“The third day” means three days after the call of Nathanael (John 1:45–51). Since that was the fourth day of the week recorded in John (John 1:19, 29, 35, 43), the wedding took place on “the seventh day” of this “new creation week.” Throughout his gospel, John makes it clear that Jesus was on a divine schedule, obeying the will of the Father.
Jewish tradition required that virgins be married on a Wednesday, while widows were married on a Thursday. Being the “seventh day” of John’s special week, Jesus would be expected to rest, just as God rested on the seventh day (Gen. 2:1–3). But sin had interrupted God’s Sabbath rest, and it was necessary for both the Father and the Son to work (John 5:17; 9:4). In fact, John recorded two specific miracles that Jesus deliberately performed on Sabbath days (John 5; 9).
At this wedding, we see Jesus in three different roles: the Guest, the Son, and the Host.
Jesus the Guest (vv. 1–2). Our Lord was not a recluse, as was John the Baptist (Matt. 11:16–19). He accepted invitations to social events, even though His enemies used this practice to accuse Him (Luke 15:1–2). Our Lord entered into the normal experiences of life and sanctified them by His presence. Wise is that couple who invite Jesus to their wedding!
He was accompanied by His mother and His six disciples. Perhaps it was the addition of seven more people that helped create the crisis, but it must have been a small wedding feast if this were the case. We have reason to believe that our Lord’s earthly family was not prosperous, and it is likely that their friends were not wealthy people. Perhaps the shortage of wine was related to a low-budget feast.
Were Jesus and His disciples invited because of Mary, or because of Nathanael (John 21:2)? Our Lord was not yet well known; He had performed no miracles as yet. It was not likely that He was invited because the people knew who He was. It was probably His relationship with Mary that brought about the invitation.
Jesus the Son (vv. 3–5). Since Jewish wedding feasts lasted a week, it was necessary for the groom to have adequate provisions. For one thing, it would be embarrassing to run out of either food or wine, and a family guilty of such gaucherie could actually be fined! So, to run out of wine could be costly both financially and socially.
Why did Mary approach Jesus about the problem? Did she actually expect Him to do something special to meet the need? Certainly she knew who He was, even though she did not declare this wonderful truth to others. She must have been very close to either the bride or the bridegroom to have such a personal concern for the success of the festivities, or even to know that the supply of wine was depleted. Perhaps Mary was assisting in the preparation and serving of the meal.
Mary did not tell Jesus what to do; she simply reported the problem. (Compare the message of Mary and Martha to Jesus, when Lazarus was sick—John 11:3.) Jesus’ reply seems a bit abrupt, and even harsh, but such is not the case. “Woman” was a polite way to address her (John 19:26; 20:13), and His statement merely means, “Why are you getting Me involved in this matter?” He was making it clear to His mother that He was no longer under her supervision (it is likely that Joseph was dead), but that from now on, He would be doing what the Father wanted Him to do. There had been a hint of this some years before (Luke 2:40–52).
At this point, John introduced one of the key elements of his record, the idea of “the hour.” Jesus lived on a “heavenly timetable,” marked out for Him by the Father. (See John 7:30; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; 17:1; and note also the words of Jesus as recorded in John 11:9–10.) As you study John’s gospel, you will observe how this concept of “the hour” is developed.
Mary’s words to the servants reveal that she was willing to let her Son do whatever He pleased, and that she trusted Him to do what was right. It would be wise for all of us to obey what she said! It is worth noting that it was Jesus, not Mary, who took command and solved the problem; and that Mary pointed, not to herself, but to Jesus.
Jesus the Host (vv. 6–12). Our Lord’s first miracle was not a spectacular event that everybody witnessed. Mary, the disciples, and the servants knew what had happened, but nobody else at the feast had any idea that a miracle had taken place. His first miracle was a quiet event at a wedding in contrast to His last miracle recorded by John (John 11), a public event after a funeral.
Each of the six stone waterpots could contain about twenty gallons each. However, we are not told that all of the available water in the jars turned into wine. Only that which the servants drew out and served was transformed into wine. The quality of this new wine was so superior that the man in charge of the banquet highly praised it, and, of course, the groom’s family basked in the glory of the compliments.
The fact that this was “the beginning of miracles” automatically declares as false the stories about the miracles performed by Jesus when He was an infant or a young child. They are nothing but superstitious fables and ought to be rejected by anyone who accepts the authority of the Bible.
The miracle did something for His disciples. It revealed His glory (John 1:14) and gave them a stronger foundation for their faith. Though miracles alone are insufficient evidence for declaring Jesus to be the Son of God (2 Thess. 2:9–10), the cumulative effect of miracle after miracle should certainly convince them of His deity. The disciples had to begin somewhere, and over the months, their faith deepened as they got to know Jesus better.
But there is certainly more to this miracle than simply meeting a human need and saving a family from social embarrassment. The gospel of John, unlike the other three Gospels, seeks to share the inner meaning— the spiritual significance—of our Lord’s works, so that each miracle is a “sermon in action.” We must be careful not to “spiritualize” these events so that they lose their historical moorings, but, at the same time, we must not be so shackled to history that we are blind to (as A.T. Pierson used to say) “His story.”
To begin with, the word John used in his book is not dunamis, which emphasizes power, but sïmeion, which means “a sign.” What is a sign? Something that points beyond itself to something greater. It was not enough for people to believe in Jesus’ works; they had to believe in Him and in the Father who sent Him (John 5:14–24). This explains why Jesus often added a sermon to the miracle and in that sermon interpreted the sign. In John 5, the healing of the paralytic on the Sabbath opened the way for a message on His deity, “the Lord of the Sabbath.” The feeding of the five thousand (John 6) led naturally into a sermon on the Bread of Life.
If our Lord had preached a sermon after He turned the water into wine, what might He have said? For one thing, He likely would have told the people that the world’s joy always runs out and cannot be regained, but the joy He gives is ever new and ever satisfying. (In the Scriptures, wine is a symbol of joy. See Judg. 9:13; Ps. 104:15.) The world offers the best at the first, and then, once you are “hooked,” things start to get worse. But Jesus continues to offer that which is best until we one day enjoy the finest blessings in the eternal kingdom (Luke 22:18).
But our Lord would certainly have a special message here for His people, Israel. In the Old Testament, the nation is pictured as “married” to God and unfaithful to her marriage covenant (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:2ff.). The wine ran out, and all Israel had left were six empty waterpots! They held water for external washings, but they could provide nothing for internal cleaning and joy. In this miracle, our Lord brought fullness where there was emptiness, joy where there was disappointment, and something internal for that which was only external (water for ceremonial washings).
When John mentioned “the third day” (John 2:1), he may have been giving us a hint of our Lord’s resurrection. All of these blessings are possible because of His sacrifice on the cross and His resurrection from the dead (John 2:19).
Interestingly Moses’ first miracle was a plague— turning water into blood (Ex. 7:19ff.), which speaks of judgment. Our Lord’s first miracle spoke of grace.
This miracle also presents a practical lesson in service for God. The water turned into wine because the servants cooperated with Jesus and obeyed His commands. Several of the signs in John’s gospel involve the cooperation of man and God: the feeding of the five thousand (John 6), the healing of the man born blind (John 9), and the raising of Lazarus (John 11). Whether we pass out bread, wash away mud, or roll away the stone, we are assisting Him in performing a miracle.
It is significant that the servants knew the source of this special wine (John 2:9). When Jesus healed the nobleman’s son (John 4:46–54), it was the servants who were in on the secret. We are not just His servants; we are also His friends, and we know what He is doing (John 15:15).
Wine was the normal drink of the people in that day, and we must not use this miracle as an argument for the use of alcoholic beverages today. A man given to drink once said to me, “After all, Jesus turned water into wine!”
My reply was, “If you use Jesus as your example for drinking, why don’t you follow His example in everything else?” Then I read Luke 22: to him. This verse clearly states that, in heaven now, Jesus is a teetotaler!
Sincere Christians of our day consider such verses as 1 Corinthians 8:9; 10:23, 31 before concluding that the use of alcoholic beverages is a wise thing today. I am reminded of the story of the drunken coal miner who was converted and became a vocal witness for Christ. One of his friends tried to trap him by asking, “Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine?”
“I certainly do!” the believer replied. “In my home, He has turned wine into furniture, decent clothes, and food for my children!”
Finally, it is worth noting that the Jews always diluted the wine with water, usually to the proportion of three parts water to one part wine. While the Bible does not command total abstinence, it certainly magnifies it and definitely warns against drunkenness.