“This beginning of miracles did Jesus … and manifested forth His glory” John 2.11
by Jack Hay, Scotland
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS
The two incidents in John chapter 2 are the first among a number in the Gospel that illustrate the expression in the Prologue, “full of grace and truth” 1.14. The Lord’s grace was beautifully exhibited in Him rescuing the embarrassing situation that had emerged at the wedding. His truth was displayed in His uncompromising attitude to the Temple traders at the end of the chapter. He had an inflexible attitude to the sin of the Samaritan woman in chapter 4, the impotent man in chapter 5, and the woman taken in adultery in chapter 8, yet He had compassion for them all. These incidents give further examples of the fact that He was replete with grace and truth.
Moses and Jesus Christ had been contrasted in the Prologue. Here in chapter 2, for His first sign, the Lord changes water to wine; this is in contrast to Moses’ first public miracle, changing water to blood, Ex.7.17. What He did were “the works which none other man did”, not even Moses, Jn.15.24. This kind of contrast features again in chapter 6 when the manna, the bread associated with Moses, is seen as being so much inferior to the One Who is the true Bread, the Bread of life. His superiority is also stressed in Hebrews chapter 3: Moses was a servant; He is the Son! Sadly, His opponents never appreciated that fact, for in John’s Gospel they proudly asserted, “We are Moses’ disciples” 9.28.
This initial sign in John’s Gospel is the first that the Holy Spirit selected from the “many other signs [which] truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples”, those outstanding manifestations of Divine power that demonstrated that He is “the Christ, the Son of God” 20.30,31. The final sign before Calvary was in chapter 11: the raising of a man who had been four days dead and was already a decomposing corpse. Interestingly, John says nothing about the healing of the servant’s ear, although he supplies details which other Gospels omit, including the names of Malchus and Peter, 18.10. Doctor Luke was interested to note the healing, but John was specialising in signs. The healing of a man’s ear would hardly have seemed a “sign” after such a dramatic event as the resurrection of Lazarus! John’s Gospel was written for sinners to encourage them to believe on the Lord Jesus, and his purpose in recording these signs is to pile evidence upon evidence of His Deity so as to engender faith in Him. He leaves his readers without excuse as he provides these undeniable proofs that Jesus is the Son of God.
The first sign took place on “the third day”, and my personal feeling is that it means the third day after the last day of chapter 1. Interestingly, another three days are mentioned in chapter 2: “in three days I will raise it up” v.19. That statement clearly affirms the doctrine of the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus, for the Lord was referring to “the temple of His body” v.21. It refutes the notion that it is only in spirit that He lives on, or that it is only His influence that survives. His resurrection was actual; it was literal; His body emerged from the tomb.
All the references to the days of chapters 1 and 2 are a reminder of the description of His life on earth as “the days of His flesh” Heb.5.7. Although John presents the eternal Son of God and commences his Gospel by stressing His everlasting being and Deity, 1.1, he never wants us to forget that “the Word was made flesh” 1.14, and that, like all men, He lived a day at a time in this world, with specific activities taking place on specific days. The eternal One now had an age, Lk.2.42; 3.23; it is one of the great mysteries connected with the Incarnation! Likely He spent over twelve thousand days in this world.
As already stated, the changing of the water to wine was the first of the seven signs of John’s Gospel prior to the cross. It took place at a wedding. The final sign was the raising of Lazarus in the aftermath of his funeral when hearts were still sore and emotions were raw. The Saviour’s presence on both occasions showed His ability to rejoice with those who were rejoicing, and to literally weep with those who wept, Rom.12.15. He knew “how to speak a word in season” Isa.50.4, but His conduct too was appropriate in the various circumstances He encountered: a wedding in 2.1-11, a woman in an illicit relationship in 4.1-26, a family crisis in 4.46-54, and a heart-breaking bereavement in 11.1-44. It would be wonderful if we were adaptable and wise, as He was, and able to handle aright the varying situations that we face.
Another general feature of the miracle is that it involves water, and water features extensively in this Gospel by John. In chapter 1 there is a river in which John baptises “with water” v.33. Here in chapter 2 it is water to wine. In chapters 3, 4 and 7 water is used figuratively to illustrate either the Holy Spirit or spiritual blessings connected with Him. In chapters 5 and 9 there are two different pools. In chapter 13 there is the washing of feet. In chapter 18 a winter brook is mentioned, and of course the Sea of Galilee (Tiberias) is referred to here and there. Amazingly, it is only in this Gospel, in which water features so extensively, that it is recorded that at the cross the Lord Jesus cried, “I thirst” 19.28. A well of water was provided to revive Ishmael when it was thought that he was dying of thirst, Gen.21.19, and his mother was there to minister to him. The mother of Jesus was there at the cross, but there was no water to ease His searing thirst. In response to His cry, the tormenting soldiers pressed to His lips a sponge saturated with sour vinegar, for He had initiated the proceedings in which a Scripture would be fulfilled: “in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink” Ps.69.21.
THE MOTHER OF JESUS
Having made these general observations about the incident, we now turn to the verses. Among the guests at the wedding was “the mother of Jesus” Jn.2.1, and she is consistently described as that here and elsewhere. There is a large denomination that designates her ‘the mother of God’ but that is a term that is never employed in Scripture. It is true that Jesus is God, God the Son. He was eternally God’s Son but He was given the name “Jesus” at the Incarnation, Matt.1.21; it is the name connected with His humanity, so it is appropriate and Scriptural to call Mary “the mother of Jesus”, but never ‘the mother of God’.
However, she was His mother, a real mother. He was conceived by the miraculous activity of the Holy Spirit in her womb, Lk.1.30-35, and He was described as “her firstborn son” Lk.2.7. In John chapter 1, when Philip called Him the “the son of Joseph” v.45, that misunderstanding was soon cleared up as Nathanael proclaimed Him “the Son of God” v.49. It was said of Melchisedec that he was “without father, without mother” Heb.7.3. Applied to the Lord Jesus, as to His Deity He was without mother, and as to His humanity He was without father.
Christians hold firmly to the Scriptural doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ, but we reject that which is man-made, that is, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Our chapter refutes it, for it refers to “His brethren” Jn.2.12, and that term is employed fairly extensively in the New Testament. The only reference to His brethren in the Old Testament is a wonderful testimony to the precision of Scripture. In Ps.69.8 they are referred to as “My mother’s children”; not ‘My father’s children’, for Joseph was never His father, but these brethren were His mother’s children. Joseph and Mary commenced a normal marriage relationship after His birth: he “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son” Matt.1.25. Hence we reject the notion of the permanent virginity of Mary.
The last reference to Mary in Scripture is in connection with her attendance at a prayer meeting, Acts 1.14. It has often been observed that she was among those who were gathered to pray, and not the one to whom prayer was being made. Another interesting factor is the presence of “His brethren”, those brethren who had been so sceptical and unbelieving, Jn.7.1-9. We cannot say for certain when their attitude to Him changed, but the practical lesson is never to give up on anyone: some day, by the grace of God, he or she could be sitting next to you in the prayer meeting.
THE UNIQUE GUEST
“Jesus was called” Jn.2.2. The presence of the Lord Jesus at the celebration is an indication of His endorsement of marriage as instituted by God at the dawn of history, Gen.2.21-25. “Marriage is honourable in all” Heb.13.4, in contrast to illicit premarital relationships and extramarital affairs. These will attract God’s judgment, as explained in the balance of the verse: “fornicators and adulterers God will judge” R.V. The Lord’s presence at the wedding also gives backing to the custom of celebrating a wedding in a festal way. He would never have gone anywhere where His presence was a silent acquiescence to anything untoward that was happening.
Let those who are contemplating marriage ensure that the Lord is ‘invited’ to the ceremony! This will make certain that everything will be in keeping with His holy character and will help to maintain a Christian ethos throughout, rather than the imported features of a typically worldly celebration. Whether He is ‘invited’ or not, He will be there listening to the vows of commitment and fidelity. The memory of that will help to maintain complete loyalty to one’s spouse. Then let His conscious presence on the wedding day be a permanent feature of the marriage for it will help to maintain a happy and holy atmosphere in the home.
The Lord’s presence at a wedding feast is evidence of His own assertion, “The Son of man came eating and drinking” Matt.11.19. He was sociable in contrast to John the Baptist, who appears to have been ascetic. John was content with a spartan diet of locusts and wild honey. His preferred environment was the wilderness rather than the centres of population. It does seem though that the Saviour loved human society, and in Luke’s Gospel, the Gospel of His manhood, time and again we find Him being entertained in homes, with hosts as different as “one of the chief Pharisees” Lk.14.1, and “the chief among the publicans” Lk.19.2. Being an approachable, sociable person can break down barriers and create contacts. It is easy to remain in our comfort zone and refuse any attempts to include us in what might be a legitimate social event, but Scripture never puts a blanket ban on our social interaction with unsaved people. “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go …” 1Cor.10.27. Having said that, accepting such invitations necessitates vigilance, for spiritual dangers could be lurking, and we might be placed in a position where a firm ‘no’ is necessary if we are going to maintain Christian standards. Christian businessmen know all about the temptations that await believers at some of the functions they are called upon to attend.
It was Mary who articulated the problem, “They have no wine” Jn.2.3. She may have had the feeling that the time had come for the Lord to commence a ministry of the miraculous and here was an opportunity. In recent days He had been gathering up a few disciples, and maybe all the memories of the events surrounding His birth came flooding back, all conspiring to make her feel that the time had come for Him to establish His Messianic credentials. Whatever her thoughts, let us give her credit in this: He had never performed a miracle, and yet she had confidence in Him. The little girl in Naaman’s home had never witnessed a leper being cleansed and yet she believed that the God of Israel through His prophet could do it, 2Kgs.5.3; Lk.4.27. Such trust in God and Christ is to be emulated; too often it could be said of us, “O ye of little faith”.
In the Authorised Version, the Lord’s response, Jn.2.4, might seem a little sharp, but it is toned down a bit in some other versions, maybe conveying the idea that the shortage of wine was neither Mary’s concern nor His, in that they bore no responsibility. “Mine hour is not yet come” perhaps creates more of a difficulty. Normally in John’s Gospel, when the Lord spoke of His “hour” He was referring to the circumstances surrounding His death. I find it just a little difficult to see this reference fitting that pattern; I rather think that the Lord was referring to the hour of Him starting out on a public ministry that would feature preaching and signs. The first sign would take place that day, but Mary must not be seen to be the instigator of that, and He would not allow her promptings to accelerate the purpose of God by even a few minutes.
Right through John’s Gospel, the Lord never allowed others to dictate His movements or His activity. A nobleman wanted Him to go from Cana to Capernaum to heal his son, 4.46-50. His brothers urged Him to go to Jerusalem for the sake of publicity, 7.1-9. Martha and Mary had expectations that He would rush to Bethany when news of Lazarus reached Him, chapter 11. The disciples advised Him to avoid Judaea, 11.8. Neither friends nor family nor the influential statesman could sway Him; God’s work must be done at God’s time and in God’s way.
THE SERVANTS
Mary’s instructions to the servants have long been used to encourage unquestioning obedience to the Lord Jesus: “Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it” Jn.2.5. It is invaluable advice. For the believer, unquestioning obedience demonstrates our love for Him: “If ye love Me, keep My commandments” 14.15. Obedience also maintains within us the enjoyment of His love for us: “If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love” 15.10. Furthermore, obedience is one of the factors that contribute to the assurance of our salvation: “And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments” 1Jn.2.3. “His commandments are not grievous” 1Jn.5.3, so we have no excuse for disobedience, but we all have to admit that we need to be prodded constantly by Mary’s words, “Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.”
John describes waterpots: how many there were, what they were made of, and their different capacities, v.6. How did the old fisherman remember such precise details after the passing of the decades? The Lord Jesus had promised the aid of the Holy Spirit as far as recollection was concerned, Jn.14.26, so, writing words inspired by the Spirit, John gave these accurate facts. He also helps us Gentiles to understand the reason for waterpots lying around at a wedding! It had to do with purification rituals which were customary among the Jews. This is a feature of John’s Gospel: his desire to make everything as understandable as possible, his ‘explanatory notes’, if you like. He frequently uses the term, “which is by interpretation” or, “being interpreted”. He explains why so many people were in the vicinity at the time of the feeding of the five thousand: they were en route to Jerusalem for the Passover, 6.4. He makes it clear that the Judas who asked a question in the Upper Room was “not Iscariot” 14.22. We might have been perplexed about that, seeing that Judas had exited the room in the previous chapter. The lesson for those of us who preach is that everything possible should be done to ensure that people understand what is being said, especially in preaching the gospel. Messages that are couched in terms that only the initiated might understand are not helpful. We sing the words of Erdmann Neumeister: “Make the message clear and plain”; let us see to it that we do.
The Lord gave brief instructions to the servants: “Fill the waterpots with water” 2.7. Their recorded response is equally concise: “they filled them up to the brim”. The obedience of these servants was exemplary. Firstly, their obedience appears to have been instant. ‘Getting around’ to some activity is a common human attitude and so often good intentions are not carried through. “The time is not come” was the petty excuse of men who placed their own interests above the demands of service, Hag.1.2. “He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap” Eccl.11.4. We can always come up with an excuse for inactivity, but the servants in our story seemed to overcome this innate human tendency to procrastinate and just got on with the task in hand in obedience to Christ. Mañana was not in their vocabulary. Philip the evangelist was told, “Arise, and go” and Scripture records, “he arose and went” Acts 8.26,27: simple, instant obedience!
Secondly, their obedience was total, for having been told to fill the waterpots, “they filled them up to the brim” Jn.2.7. This was no reluctant, half-hearted compliance to the command of the Saviour. Again, a lesson is there for us, for there were so many others in the Bible who only partially obeyed commands. Abraham was told to sever his links with his country and his kindred and get to a land that God would show him. He left his country but not his family, and initially he stopped short of Canaan and lived in Haran. There was no further communication from heaven until he had fully complied with the Divine command, Gen.12.1-8. King Saul professed to have obeyed the commandment of the Lord, and when challenged about having spared some livestock he alleged that he had reserved them for sacrifice. He had to learn the lesson that “to obey is better than sacrifice” and that his partial obedience was in fact as serious an offence as the witchcraft he had crusaded against, 1Sam.15.1-23. Strong convictions about some things do not compensate for disobedience in other areas of our lives. Let us then be as wholehearted in our obedience to the Saviour as were these servants at the wedding.
A third feature of the servants’ obedience was consistency, for when they were told to “bear unto the governor of the feast” it is recorded immediately, “they bare it” Jn.2.8. Having obeyed once, they persisted in their submission to the Saviour. Not everyone in Scripture was just so consistent in their obedience. The man of God who was sent out of Judah to reproach Jeroboam, 1Kings chapter 13, was under strict orders to neither eat bread nor drink water at Bethel. When Jeroboam encouraged him to share a meal with him he was adamant that he would comply strictly with the Divine command and he headed for home by a different route, again, in obedience to the Lord’s command. The pressure and the disgraceful lies of an old prophet lured him back to Bethel in disobedience; it cost him his life! At the death of Dorcas, Peter was quick to respond to an appeal to travel to Joppa; he was more reluctant to make the trip to Cornelius, with his “Not so, Lord” embedded in the story, Acts 9.39; 10.14. Paul was delighted to take advantage of “a great door and effectual” that had been opened to him at Ephesus, 1Cor.16.9, but stepped back from an open door at Troas, 2Cor.2.12,13. Which one of us has not been there, happily following Divine commands at one stage, and showing definite reluctance at the next? The servants at the wedding show us up.
Before leaving the servants, it is worth noting that the Lord did involve others in His activities. Some versions render Jn.9.4 as, “We must work the works of Him that sent Me while it is day”. There is a hint that, while the works were God’s works, and while any miraculous element to them was undoubtedly Christ’s, He did include others as ‘helpers’. Here it was the servants. In chapter 6 it was the disciples who organised the crowd and distributed the loaves and fishes. In chapter 11 someone else rolled the stone away and unwound the grave clothes from Lazarus. In each case, He did not do what others were able to do. There is still a human involvement in the work of God, although all our labours require the presence and power of our Saviour. Indeed, our efforts are futile without His Divine input. It is illustrated in the last verse of Mark’s Gospel: “And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them” Mk.16.20. It is so kind of Him to allow a human contribution to His work, and to be pleased to operate through His people. Are we available as were the servants? Are we usable as were the servants? Are we biddable as were the servants? We often sing Miss Havergal’s hymn of commitment, “Lord speak to me”. Let the sentiments of its final stanza express the genuine desire of our hearts:
- O use me, Lord, use even me,
- Just as Thou wilt, and when, and where.
THE RULER OF THE FEAST
Perhaps he was the Master of Ceremonies, or at least the superintendent for the catering at the wedding. Whatever his role, he appears to have had some status for the occasion. It is clear that he had no knowledge of the events leading up to his introduction in the narrative, except that he was bound to have been aware of the embarrassing shortage of wine, seeing that it was common knowledge among the guests, v.3. He knew nothing of the intervention of the Lord Jesus and the activities of the servants, v.9. Ignorance of facts and circumstances seems to be a feature of John’s Gospel. Andrew and his companion were ignorant of the Lord’s lodging place, 1.38. Nicodemus was in the dark about spiritual truth, 3.10. The disciples knew nothing of the Lord’s source of strength, 4.33, and so we could go on through the Gospel to highlight similar instances.
Statements like this throw into relief another great theme of John’s Gospel: the omniscience of the Son of God. In contrast to human ignorance, He is all-knowing. Omniscience is one of the attributes of Deity: “God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things” 1Jn.3.20. Seeing the Lord Jesus is God the Son, and John is at pains to stress that, he demonstrates the knowledge of Christ right through the Gospel. He highlights His knowledge of Nathanael’s whereabouts and character in 1.47,48. The Lord Jesus had no need of anyone to enlighten Him about any shallow ‘disciples’ for “He knew all men” 2.23-25. He knew Nicodemus’s status as “the teacher of Israel” 3.10, R.V. The woman of chapter 4 had to acknowledge He “told me all things that ever I did” v.29, and so on right through the whole Book. The thought culminates in the last chapter when Peter says to Him, “Thou knowest all things” 21.17. Thus, in contrast to the imperfect knowledge of men such as the ruler of the feast, there was One Whose knowledge was perfect and Whose omniscience marked Him out as being Divine.
To assess the suitability of the wine, the ruler had to taste it, 2.9. Tasting is used in Scripture as an illustration of personally appropriating spiritual blessings by faith, and so Peter speaks of believers having “tasted that the Lord is gracious” 1Pet.2.3. That initial taste stimulated our spiritual taste buds for the “sincere milk of the word” to which Peter had referred, v.2, and which alone will promote spiritual growth. Doubtless he had in mind Ps.34.8, where the God-fearing man is saying to others, “O taste and see that the Lord is good”. In other words, people who have sampled the benefits of spiritual blessings themselves do all in their power to encourage others to taste them personally by trusting the Saviour. The Thessalonians “received the word”; in turn, from them “sounded out the word of the Lord” 1Thess.1.6-8. They wanted what had been a blessing to them to be a benefit to others, and this should be a challenge to us. Are we simply reservoirs of spiritual blessing, or channels? Do we allow the branches of our fruitful bough to run over the wall to others, Gen.49.22? In picture, the governor of the feast did just that. Having tasted for himself, he then recommended what he had tasted by labelling it “good wine”.
THE BRIDEGROOM
Having tasted the wine, the ruler of the feast then summoned the bridegroom and complimented him on its quality. Earlier, the emphasis had been on quantity, with the six waterpots containing a total of between one hundred and one hundred and fifty gallons, depending on which commentators you read! Even the conservative estimate is a substantial amount, and it is typical of Divine provision. God “giveth to all men liberally” Jms.1.5. Manna was “rained down” upon the people in the wilderness, Ps.78.24. Water “gushed out” from the smitten rock, v.20. Everything God does is big and plentiful. When it comes to spiritual blessings, God has “blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” Eph.1.3. Nothing has been withheld from us. “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” Rom.8.32. Thus, the provision of such a quantity of wine at the wedding is typical of the bountiful ways of God.
The governor’s comments have more to do with the quality of the wine: “good wine” Jn.2.10. He appears to be giving the bridegroom credit for providing such an excellent beverage and the bridegroom says nothing to correct him, nor does the Lord intervene to rectify the misunderstanding. Have you ever been in that position, seeing someone else getting credit for your good work, either at your place of employment or in spiritual things? It can be discouraging when you go unnoticed, and yet the Lord Jesus let the thing pass. The true story would come out in due course in the inspired writings that we have been exploring. For you too, applause might not ring in your ears in the here and now. Be assured though, that at the day of review which the Bible calls the Judgment Seat of Christ, appropriate praise will be conferred by Him Who has viewed your quiet, noble deeds and has discerned the true motives of your heart, for “then shall every man have praise of God” 1Cor.4.5.
It is hardly likely that any who are reading this would know good wine from bad wine, but the ruler of the feast would be no amateur in that field. The fact that an expert expressed his opinion that this was “good wine” is an indication that, as ever, what the Lord Jesus did had the stamp of perfection upon it. There are little statements about many of His miracles that demonstrate that everything was done in a superlative way. A blind man saw “clearly” Mk.8.25. A man with a speech impediment “spake plain” Mk.7.35. A withered hand “was restored whole as the other” Mk.3.5. A great storm became “a great calm” Mk.4.39. Hungry multitudes “did all eat, and were filled” Matt.14.20; 15.37. Here in John chapter 2, the wine was “good wine” v.10. No wonder an awestruck crowd said of our Saviour, “He hath done all things well” Mk.7.37. At the conclusion of the creation week, Scripture affirms that “behold, it was very good” Gen.1.31. That was true not only of the Lord’s work in creation, but of every miracle He performed when He was here as a Man.
- We muse on more than heart can hold,
- On more than tongue can tell,
- And simply say, like those of old,
- “He hath done all things well”.
- (I.Y.Ewan)
THE DISCIPLES
By performing this “beginning of His signs” Jn.2.11, R.V., the Lord Jesus “manifested forth His glory”. Later in his Gospel John quoted from Isaiah chapter 6 and identified the Throne-Sitter there as the preincarnate Christ, saying, “These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him” 12.41. The glory referred to there was a display of majesty that was visible in the exalted position that He occupied and the exquisite clothing that He wore. The visible was enhanced by the audible, for the seraphim who were in attendance perpetually declared His holiness. There was nothing as dramatic as that at the wedding. John had said in his first chapter that “we beheld His glory” v.14. It may be that he had in mind the resplendent magnificence of Christ that was displayed on what Peter called “the holy mount”, with his own comment, “we … were eyewitnesses of His majesty” 2Pet.1.16. Or it may be that with the reference to the Lord’s “grace and truth” in Jn.1.14, John had more in mind what we call His moral glory, which is not a Biblical expression, but is a fitting description of the moral excellence, the unsullied perfections, that He displayed as He dwelt among men.
Here at His first sign He manifested His glory, and the last sign was said to be for the glory of God and for the glory of the Son of God, Jn.11.4,40. In neither case was there a visible manifestation of majesty; there was no radiance of Divine glory that would outshine the sun as on the Mount of Transfiguration, but the display of Christ’s unfettered power allied with His thoughtfulness and compassion was a telling expression of Divine glory to those who had eyes to see it; and these manifestations of His glory did impact on the watchers. “Many of the Jews” who witnessed the raising of Lazarus “believed on Him” 11.45, and here at Cana, having manifested His glory, His disciples believed on Him, 2.11. This handful of men who had been gathered in chapter 1 had been immensely impressed by what they heard from Him. Now the visible confirmed the audible, and they affirmed their faith in Him.
This is another feature of John’s Gospel. Having recorded His signs to promote faith, John frequently records whether or not people actually did believe. A crucial question was posed by the Lord in the story of the man born blind: “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” 9.35. The majority of readers will be able to answer in the affirmative but should it be that as yet you have never believed on Him for eternal life, allow me to quote a verse that would encourage you to take that step, but which also warns of the dangers of persisting in unbelief: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” 3.36. Earlier I drew attention to the fact that “neither did His brethren believe in Him” 7.5, but at some point they altered their stance. The same could be true of you, and having lived in rejection of Christ for so long, you could join with the once-blind man and say, “Lord, I believe”, and like him, commence the new life by worshipping Him, 9.38.
CONCLUSION
The excitement of the wedding day passed, and with His disciples and His mother, the Lord Jesus moved “down to Capernaum” 2.12, the place where He had taken up residence for much of His public ministry, Matt.4.13; it was “His own city” Matt.9.1. This time, His stay there was brief, “not many days”, and nothing spectacular is recorded of those few days. For us too, life can be like that. There are some days when there are highlights, special times of anticipated pleasure like the wedding, or on reflection, days of special blessing when we feel that God has been at work in an unusual way. But we do not live life in a perpetual state of excitement. There are the days in between the mountain peaks that could be described as routine. Be sure of this: for the Saviour, what might have been considered as routine, without any recorded highlights, was still a period during which that sinless Man was living for the pleasure of His Father. An earlier eighteen years of His life, years when as a youth and a young man at Nazareth He was toiling as a carpenter, were summarised like this by Luke: “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” Lk.2.52. In the routine of daily employment He was bringing pleasure to His Father. For most of us, the round of life is predictable, interspersed by the highlights. Let us ensure that the ‘Capernaum’ days of low-key living are as pleasurable to God as the ‘Cana’ days of thrill and excitement.