Cana

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
This is easy if you know the answer, but I do not.

At the miracle at Cana, the headwaiter comes up to the bridegroom and asks the question about the wine.

Is the bridegroom Jesus? It was Jesus that worked the miracle.

Or is it another groom?
 
Jim_Baur said:
This is easy if you know the answer, but I do not.

At the miracle at Cana, the headwaiter comes up to the bridegroom and asks the question about the wine.

Is the bridegroom Jesus? It was Jesus that worked the miracle.
Click to expand...
Joh 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
Joh 2:2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

He was called to the marriage; it was not his marriage.
 
The headwaiter addresses the bridegroom. The bridegroom is Jesus.

John the Baptist calls Jesus the bridegroom. Jesus refers to himself as the bridegroom in the parables. The Book of Revelation identifies Jesus the Bridegroom.

There may have been a real wedding with a real bridegroom but John is using the wedding at Cana to illustrate that with the start of his ministry, Jesus the bridegroom initiates a new covenant relationship with his bride, the Church. The poor wine of the old covenant is now replaced with the good wine of the new covenant, and the headwaiter recognizes that fact.

-Tim-
 
It is clear the head waiter, not knowing where the good wine came from, called the groom (not Jesus) the actual groom of whose wedding Jesus was at, and confronted him saying, “he should have used the good wine first instead of last”.

Jesus is not the bridegroom in this passage. Yes he is referred that way in later scripture but John is describing here a real event with a real bridegroom.
 
Tim

Where have you read your interpretation?

THANKS!

The discussion that Tim and Jon are having is the same one that I have had with myself.

THANKS
 
Jim_Baur said:
Tim

Where have you read your interpretation?

THANKS!

The discussion that Tim and Jon are having is the same one that I have had with myself.

THANKS
Click to expand...
Everyone wants a literal interpretation of the wedding feast, that there was a real wedding and a real bridegroom, and they say that this excludes Jesus from also being the bridegroom. That’s fine. Everyone is free to interpret it that way, but that’s not the way the writers of the Gospels wrote, especially St. John. His is a highly spiritual Gospel, with layers of allusion and allegory.

I’m sure there was a real wedding and I’m sure there was a real bridegroom, but why can’t Jesus also be the bridegroom? The Bible refers to Jesus that way many times, and the passages about the wedding at Cana don’t specify which bridegroom the headwaiter speaks with.

I look at the whole Bible.
    • Psalm 19 says that God will come like a bridegroom.
  • Isaiah says the same thing in Chapters 61 and 61.
  • Jesus refers to himself as the Bridegroom in Matthew 9, Mark 2 and Luke 5.
  • John the Baptist calls Jesus the bridegroom in John 3.
  • The book of Revelation refers to the Church as the bride and Jesus as the bridegroom several times. *
Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:9)

So why can’t Jesus also be the bridegroom? The Gospels aren’t newspaper articles. We constrain the Holy Spirit when we treat them as such, and we miss out on the treasures hidden in them when we treat the Holy Scriptures as if it is a transmission repair manual. They are highly spiritual works and we have to treat them as such.

-Tim-
 
This discussion brings up the large,“Both/and” found in Catholicism. There is no problem extrapolating theological allegories from the text and showing figurative truths in relation to other passages. That’s great!

There is a problem though when we dismiss the literal part of the story. This is Jesus’ first miracle and it is important to recognize it’s literal form.

It is further concerning when the gospel of John is dismissed from its literal form in favor of a purely allegorical/figurative form.

When you say,
Everyone wants a literal interpretation of the wedding feast, that there was a real wedding and a real bridegroom, and they say that this excludes Jesus from also being the bridegroom. That’s fine. Everyone is free to interpret it that way, but that’s not the way the writers of the Gospels wrote, especially St. John. His is a highly spiritual Gospel, with layers of allusion and allegory.
Click to expand...
What does that say about John 6 ? The church holds that the Eucharist is LITERALLY Christ’s body and blood. That people LITERALLY walked away from him, etc…

What does that say about John 20? Where Jesus literally breathed on the disciples and literally gave them the sacrament of reconciliation.

Our Protestant brethren love your view of the gospel of John. They are in deep error as I think you’d agree.
 
Jon_S said:
This discussion brings up the large,“Both/and” found in Catholicism. There is no problem extrapolating theological allegories from the text and showing figurative truths in relation to other passages. That’s great!

There is a problem though when we dismiss the literal part of the story. This is Jesus’ first miracle and it is important to recognize it’s literal form.

It is further concerning when the gospel of John is dismissed from its literal form in favor of a purely allegorical/figurative form.

When you say,

What does that say about John 6 ? The church holds that the Eucharist is LITERALLY Christ’s body and blood. That people LITERALLY walked away from him, etc…

What does that say about John 20? Where Jesus literally breathed on the disciples and literally gave them the sacrament of reconciliation.

Our Protestant brethren love your view of the gospel of John. They are in deep error as I think you’d agree.
Click to expand...
Jon, how in the world did you draw the conclusion that I dismissed the literal? Did you not read my post beyond the partial quote you gave? The very next sentence I wrote…

***I’m sure there was a real wedding and I’m sure there was a real bridegroom, ***

Did you not read that? :confused:

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Jon, how in the world did you draw the conclusion that I dismissed the literal? Did you not read my post beyond the partial quote you gave? The very next sentence I wrote…

***I’m sure there was a real wedding and I’m sure there was a real bridegroom, ***

Did you not read that?

-Tim-
Click to expand...
I did read that…but to say the context of your posts, especially in light if the question, supported a literal wedding is surprising to me as a reader of them.

I read your posts as saying, "it’s a figurative story that may have been based on a real wedding ". Instead I think it should be, “this is a real wedding with a real bridegroom mention in the verse there, and maybe we can extrapolate more”

In your first post from the question “who is the bridegroom?” You respond “the bridegroom is Jesus”. That statement means you do not hold a literal view as the bridegroom in the chapter is clearly not Jesus.

Perhaps it was a mistake on your part but that’s how I read your posts.
 
Jon_S said:
I did read that…but to say the context of your posts, especially in light if the question, supported a literal wedding is surprising to me as a reader of them.

I read your posts as saying, "it’s a figurative story that may have been based on a real wedding ". Instead I think it should be, “this is a real wedding with a real bridegroom mention in the verse there, and maybe we can extrapolate more”

In your first post from the question “who is the bridegroom?” You respond “the bridegroom is Jesus”. That statement means you do not hold a literal view as the bridegroom in the chapter is clearly not Jesus.

Perhaps it was a mistake on your part but that’s how I read your posts.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how to respond to you Jon except to say that you have read much into my post which isn’t there.

-Tim-
 
I think the miracle at Cana is a strange story. The jars were filled with water for washing the feet of the guests, and the water was reused. Yuck. Strange place to put a bunch of wine.
 
sirach2v4 said:
I think the miracle at Cana is a strange story. The jars were filled with water for washing the feet of the guests, and the water was reused. Yuck. Strange place to put a bunch of wine.
Click to expand...
If God miraculous transforms water into wine…I think the sanitation should be fine. Lol. Although the guests may have given it a few looks seeing wine poured from foot washing vessels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top