Cana. Wedding at Cana

Wedding at Cana

                Twenty kilometres west of the cool waters of the Sea of Galilee, in dry hill country, lies the town of Kfar Kana. Although hotly disputed by many biblical scholars, this town is identified with the Cana of John 2:1-11, where Jesus attended a wedding and changed water into wine. This "miraculous sign" of Jesus, his first according to John's Gospel, is commemorated by the Franciscan Wedding Chapel located in the old section of the town.

The happy couple waiting in front of the Wedding Chapel in Cana.

Vows renewed, that happy moment revisited in the small chapel in Cana.

chapel is the focus of the pilgrims' visit to Cana. Whether they come here to meditate on the glory of Jesus or to tick off another Jesus place, I'm not qualified to say. I am aware, however that many visitors come here to take the opportunity of renewing their previous wedding vows in the main chapel or the smaller adjunct.

                And so it was that five couples from our touring group chose to do just that. Pastor Peter, the ordained clergyman in the group, had prepared an order of service appropriate to the situation. It was celebrated with all members of the group.

                "A very moving ceremony."

                "I became quite emotional, even more so than at my actual wedding."

                "An experience I shall never forget."

                "What a wonderful service, it's easy to see why the couples wanted to be part of it."

                "A very slick cameraman recording the whole ceremony for the participants to cherish."

                These were some of the comments of those involved in our particular event.

                I have no doubt that this was an especially memorable event for those ten people who chose to renew their marriage vows in this setting, and for those who witnessed the event as well. After all, many do see the story as related by John as Jesus' affirmation of the sanctity of marriage and so here Jesus' blessing on the reaffirmed union could feel more apposite. I was not one of the five participating couples and so I cannot speak from personal experience. I did have the opportunity to sample the wine on offer after the ceremony and can confirm that it was very good.

                I must admit that during the service my mind did wander. Back to my own marriage? No, not on this occasion. At times there seems to be some compelling power in my pew that tends to deflect my thoughts away from what the preacher is trying to emphasise. One thought on this occasion went back to a discussion I have read which debated whether this was actually Jesus' own wedding.

                "Jesus' own wedding? But that's not what the text says as a careful reading of it makes clear."

                But on the other hand:

                "On a careful reading it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus himself was married on that occasion."

                Two careful readings, two opposing conclusions. A situation such as this should encourage me to go back and read John's account again - but carefully - and convince myself one way or the other.

                But that reading will not answer another question that is often asked, especially in more recent times: Was Jesus married?

                Until a few decades ago if one were to ask the general person in the street if Jesus were married the question would have been met with an incredulous stare and a "What? Was Jesus married?" and the vast majority would have given a short negative reply, perhaps prefixing it with a "What a silly question" or some similar expression. In Christian churches throughout the world the question would have been readily answered with a "No" - if it were asked at all.

                Since the popular fiction novel The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown was publishes in 2003 - and apparently over 80 million copies were sold - interest in Jesus' marital status had increased. Dan Brown's fictitious claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene has created a popular issue which many biblical scholars, commentators, church interest groups and lay people are scurrying to address. One hears of many answers other than a simple yes or no.

                * A pointless question, for Jesus did not exist.

                * Don't know and don't care.

                * He may have been, but then again maybe not.

                * It's not stated in the bible that he was, which probably means that he wasn't.

                * The Bible is silent of this issue which does not rule out the possibility that he was.

                * Whether he was or wasn't is immaterial for it would have no bearing on our salvation.

and so on.....

                Using the Bible purely as an historical document, one discovers that nowhere is there a statement  of whether Jesus was married or not. The absence of a statement that he was not married cannot be taken as an indication that he was. Nor can the absence of a statement that he was married be taken as an indication that he was not married. Suggestions can be argued and the onus of proof would be on those who claim that he was married.

                In all of this daydreaming I was prompted to go back to John, chapter 2, and undertake a careful reading of the wedding at Cana. What  crossed my mind was this: I wonder whether the writer wants us to take this story literally, i.e. as a newly baptised preacher miraculously changing six large jars of water into 600 litres of fine wine, or are we to approach this metaphorically, looking for a more-than-literal meaning. This need for a metaphorical understanding is so common in the Bible and especially in the Gospel of John. John even has a dig at those who want to take his writing too literally when in the story about Nicodemus (chapter3) he had Nicodemus say, (verse4):"How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

                My attention was already alerted at the beginning of the story when I read (v.1) "on the third day". The third day after what? The maths does not add up on reading the first chapter of John. This has to be John's reference to Jesus' ultimate fate and nothing to do with the date of this wedding.

                Then it states that "Jesus' mother was there" (v.1). Why specify Jesus' mother (and not calling her Mary) with no mention of his father, Joseph, and his brothers and sisters? This is even more intriguing when it is realised that the next time she gets a mention in this Gospel is chapter 19:25, when she is near Jesus' cross. Her name, Mary, is not mentioned there either. It seems that this character is being used to join "after three days" with the crucifixion.

                Then strangely in verse 3 Jesus' mother (an invited guest) takes it upon herself to get involved in arranging for more wine. And she approaches her son. Why should he be concerned, under normal circumstances, that the host had under catered. And how did she know that he could perform miraculous feats? We are told later (verse 11) that this was his first.

                Jesus' reply to his mother: "Dear woman, why do you involve me? My time has not yet come" surely calls for some explanation.

                Then the six water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing (v.6) appear to be empty for Jesus told the servants to fill the jars. This is an important fact when looking for a meaning to this story. The quantity (600 litres) and the quality - "the best" - must surely refer to the abundant, wonderful life that the Kingdom of God will make possible and not relate literally to the new supplies available to the guests.

What fullness of life is represented here in these water jars!

                So I could go on in my careful reading of this story and my many questions and observations would lead me to suggest that John wanted his readers to look at this story metaphorically -to  search for its deeper, real meaning. What is this? Each reader will come to a conclusion.