The first miracle that Jesus does, changing water to wine, seems to show his desire to celebrate life
Anyway, about the wedding feast ... when I read this, it's hard to think of anything but the movie I saw when I first became a christian, the first time I took the online retreat ... guess that was an impressionabel time for me ... I know it's not the scripture itself, just a movie, but here's how I shall always see that wedding feast story of John's ...
In the movie, Jesus and his mom attended the wedding of a relative. He took along his two new disciples as well. John was sold on Jesus, thought he was the messiah, but Andrew wasn't so sure and his misgivings weren't mitigated by the sight of Jesus dancing and generally partying like a normal guy. When Jesus took a break from dancing, he asked his disciples if they were having a good time, why they weren't dancing. Darkly, Andrew said he wouldn't "party" until Isreal was rid of Rome, implying, it seemed, that Jesus as the messiah had better things to do than dance. Perhaps he wasn't the right guy for the job, afterall.
Jesus was crestfallen. His mom, who had heard this exchange, came forward and mentioned to Jesus that there was no wine. He asked, distracted, what concern it was of theirs. She told him that this was the time to show Andrew he hadn't made the wrong choice in bexoming a disciple. Jesus reluctantly agreed, turned the water into wine, and brought some of it to Andrew, saying that the cup for which he had waited had arrived ... Jesus did this ... and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.
I don't know if this senario actually happened or if it was placed there by the writer of John for some purpose (as David said) but it speaks to me about Jesus, his relationship with his mom, his disciples, and his view of life as a wedding feast that should never end.
4 comments:
Larry and I both took heavily symbolic appraoches to this story -- yet different. Larry went allegorical - asking what the symbols in thsis tory have meant overtime and throughout the range of scripture. The result is he analyzed the story much as a Jungian analyst might interpret a patient's dream. I started with the human author and asked how the symbolism might fit with the authorial intent.
You meanwhile took the story and imagined the details of the situation -- the possible human dynamics involved. Sort of like applying method acting principles to scripture reading. I rather think Saint Iggy would find himself more at home with you than either Larry or me on this one.
But the fascinating thing is our interpretaions, while different, don't necessarily contradict each other. The stone-fire-water symbolism still fits with new life symbolism and the story of a Jesus wrestling with hsi callinga nd with wayward disciples asking him to be something else could be equally true all and at the same time.
David, I'm glad you commented on this difference. It wasn't until I read yours and Larry's comments on the passage that I realized that my approach was so different. It is a "gospel contemplation" kind of approach, I guess, but mostly I'm afraid that I'm taking the passage too literally while you guys see it as only metaphorical? Yikes! - my house is built on sand :-(
The kwakersaur mantra: Not either/or but both/and
I'm repeating myself, but the great thing about the Bible is that it's the Living Word. It's also God's personal word to you, and you, and me.
We are three of God's children, and he/she has something different to say to each of us, just as Ellie and I did to our three sons.
The Bible speaks to our condition (a Quaker term derived from George Fox).
To go on another step that passage will very likely say something different to each of us the next time we read it. We won't be the same persons then, our 'condition' will be different, and God will respond accordingly. That's what a personal relationship with God means.
Post a Comment