RSS

Jesus’ Trials and the Wedding at Cana

01 Sep
Cana - 1

from Google Images

All three Synoptics mention heaven opening and the Spirit of God coming out of heaven to rest upon Jesus (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22). While John doesn’t mention heaven opening, he does support the Synoptics concerning the Spirit descending (from heaven) and remaining upon Jesus (John 1:33). In Matthew it is the Spirit of God, and in Mark and John it is simply the Spirit, and in Luke it is the Holy Spirit, but all four record the event, and it seems to be of key importance. The Spirit’s relationship with Jesus is especially significant when we come to Jesus’ temptations. Matthew claims Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness (Matthew 4:1), while Mark claims Jesus was ‘thrust’ or ‘driven’ into the wilderness by the Spirit (Mark 1:12). Luke, however, gives us a slightly different picture by claiming Jesus was continuously led (imperfect passive of the verb ago – G71) by the Spirit in the wilderness; that is, Jesus was led throughout the forty day event.

Luke tells us that Jesus “returned (hupestrepsen – G5290) from the Jordan” (Luke 4:1), and “returned (hupestrepsen – G5290) into Galilee” (Luke 4:14). This would agree with John’s account that two days after Jesus’ baptism, Jesus returned into Galilee (John 1:29, 35, 43) from the Jordan. Moreover, Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, which seems to point to his being continuously led by the Spirit in the wilderness. According to the Scriptures, no matter how we interpret the wilderness, Jesus was in Galilee when he was tempted; the Gospel of John leaves us with no other conclusion. Moreover, Luke’s “returned from the Jordan” begs the question: returned to where? It seems Luke’s placement of this phrase before the temptations begin puts Jesus in Galilee, where he grew up and had been living. I know of no other place Jesus could possibly have returned to after he was baptized by John in the Jordan.

If the above is accurate, then John mentions that “the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee” (John 2:1), which contextually means this is the third day after Jesus’ baptism or three days after heaven opened, and the Spirit of God came down upon Jesus. The wedding in Cana seems to be placed in contrast with Jesus’ forty-day trial in the wilderness, but this perceived contradiction dissipates in the understanding that the wilderness into which Jesus was led was a wilderness of people (Ezekiel 35:20). That is, Jesus went into Galilee two days after his baptism in the Jordan (John 1:43; cf. Luke 4:14), and was tempted there. The Synoptics mainly point to the negative elements of the wilderness experience, but John speaks about what occurred to the disciples of Jesus. That is, he points to a union or a marriage with Jesus. Jesus, himself, compared what was taking place during the forty-day temptation event with a wedding (Luke 5:34-35).

Chapter two of John brings out some interesting symbols for the new man that Paul speaks about later in his epistles (Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 4:24). Although I am not trying to say a miracle never occurred or that there never was a literal wedding, I am convinced that there is great spiritual meaning behind the events that literally took place there.

John tells us of Jesus’ mother, but she isn’t called by her name, Mary (John 2:1). Rather, she is Jesus’ mother in the sense that Israel was Jesus’ mother (cf. Revelation 12:1, 5). She is the symbol of that human part of us that controls what we do, as Paul tells us (Romans 6:13, 19), and we see that it is the mother of Jesus who directed the servants (the members of the body) to do as Jesus said (John 2:5).

The mother here is that part of us who receives Jesus, but notice how Jesus speaks to her: “What have I to do with you; my hour is not yet come” (John 2:4)! That is, it is impossible to communicate spiritual truth to those who have no power to receive it. Paul tells us in 1Corinthians 2:11 that it is the spirit of man (the ruler of the feast in John 2:9-10) that knows the things of men, but eye has not seen nor ear heard the things God has prepared for them who love him (1Corinthians 2:9). Rather, it is the Spirit of God that understands those things that the spirit in man (the ruler of the feast in John 2:9-10) has no ability to know by himself (1Corinthians 2:10-11). Nevertheless, the Spirit was not yet given, so the mother of Jesus told the servants to obey Jesus. This unveils what goes on in the inner hearts of those who first begin to believe in Christ. That is, the inner will (mother in John) of “the sons of the bride-chamber” (Luke 5:34) tells the members of the body (cf. Romans 6:13) to obey Jesus. Later Jesus would reveal to the disciples that the Comforter (i.e. the Spirit and new ruler of the feast) would be in them even as Jesus was presently with them (John 14:16-17).

Luke’s forty-day period (Luke 4:1-2) is the second such period in Jesus’ life. The first occurred immediately after Jesus’ birth when it took his mother, Mary, forty days to be purified (Luke 2:22; Leviticus 12:1-4), but the mention of purification in John 2:1 points **not** to the purification of Jesus’ mother, Mary, but to his mother, Israel (Revelation 12:1, 5). Notice that she commands obedience to Jesus, who then commands for the water to be poured into six water jars of stone—the kind used for purification, thus, connecting John 2:6 with Luke 2:22, and John 2 is connected to the Synoptics through Jesus’ mother, the 40 days of temptation (Luke 4) v/s the 40 day purification period (Luke 2) and the stone water jars (John 2).

Furthermore, the three elements mentioned in John 2 represent three stages of truth – literal (stone, viz. the Law written on stone, Exodus 20), rational (water, viz. the washing of water by the word of God, Ephesians 5:26) and spiritual (wine, i.e. the Spirit which changes behavior – viz. not being drunk with wine but filled with the Spirit, Ephesians 5:18). For example, I am able to understand the commandment: “You shall not murder” to mean don’t spill innocent blood. The more difficult truth is: I should not destroy a person’s character (even with the truth), or I shouldn’t offend a person needlessly etc. The most difficult of all, and impossible without the Spirit of God, is to love that person (though an enemy) as expressed in love’s eight flavors found in Galatians 5:22-23.

More can be said about this, but this should suffice to show that the marriage feast at Cana was not only a literal occurrence, but is also a representation of what goes on in the inner man when Jesus affects us. This is the story of what went on in the hearts of the disciples who believed in Jesus (John 2:11, the angels / messengers of Mark 1:13), and is placed in contrast with what did not go on in the hearts of those who rejected him in the corresponding temptation of Christ in the wilderness found in the Synoptics (Luke 4:22; 5:21; 6:11). Those are the wild beasts of Mark 1:13.

This ability of the disciples to believe Jesus is nothing less than a miracle, as it shows us what occurs in the human heart that responds to the Gospel, because we who were born in Adam have nothing within us to receive the things of God properly (Galatians 5:22-23). We have no wine (Spirit) that would change our behavior. All we have is the spirit in man, who can appreciate good (John 2:10; cf. Galatians 5:22-23) when he tastes (experiences) it, but has absolutely no wherewithal to produce it.

Advertisements
 
6 Comments

Posted by on September 1, 2016 in Gospel of Luke

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

6 responses to “Jesus’ Trials and the Wedding at Cana

  1. librarygeek

    June 9, 2018 at 22:00

    Well, your view does have a lot of practical spiritual application that is valuable: We can encourage unbelievers to get to know Jesus and read his Word and try to obey Him and see how the Spirit will lead them to truth as they can do nothing in themselves to understand spiritual truth. Another truth – to present your requests to God and trust him and His way of answering the need and obeying his commands rather than dictating to the Ruler of the all how we think He should obey our demands. So that is all valuable.

    But I don’t understand why Christ’s response to the request of his mother (or the disciples?) sounds more like the proper response for an unbeliever’s demand. So no it doesn’t completely satisfy, but as I said, I’ve yet to find any explanation for His response that did satisfy me even as I learned spiritual truth from most explanations. And I am totally confused by the idea of the mother being played out by Jesus’ disciples. One might think that Mary would know He was able to do something to meet the need, but I can’t think why the disciples would ask him to do anything at this stage of their knowledge of Jesus. So sorry but you lost me there.

    As for your view that we must assume the temptation in the wilderness is symbolic and really was amongst people in Galilee in order to syncronise John’s account to the other gospels, I don’t see that it is the only possible solution. I wondered about John’s account of the baptism being followed immediately by Jesus meeting the disciples versus the synoptics having Jesus immediately going into the wilderness after the baptism to be tempted for 40 days. However, I now read it differently than you, and don’t see John as contradicting the synoptics. My view is this: John the baptist didn’t baptize Jesus on the day he witnesses of it in John 1:32-34, he merely points Jesus out to his disciples on that day and says “that’s the guy!”

    In John 1:32-34, it says that John the Baptist “gave this testimony” to his disciples: “‘I saw the Spirit come down from Heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, the man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. I have seen and I testify that his is the Son of God.'”‘ It doesn’t say whether the baptism happened on the same day that John gave the testimony to his disciples or not. In fact he gave essentially the same testimony the following day (v.35) to Andrew and another disciple and they followed Jesus. So although v.29, v.35 v.39 and v.43 tend to show a certain passage of the events of several days with Jesus staying at the place where John the Baptist was baptizing, the text doesn’t specifically state that this time of witnessing to his disciples was the same time that Jesus was baptized.

    I admit that the preamble in ch.1:19-28 where John states his mission and prophecies about Jesus to the Priests sounds a lot like the same statements that John the baptist makes as recorded in the synoptics just before he met and baptized Jesus. And v. 29 makes it clear that the time John points out Jesus to his disciples and speaks of the baptism was the very next day after v.19-28. However, I am not convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that any of the synoptics were trying to be particularly chronological here. They introduce John the Baptist to explain his importance and how he didn’t claim to be the Messiah but pointed to someone else and then they describe his baptism of Jesus. I imagine John said this same message more than once of who he was in relation to the Messiah and who the Messiah was. Probably both before and after he met Jesus. But I could interpret John 1:26 ” there stands among you one you do not know” as meaning that right there among them at that moment Jesus was standing there. I always supposed this was just a turn of phrase, but it could literally mean Jesus was standing there amongst those who were questioning John. In which case, as John testifies in v. 33 that he wouldn’t have known Him if it weren’t for the Holy Spirit coming on Him when He was baptized, that would imply that John already knew Christ’s identity because he had baptized him before v. 26. It could have been that same day, or it could have been over 40 days before.

    I admit this theory feels a bit strange that Jesus would come, be baptized, go into the wilderness for 40 days and then come back to John’s camp again to meet the disciples before leaving with them for Galillee. But He knew he would be calling disciples from among those who were looking for the Kingdom of God and those who were looking for it were flocking to John. So where else would Jesus be when looking to start His public ministry?

    My view doesn’t prove yours to be wrong, just shows there is another possible way of viewing all 4 gospels without contradiction. One verse that does make me question your view is Luke 4:14. You say that 4:1 indicates that Jesus was returning from the Jordan to be tempted in the wilderness and v.14 shows that he returned from the Jordan but to Galilee. However, the tempation is between these two statements of his “returning”. If he was tempted in Galilee, why does v. 14 say AFTER the devil left off tempting him that ” Jesus returned to Galilee”? To me it looks like Christ’s return to Galillee happens after the story of the temptation, not at the same time as the return from the Jordan in v.1. Although you said you don’t know where else Jesus could have been returning to but where he was from – Galilee, I think there is another option – the wilderness. One travels through the desert wilderness to get the remote place where John was baptizing, so it would not be odd to say he returned there. In fact Jesus calls the place where John Baptized a desert in Luke 7:24, so merely leaving the presence of everyone there would be to “return” to the wilderness or desert. And although the synoptics do not include another visit to the Jordan after the 40 days in the desert to meet disciples before returning to Galilee, it certainly could have happened. John frequently adds stories the other gospel writers skip.

    Another problem I have with your view is this: You say above “This would agree with John’s account that two days after Jesus’ baptism, Jesus returned into Galilee (John 1:29, 35, 43) from the Jordan. ” and “If the wilderness is not a **wilderness of people** then John 2 contradicts the Synoptics, because he claims that three days after his baptism, Jesus was in Galilee. We cannot get away from that point. ” I have tried to figure out what the gospel means in John 2:1 when it says “on the THIRD DAY a wedding took place in Cana in Galilee” and Jesus and his disciples were there. Even if I am wrong in my view of John only witnessing of the baptism on that day before the trip to Galilee, we can’t use 2:1 to prove that 3 days after the baptism Jesus was in Cana. I don’t believe they could have possibly traveled to Cana in one day from the place of the baptism. The traditional belief of the place where John baptized is near the Dead Sea and Jericho. It is approximately 145 km / 90 miles from Cana. I looked up what was considered a day’s journey in ancient times. Obviously, it varied, but at over 145 km/90 miles from where we think the baptism was to Cana, it was definitely more than a day journey, so they can’t have been in Cana the third day since the baptism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day%27s_journey I still don’t claim to know what John means by the third day, perhaps it was the third day of their journey, or a mistranslation and it really was the third day of the wedding. But if I don’t know for sure what it means, I can’t be sure it proves that 3 days after the baptism he was in Galilee.

    All that being said, if you are correct, I am curious whether you therefore think that the 40 “days” of temptation in a wilderness of people was really 40 months, ie. 3 years and 4 months or the majority of Christ’s earthly ministry of 3 1/2 years? After all, if the temptation by Satan was really the temptation presented by people to fulfill people’s expectations for the Messiah rather than God’s role for Jesus and was a wilderness not of a place with wild animals but of people and their wrong demands that could destroy Him, then when would have there been an end of the 40 “days”? Didn’t this continue throughout His earthly existence? If not 40 months, then what event do you see as being the termination of his 40 days of temptation in a wilderness of people? And what other stories do you see as symbolically represented in the story of the temptation in the wilderness?

    Sorry, that’s a bit much to answer here. If you have already blogged some things that answer those questions, let me know which ones. Or you can just email me reponses if you need to break it up. Thanks!

     
    • Eddie

      June 10, 2018 at 14:27

      Greetings Shari, and thanks again for your interest in my studies. Don’t be alarmed with the length of your remarks and questions. It is all good and pertinent to the study. Others may have similar questions as you do, and would benefit in this discussion, so I will not reply through email. I am also enjoying this exchange. You have brought up a few things that I didn’t address properly in the study, so all this is good.

      But I don’t understand why Christ’s response to the request of his mother (or the disciples?) sounds more like the proper response for an unbeliever’s demand. So no it doesn’t completely satisfy, but as I said, I’ve yet to find any explanation for His response that did satisfy me even as I learned spiritual truth from most explanations. And I am totally confused by the idea of the mother being played out by Jesus’ disciples. One might think that Mary would know He was able to do something to meet the need, but I can’t think why the disciples would ask him to do anything at this stage of their knowledge of Jesus. So sorry but you lost me there.

      Concerning the disciples being Jesus’ **mother**, the mother of the child in Revelation 12 is clearly Israel, or more appropriately, Zion or the elect of Israel. Moreover, it seems logical that the **child** in Revelation 12 is Jesus. So, the disciples are clearly part of that group of Israel who is referred to as **the woman** who brought forth the child (and is, therefore, the ‘mother’ of the child–Jesus). It is simply picturesque speech similar to “the Lamb of God” etc. Even Paul describes the church (both male and female) as the bride of Christ. So, the idea is well within the context of scripture and the way the Jews spoke back in the day.

      Concerning Jesus’ words to his ‘mother’, what seems to be happening here is the disciples may have described the interaction between the “wild beasts” and Jesus in a negative, unspiritual manner. Their “they have no wine” may have some deeper implications that what we are able to see on the surface, because Jesus response “what have I to do with you” is one that says: “You don’t understand!” i.e. “My time has not yet come” to deal with what is occurring here. This is seen in David’s response to his nephews when they didn’t understand the deeper implications of the events that were occurring at the time (cf. 2Samuel 16:10; 19:22). Certainly, David’s nephews were not his open enemies. Yet, had he complied with their desires, he would have erred, and their advice was as though it came from enemies. There is a difference in how the wicked (the wild beasts of the wilderness) responded to David and how his disciples responded (with bad advice). They were still believers, but they didn’t have the “wine” to help them. “They have no wine” extended to them as well.

      My view is this: John the baptist didn’t baptize Jesus on the day he witnesses of it in John 1:32-34, he merely points Jesus out to his disciples on that day and says “that’s the guy!”

      That’s fine. I wouldn’t want to tell you how to read the scriptures. However, for my own part, I don’t believe such an interpretation is possible. Prior to John 1:29 Jesus had not come to John, but Jesus came to him on the “next day” after the events of John 1:19-28. The interaction John has with his disciples in John 1:29-34 seems to occur immediately after Jesus came to John and was baptized. Unless you wish to place 40+ days between John 1:29 and 30 (and why would you do that?) the Gospel of John gives us a four day itinerary of Jesus coming to John on the day of his baptism up to and including his presence at the wedding at Cana of Galilee. The Greek word for “next day” means just that, the succeeding day. Then in John 1:35, the “next day” after Jesus’ baptism John point out Jesus to Andrew and the other disciple of John. They continue with Jesus, who on the “next day” (John 1:43) Jesus finds Philip, and Andrew finds Peter, and Philip finds Nathanael (43-45). There are only two “next days” after Jesus’ baptism in John 1:29 (i.e John 1:35 and 43). Therefore, John 2:1 opens with “The third day!” I don’t see how 40+ days could be read into this, but this is how I see it! :-)

      Concerning John 1:26 and the 40 days, Matthew 3:11-13 seems to indicate Jesus was baptized after John 1:26, and if “after” that would mean his baptism is implied in John 1:29, in which case the “next day” itinerary of the rest of John chapter one takes effect.

      Concerning Luke 4:1-14 …

      “. If he was tempted in Galilee, why does v. 14 say AFTER the devil left off tempting him that ” Jesus returned to Galilee”? To me it looks like Christ’s return to Galillee happens after the story of the temptation, not at the same time as the return from the Jordan in v.1.

      Your translation is different than mine. The Greek doesn’t say Jesus returned to Galilee **after** the devil left off tempting him. It merely says that the devil left off tempting Jesus “for a season” (verse-13). Then Luke 4:14-15 sums up what occurred in Galilee after Jesus returned from the Jordan, stating that he became well known throughout the region, the implication being ‘in a short period of time’. There is nothing like a good challenger from well known people to get the attention of the masses in a manner that focuses all things upon the one being challenged, which in this case would have been Jesus. I believe he became well known in those 40 days, because of the ‘temptations’ he was driven to face.

      Concerning the “three days” of John 1:35, 43 and John 2:1 and the distance from where John baptized and Cana of Galilee. While I agree with your ‘wiki’ link as it pertains to how far one was able to walk in a single day, I don’t agree with your conclusion that Jesus’ place of baptism, Bethabara, was 90 miles from Cana. Actually, according to my LINK, it is only 20 miles from Cana, which is, itself, only a days distance for a good walk.

      Concerning the 40 days being 40 months, I think you 40 months is intriguing. I never looked at it that way, but I think I line up with the 40 days, because it seems to be a particular block of time that corresponds to the people Moses sent into the Promised Land to tell everyone what it was like. Jesus was thrust into a “wilderness of people” but he was tested, not by the people, but by the “wild beasts” — the leaders of the people. Jesus spent his entire ministry among unbelievers (a wilderness of people), but he wasn’t tempted each and every day, as he was in that first bloc of time. Just an opinion, but that’s how I see it.

      Well, Shari, I think I address each of your concerns. Don’t know how well I did as far as relieving you of your concerns about my study, but I’m convinced the Lord is guiding you in your studies, as I believe his is in mine.

      Lord bless you, Shari, and thank you again for sharing your interest in these things.

       
      • librarygeek

        June 11, 2018 at 12:56

        Just concerning the trip from the Jordan to Cana, I believe there may be more than one view of it’s location and they must be a fair distance apart. I don’t know if any of the gospels say anything about it’s location, so perhaps the location you found is right, buy the traditional one is in Jordan southeast of Jericho. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Maghtas – they have found 2nd temple era mikvehs there. Here is where I got the distance.:
        https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Kafr+Cana,+Israel/The+Baptismal+Site+of+Jesus+Christ,+Jordan/@32.2432958,35.6857597,8z/data=!4m8!4m7!1m2!1m1!1s0x151c492249fe78df:0x29efc4a957d65885!1m2!1m1!1s0x151cca65ee2174fb:0x4e1d67105b9da51b!3e0

         
        • Eddie

          June 11, 2018 at 19:21

          Greetings Shari, and thank you for the information and the links. I don’t question that the Jericho site has some history, but I do question the validity of it being the baptismal site where Jesus was baptized. The traditional site has been embraced at least since the Byzantine era, which isn’t a bad thing, but I am highly suspicious of some sites connected with the Gospels around that period of time. Constantine’s mother went around the whole Palestine area announcing that this or that particular site was the place where this or that New Testament event occurred. Some of the great Middle East cathedrals are built upon those sites, and, of course, anything dealing with Jesus represents potential income from tourists.

          Bethabara means “house of the ford”. As the link I provide testifies, there is a great ford at that site, where it was easy to cross the Jordan River. Moreover, it fits into John’s Gospel a lot better that the baptismal site located close to Jericho. Additionally, Jesus was at Bethabara when Lazarus became ill. By the time Jesus got to Bethany, Lazarus was in the grave for four days. Jesus waited until Lazarus died before he left Bethabara, but it doesn’t take four days to travel from Jericho to Bethany. It’s just a one day trip with a little time left over. That site doesn’t seem to fit the context of the Gospel, and I suspect Constantine’s mom is to blame for its traditional acceptance (but I’m not ‘certain’ of that, it is just a suspicion). Nevertheless, the links could be valuable for other studies.

          Lord bless you Shari.

           
  2. librarygeek

    June 8, 2018 at 13:13

    Though I see too many issues with the idea that the wedding at Cana is part of the 40 days of temptation, I am intrigued by your explanation for Christ’s and Mary’s interaction. I have heard many theories on this strange conversation, but none really satisfied me. Still, I’m a bit confused by what you wrote. If Mary represents our own will and Israel (and I suppose with Israel, all it represents – the law & efforts to please God with your own righteousness) and the most Israel can do is point to Jesus and say “listen to Him”, then what exactly is Jesus saying or meaning by saying “what have I to do with you, my time had not come.”? Or maybe His response was as you explained, saying these people don’t have the Holy Spirit and can’t discern spiritual truth.
    But then that must mean that (whether Mary realized it or not) her request “they have no more wine” was a symbolic request for something spiritual. But if so, I don’t know what that might be.

    In any case, whether or not Mary understood the spiritual implications of her request and Christ’s response or not, she still told the servants the only thing the law and Israel can do: listen to Jesus.

    So I guess my question is not what Jesus meant, but what were the spiritual implications of Mary’s request. And if Jesus first denies her request as “it is not yet his time,” does he change his mind when he makes the water into wine, or did he truly deny the spiritual request while on the surface agreeing to meet the material request that hid the spiritual one?

     
    • Eddie

      June 9, 2018 at 07:26

      Greetings, Shari, and thank you once again for reading my studies. Lord bless you.

      The first thing I would say is don’t question too much. A parable, even of an actual event, is still a parable. It cannot be bent to answer all questions. For example, in the Parable of the Sower, the seed cast among the weeds won’t yield a good crop, nothing, according to it, yields anything good for the Kingdom (Matthew 13:22). Yet, in the Parable of the Good Seed and the Weeds in Matthew 13:24 the weeds are permitted to grow alongside the good seed until the end of the age (Matthew 13:28-30). The two parables are intended to show two different things, but if one tries to reconcile the two and make both say the same thing, he destroys the truth of both.

      In John 2, Mary’s name isn’t mentioned, so don’t try to understand what **she** knew, because, later, **Mary** did believe Jesus was a tad off his rocker (Mark 3:21, 31). John mentions only Jesus’ **mother** so she can and does point to Israel (Revelation 12:1-5).

      If the wilderness is not a **wilderness of people** then John 2 contradicts the Synoptics, because he claims that three days after his baptism, Jesus was in Galilee. We cannot get away from that point. Therefore, if the word of God cannot be made to contradict itself (John 10:35), we must find a way to allow the Synoptics to agree with John. Keep in mind that, if John does agree with and support the Synoptics, then what takes place at the wedding is similar to what occurred in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 between Jesus and Satan. The “they have no wine” is contrasted with “If you are the Son of God turn these stones into bread.” The difference is that in Matthew and Luke the interaction is between Jesus and the “wild beasts” (unbelievers), while in John the interaction is between Jesus and believers (Jesus’ disciples). On the one hand, “If you are the Messiah” — Jesus is **commanded** to provide for Israel’s needs (Matthew and Luke), but on the other hand, the disciples trust Jesus is the Messiah and merely state the need, expecting him to do something, yet leaving the **what** up to him. This is seen in the Synoptics when the scribes and Pharisees demanded a miracle or a sign from him. He had already done miracles, but they wanted him to perform one stated by them. They demanded a specific miracle at a specific time–at their command.

      The **mother** of Jesus played out by his disciples didn’t, because they couldn’t, know the spiritual implications of the needed wine. Jesus had to correct their lack of spiritual understand throughout his ministry. Yet, knowledge of a **need** doesn’t require spiritual understanding. Listening to and watching Jesus do the things he said and did would stir up any honest person, and they would recognize that he could do what they could not, and they would desire to understand everything such a man would say. The need: they couldn’t do what Jesus did, and they couldn’t understand what Jesus said, but they knew it was all good (just as the ruler of the feast). The wicked (again the ruler of the feast) tried to remain in control and dictate to the Messiah (the new Ruler) what to say and do.

      You have it correct above: “In any case, whether or not (Jesus’ mother — played out by Jesus’ disciples) understood the spiritual implications of her request and Christ’s response or not, she still told the servants the only thing the law and Israel can do: listen to Jesus.” In other words, I may not know where we are going, but I’m going to follow you, because I’m intrigued by what I see you saying and doing. I want to know where this leads. That’s all a person can do, who doesn’t have the Spirit of God in them.

      Jesus doesn’t deny **her** request. Rather, he calls out **her** obedience and trust: “His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” (John 2:5). In other words, I am going to obey you, Lord, and see where my obedience takes me with you. The wicked didn’t do that. They wanted to **command** the new Ruler, which is a contradiction. How can he be **Ruler** if he is ruled. The whole understanding is found in Deuteronomy 18:15-19. God demands that his people obey the Prophet he raised up. The wicked (unbelievers) won’t, but the elect, those who are willing to be led to see where that takes them, will obey.

      Hope this satisfies. Lord bless you Shari.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: