a visible demonstration of social hierarchy and political differentiation. 

What was quite common in the ancient world, and which can be safely presumed 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 of honor to the right and to the left of the host.  This arrangement should be entirely unfamiliar, as even though there is not an ongoing overt honor and shame culture (and its associated competition for honor as a limited public good) in the western world, public occasions that include a meal in the world of today are generally arranged somewhat accordingly, with those more important to the organizer or the host or the cause seated closer to the front of the room, whereas those that are considered less important seated further away.  A major difference, of course, is that the seating does not necessarily reflect the attendees’ standing in the wider culture, and (at least in the western world) there are no hard and fast application of unwritten rules based on public perception.