THE SIGN OF THE NEW WINE IN JOHN 2:1-12

THE REVELATION OF THE NEW ORDER IN JESUS

Introduction
This pericope narrates the events that have occurred at the wedding feast of Cana,
wherein the changing of the water into wine is highlighted in the course of presenting the real
identity of Jesus and in relation to the central theme of the Gospel which pertains to faith in
response to the self-revelation of Jesus.
There are various ways in which the narrative is presented such as; the beginning of the
signs: water into wine (wbc p32,), the first miracle at Cana: faith in the word of
Jesus(moloneyp65); the sign of the wine (pollin p 56); first sign: wedding at Cana (cf 4 p.
208) and the sign at Cana on the third day (kealy p. 54). Initially, these titles may already give
a hint on what particular aspect of the text, these writers give attention to which may highlight a
certain theme over the other or combines several themes in order to make an integrated approach
to the pericope. However, I propose that the highest priority of consideration in hermeneutics
should be that of the autonomous intention of the evangelist in relation to the direct interaction of
the reader or the theologian who ought to discover the meaning of the text.
This exegetical essay ought to explore the various elements which may point out to the
clearer understanding and reflection of the text and wishes to answers some exegetical questions
that help the reader to deepen the theological knowledge and its implications to Christian life.
Some of the questions raised in this essay are; why is the narrative unique only to the
John? What were the surrounding circumstances that lead to the construct of the narrative which
has a deviant structure compared to the usual miracle story?

What are the historical components (if there is any) contained in the narrative which has a
relationship in the development of its theological meaning such as the Jewish tradition weddings,
and the Jewish ceremonial washings?
Are the signs, gestures and words or expressions used in the story have relative
significance to the entire meaning of the Gospel? What is the meaning and the theological
implications derived from the dialogue between Jesus and the mother of Jesus and does it bear
significance in the entire meaning of the narrative? Is there a relationship of the pericope in the
entire development of the theological theme of the whole gospel?
TEXTUAL BASIS
This essay uses the New American Bible translation of the text from the LXX version
after a closer syntactical comparison of other Biblical translations and translations from
commentaries, the New American Bible has already minimized some grammatical difficulties
encountered in the original translation of the text while preserving as much as possible the words
and continuity of the thought expressed in the text.
DEFINITION AND CONTEXT
A change in the time indicator, theme and the plot of the narrative separates this pericope
from the preceding text as well as the section which follows it. The section begins with the third
day and the ending is indicated by the expression after this which marks with the shift of
chronology of the events. This indicators separate the section from the previous and succeeding
chapters. Although this part can be autonomously separated, this text is important in the
continuity of presenting the entire theme of the first section of the Gospel.

It draws the link

between the first chapter by fulfilling the promise stated in 1:51 and it also serves as an
introductory section for the ministry of Jesus which commenced in the cleansing of the temple

hence it has a completeness of its own(wbc31). Even the nature of the plot of this section
changed from a public engagement in the call of the disciples it proceeds to an exclusive limited
occasion then engages again into a public discourse which is the cleansing of the temple. There
are also changes in place that Jesus decides to go to Galilee; and then the introduction of new
characters such as the mother of Jesus, the participants at the wedding feasts and the change in its
literary from faith response of the Jews and faith testimonies to a miracle story.(sacra moloney
63)
SYNOPTIC PARALLELS
This pericope has no synoptic parallels and therefore is unique to the Johannine
Literature. However, there are propositions which may pertain to the possible source of this text
and so have made some significant contrasts with the nature of its literary genre as a miracle
story. While this section is a miracle story it has significant difference with the miracle stories in
the Synoptics because here the miracle is termed as a sign semeion which points out to the
revelation of the action of God in Christ.(wbc 33). While the miracle at Cana wedding has
intrinsic relationship with the Synoptic traditions, this narrative cannot be described as a typical
miracle story(sacra moloney 70) for it does not follow the usual form. The Literary form of a
miracle story involves description of a problem, the request which is sought, the miracle itself,
the descriptive successful outcome and the wonder of those who witnessed it. On other hand,
the Cana miracle unfolds a situation of a problem, the request, the rebuke, reaction and
consequence. (moloney 70) The involvement of the mother of Jesus in the story made the
disturbing implications in changing the movement and literary form of the story.(moloney 70).
While the miracle story is rich with signs, the development of the narrative is framed by the
movement of the characters (moloney sacra 66) rather than the mere description of the details of

the miracle. The story is framed by the exchange of actions and reactions particularly to the
intervening works of the mother of Jesus.
As to the possible historical possible source of the Cana wedding, one proposition gives
the geographical consideration of four probable identification of Cana as the biblical Cana, since
it is not a very well known place and the most proximate biblical Cana is that which is situated
fourteen kilometers north of Nazareth.(4, 208). Still the relationship of the miracle at Cana
cannot be explicitly situated but simply indicates the awareness of the author to have derived it
from Signs Source(WBC, 33). It is also not clearly explained whether the Evangelist has
interpolated or made further redaction of this source which made the genre become distinct from
the traditional miracle narratives only that he does not limit himself to only a single source and at
the same time intends to highlight his unique style and theology.(Brown, 57)
LITERARY STRUCTURE
Most authors agree on the details of the structure of the pericope