FR John Reilly SJ wrote that “… In the story of the marriage feast Jesus does something at Cana, what is not clear historically, that leads his disciples to believe in the wonder…” (Next Sunday’s Readings, CL 13/1/13).
Sceptical?
Even Pope Benedict noted the story of the mythological god, Dionysus, who was supposed to have discovered the vine and to have changed water into wine (Jesus of Nazareth, Volume 1, page 253).
Internationally recognised Anglican scholar Bishop Tom Wright has stressed that John’s Gospel is one of the most historically based.
Notice that John’s Gospel has Andrew, Peter and other disciples more or less “select” Jesus as their leader in contrast to the Synoptic gospels where Jesus calls them while they are at their nets.
My understanding is that John’s account is the regular historical practice.
John the Baptist had identified Jesus as son of God and Andrew had identified Him as Messiah.
But now Jesus’ disciples are said to begin to believe as a result of the Cana Sign.
What happened at Cana beyond the alcohol?
Firstly, “son of God” to a Jew meant that one had been elected to represent God.
It was not a marker of divinity. (cf Pope Benedict XVI’s book above and Introduction to Christianity in 1974).
Messiah was a human figure.
Therefore the disciples of Jesus continued to show their roots in the Old Testament teaching of John the Baptist.
The new teaching was nothing less than what John’s Gospel has in the Prologue: the Word became Flesh – the Incarnation is about God’s Son (contra “a son of God”).
Do we believe in the immediacy of God in Jesus living within our history, being concerned with our history – of God become man?
Both are historical events according to Church teaching as laid out for us by Pope Benedict XVI.
VINCE HODGE
Paddington, Qld
