Water Into Wine

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.  When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

 
“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
 
His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
 
Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
 
Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.  Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”  They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
 
What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.

-John 2:1-12, NIV Translation

When we look at this story of the Wedding at Cana, we have to ask ourselves the inevitable question:  did this really happen?  Now, obviously since none of us were there, we cannot say with certainty one way or the other.  We may believe it happened or believe it couldn't have happened, but we cannot say for sure.  We can, though, examine the evidence and decide if it's likely.

The first thing that is most striking about this story is that there are several witnesses to the event, and the town was actually named.  Weddings were a remarkably large event in first-century Israel, often lasting a week and with hundreds of guests.  Though it does not appear as if everyone there was aware of what happened, we do know that many of the servants "who had drawn the water knew [where the wine came from]."  John, writing in the late first-century, was opening up his tale to much criticism, because witnesses can always be located, particularly if their location is outright named.  Anyone doubting the validity of John's account could easily have gone to Cana (a real town) for him or herself and questioned the people.  If the story were untrue, it is quite likely that it would have faded into oblivion, because no one would have been able to verify it.  On the other hand, the story endured through the first century and on into the second century, with no evidence of contradiction.  While this does not prove the event, it should make us pause and consider the implications.

One argument that is made quite often is the fact that the Gospel of John was written sometime in the second century by a Gentile, and not the Jewish Apostle John.  This is highly unlikely, as we find that the author appears to be quite familiar with first-century Jewish customs.  The practice of ceremonial washing (the purpose of the water in the story) was not observed by the Christian Church once it became predominantly Gentile (end of the first-century).  A Gentile, then, writing a century (or two) after the fact would not be likely to have mentioned the jars at all.  His or her water source would have been something more common to second century Roman culture.  While it is possible that this detail was "added" for realism, it is highly unlikely, leading us to a relatively safe assumption that the author was, at the very least, Jewish.  So we cannot conclude from this that it had to be John who penned the Gospel, but internal evidence does not rule him out as the author, either. 

Lastly, we note a reluctance on the part of Jesus to even reveal His power.  If Jesus were faking this, if He were merely a clever magician or a sleight-of-hand artist, then what we would find is, most likely, a deep and unyielding sense of showmanship.  Think about modern entertainers today:  David Copperfield, David Blaine, Criss Angel, even those of the last few decades (e.g., Doug Henning, Blackstone).  They actively seek out individuals, they actively arrange for Las Vegas shows, television spots, and they actively promote their magic.  They sell themselves as entertainers or supernatural beings, but they rarely, if ever, seem to hide from their talents.  We find a startling humility in a man who claimed to be God.  Does this prove His claim?  No, but it should strike us as odd that a faker would be reluctant to fake.

What do we have?  We have reasonable cause to believe that what we read in this portion of John may have actually occurred.  We have reasonable assumptions that:

1) It was written during the time period in which it occurred by a witness
2) It occurred, not in a vacuum, but in front of many people in a real place
3) It was performed by someone who was not an entertainer looking to wow a crowd, but someone who was reluctant and reserved - in other words, a real person who performed a real miracle.

These are not concrete, nor are they airtight in their arguments.  But, as with much ancient literature, we must approach with an examination of its pprobability, not with a denial of its possibility.