For Mom: Water into Wine (John 2: 1-11)

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Mystic said:
And that is precisely why Bette is wrong to characterize John as anti-Semitic. Black men sometimes throw the N-word at each other, often in jest. In that context, doing so is hardly racist.
Click to expand...
Dr. Brakke did a whole lecture and basically concluded that John, or the community he represented, turned on "The Jews" because of being cast out of their synagogue. The anti-Semitism came later when others took "The Jews" to mean all Jews, not just that community. So it may not have been anti-Semitic to start but has been used that way so often and for so long that it may now be inseparable from that odious interpretation.
 
Mystic said:
And that is precisely why Bette is wrong to characterize John as anti-Semitic. Black men sometimes throw the N-word at each other, often in jest. In that context, doing so is hardly racist.
Click to expand...
Please leave any mention of the N word out of this discussion. I am the topic starter not the mod but I expect @Mendalla would agree.

I don't see John as antisemitic but his Gospel has certainly been used that way.
 
Been thinking about the significance of the servants knowing where the fine wine came from. Others attending the wedding do not have this knowledge.

Are these servants the equivalent of the shepherds in Luke? The shepherds are the lowly ones who learn first of the birth of Jesus.

Does John have an equivalent to the Magi from Matthew's gospel?

Next up in John 2 we have Jesus going to Capernaum for a few days then heading to Jerusalem. The gospel writer places the story about Jesus driving out the money lenders out of the temple here.

This would have been a high profile event.

By the way, does anyone think John would have had access to the writings in the synoptics?
 
paradox3 said:
Been thinking about the significance of the servants knowing where the fine wine came from. Others attending the wedding do not have this knowledge.

Are these servants the equivalent of the shepherds in Luke? The shepherds are the lowly ones who learn first of the birth of Jesus.

Does John have an equivalent to the Magi from Matthew's gospel?

Next up in John 2 we have Jesus going to Capernaum for a few days then heading to Jerusalem. The gospel writer places the story about Jesus driving out the money lenders out of the temple here.

This would have been a high profile event.

By the way, does anyone think John would have had access to the writings in the synoptics?
Click to expand...

It is propbably all a lark to allow for the Ephraim vue ... VOO Dew ist? Whoo ...

And there we hesitate knowing that we didn't know nothing ... because it just wasn't!
 
Mystic said:
And that is precisely why Bette is wrong to characterize John as anti-Semitic. Black men sometimes throw the N-word at each other, often in jest. In that context, doing so is hardly racist.
Click to expand...
25 or so years ago I remember attending a tele-conference presentation by John Crossan where he offered that the passages, such as the ones we find in John's Gospel, that have later been used in very anti-Semitic ways were originally more like sibling squabbles. How many people have said some really nasty things abotu member of other factions within the community at times. nd when both sides are equally powerless these things have limited power. But when one side becomes powerful those nasty things said between equal may be reused with much more dangerous effects.
 
The Idiom "turning water into wine" is said to mean talking something bad and turning it into something excellent. Isn't this curious? The biblical story starts with something ordinary rather than anything bad. But it's undesirable in the context of the wedding feast I guess.
 
One angle of the story bothers me. The slaves or servants belong to Mary. How would she have had the ability to have slaves? As it is probably just a story, that does not really matter as they are part of the stage setting.
 
jimkenney12 said:
One angle of the story bothers me. The slaves or servants belong to Mary. How would she have had the ability to have slaves? As it is probably just a story, that does not really matter as they are part of the stage setting.
Click to expand...
Does it say that? Or were they the hosts' servants and she was just giving instructions because she was helping with the event? I don't recall anything that says they were her servants and have always thought it was the latter but I can't look it up just now so maybe I am forgetting something.
 
If they were not her servants, why would they obry her. After all, she is a woman. If it is just a story, it does not matter.
 
This is the Greek word for servants used in John 2:5and 9

Strong's Concordance
diakonos: a servant, minister
Usage: a waiter, servant; then of any one who performs any service, an administrator
represents the servant in his activity for the work;

a waiter, one who serves food and drink: John 2:5, 9,

an attendant, i.e. (genitive case) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess) -- deacon, minister, servant.

I say
So it doesn't say in the Scripture who the Servants are ---but ----here it says they were just servants of food and drink -----
a waiter, one who serves food and drink: John 2:5, 9,


This is commentary and this person's view on this scripture

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible​

His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

This verse shows several things: (1) Mary did not understand Jesus' words either as a rebuke or as a refusal to meet the need pointed out by her;

(2) she evidently anticipated that Jesus' command might appear unreasonable to the servants; and

(3) under normal circumstances, servants might hesitate to carry out the orders of a guest. Thus, her remarks to the servants were needed and timely.

That she was in a position to instruct the servants suggests a close personal connection with the family of the bridegroom,
 
AS I understand it, in the ancient world the difference between servant and slave was not nearly as wide as we would use the terms today.
 
Last edited:
I actually preached on this text a few weeks back (in November actually). Here are my Early Thoughts from that week:
gordsponderings.blogspot.com

Looking Ahead to November 13, 2022 -- 23rd Sunday After Pentecost

This week's Scripture Reading is John 2:2-11 The Sermon title is Mom Knows Best . Source Early Thoughts: Sometimes we need someone to give ...
gordsponderings.blogspot.com gordsponderings.blogspot.com

There are a number of possible questions one could ask about this passage. We could wonder why Mary even knows they are out of wine. Whose wedding is this? Why is she so worried about them losing face? Is she part of the family?

And often the text is preached as a way to talk about great abundance when everyone assumes great scarcity.

But this time when I preached it I was struck by the fact that Mary pushes Jesus to act. It occurs to me that much of life is like that, we act because somebocy pushes/encourages/harasses us to do so.
 
and here is what I actually ended up saying that Sunday in November...
 
jimkenney12 said:
One angle of the story bothers me. The slaves or servants belong to Mary. How would she have had the ability to have slaves? As it is probably just a story, that does not really matter as they are part of the stage setting.
Click to expand...
An absurd assumption unwarranted by the text.
First, Mary's role suggests that the marriage involves either her extended family or Nathanael, Jesus' only disciple from Cana (21:2), who has just been recruited in the prior section (1:45-52) and would respect the Messiah's mother.
Second, where did you get the idea that an honored female guest would have a lower status than a slave?

Note the absence of Joseph who is probably already dead and figures in no story of Jesus' adult ministry. At His crucifixion Jesus need to entrust His mother's care to the Beloved Disciple precisely because Joseph is no longer alive to care for his wife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top