A gay wedding at Cana
by Jeremiah Bartram on 11/01/10 at 12:22 pm
On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.” So they took it. When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (although the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.” Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him. John 2, 1-11; Gospel for Sunday, January 17.
Commentators
The NRSV notes that Cana was a small village, about 15 km north of Nazareth; that the “mother of Jesus” is never named in John’s gospel; that the word, “woman” was a term of respect and affection; and that (v. 11) “Jesus’ miracles were not wonders to astound, but signs pointing to his glory, God’s presence in him”. Further, it suggests that the “hour” to which Jesus refers is the hour of his glory on the cross.
Hardy notes that Cana was the home of Nathanial, and, according to the gospel of John, was visited more than once by Jesus and his disciples. He builds up a layered account of the story – beginning on the natural level, where Jesus saves the host from embarrassment, and perhaps (c.f. the incident of the temple tax in the fish’s mouth, Matthew 17, 24-7) very discretely provides a customary hospitality offering for himself and his disciples, by changing the water into a large quantity of excellent wine.
He notes the symbolism of the story: it takes place on the “third day” – as does the Resurrection – and the fact that the six empty stone jars are of the kind used “for Jewish rites of purification”. “[W]e can be sure,” he concludes, “that we are meant to see a deeper significance: the ritual observances of the Jews were about to give place to the spiritual sacraments of the Christians, which would give new meaning to the ceremonial drinking of wine.”
Gospel for gays
This is a great story. We are in the gospel of John – so we’re in a world that is extremely layered and nuanced. Also, we’re in a gospel that focuses on only a handful of signs performed by Jesus, of which this one, the first, is not included in the synoptic gospels.
There are different ways of approaching this story. I take it literally: there was a marriage-feast; Mary played a key role; Jesus offered a sign; what had been water took on the characteristics of wine; that wine was of high quality, the best; and also, it was abundant – perhaps 180 gallons of the stuff. That’s a lot of wine. We assume that was more wine than they actually needed – just as the 153 fish in the miraculous catch by the shore (John 21, 11) constituted more than they needed. This is a sign of the abundance of God’s love for us.
It is also a sign that reveals the engagement of God in the intimate and joyful fabric of human life. The God of Jesus is not utilitarian, not prudish, and certainly not mean-spirited or disapproving.
After all, a utilitarian, grudging God would have told them to make do with water. You can almost hear the exasperated, hectoring, pseudo-realistic voice can’t you?
“Ran out of wine? That was bad planning! Do you expect me to solve your problems for you? It’s your own fault if you’ve run out. Either that, or you’ve already drunk more than you should. I, God, provide you with perfectly good water – and you just can’t be content, can you? You have to fancy it up and make wine and get drunk and dance and wake up with a hangover. And maybe with someone you hardly remember lying beside you! Remember the golden calf? That’s a sin, you know. How often do I have to tell you, wine only leads to drunkenness and folly and addiction and sin, so why would you expect me to encourage that? It’s not necessary, strictly speaking. You don’t need it. It’s a diuretic. It’s bad for the liver. Let them have water! Sober up. No fun allowed!”
Or words to that effect.
And besides, what are we celebrating anyway! This is all about sex, and everyone knows that sex, while necessary to preserve the species, is dangerous and messy and confusing and extremely irrational. Downright disordered, I’d say – to use a too-familiar word.
Much better to do without sex, while we’re cutting out the wine.
Jesus didn’t react that way, even if, over subsequent centuries, some of his “followers” did.
**
We assume that the marriage being celebrated at Cana is between a male and a female – although the text is silent on that point. Our assumption is completely natural; anything else would be culturally improbable.
But that’s all it would be: culturally improbable. We’re making an assumption, not stating a fact.
Which means that, just for the hell of it, we could make a different assumption, without violating the givens of the story. We could assume that the couple consisted of two guys.
What would change? That’s the interesting question.
And you know what the answer is?
Nothing.
It would make no difference to the story at all. They’d still celebrate with a feast lasting several days. They’d still dance and drink. They’d still run out of wine. Mary would still turn to Jesus for a solution, and in a puzzling and ambiguous way, he would seem to refuse and then assent to her request.
And the feast master would still decide that the fresh supply of wine was the best of all: water now wine. The feast would go on; abundance would increase. Indeed, the fact that it was a gay marriage would increase abundance, since the marriage would better reflect all the gay elements in the profusion of God’s creation.
**
Question: So then, what’s the big deal about gay marriage?
Answer: Beats me.
Question: Does it mean the end of civilization as we know it?
Answer: Hard to see why. Or how.
**
I’m not suggesting that we re-write the text, to propose a marriage between two men or two women.
But the question is real. If natural water is changed into wine, and the natural union of a man and woman is transformed into a sacramental one (one of the traditional implications drawn from this story) – then why can’t the “natural” union of two men or women also be transformed?
Why, in other words, must our unions remain empty of grace, sterile, closed to the transformative power of this God of abundance, which is also the transformative power of love? I’m speaking, of course, about current church teaching.
In my view, the only argument against a positive answer to this question, so central to our lives, is drawn from philosophy, not from scripture. And the fundamental issue is lack of imagination.
Our gay experience tells us something different. It tells us that the transformative power of our God can and does live in our relationships. And it tells us that Jesus and his mother are present at our marriages, too – if we invite them, and (sadly) that’s another story.
Terence Weldon
Jan 11th, 2010
Jeremiah, I was thinking along these lines a little while ago – making one small adjustment: replace “Cana ” with “Canaan”.
The land of Canaan is one of those lands of the middle-east, like Egypt and Mesopotamia, where is it is known that same sex marriages were part of social custom.
So your little bit of poetic license is not that far-fetched.
David
Jan 13th, 2010
I’m amazed at how you have adjusted this story to fit what you wanted to say instead of adjusting your sermon to reflect what the text actually says.
Do your readers a blessed favor and adjust your sermon to honor God’s Word instead of adjusting God’s Word to honor your desires. A marriage between two men or two women – c’mon – if you are going to make that argument out of thin air, then why not preach on the possiblity that it was a marriage between an ass and a chicken because that marriage is as acceptable in 1st century Jewish culture as gay marriage.
viji
Jan 15th, 2010
Jeremiah,
“What would change?”
Jesus wouldn’t have attended the wedding.
Aerin
Jan 16th, 2010
Jesus didn’t react that way, even if, over subsequent centuries, some of his “followers” did.
As the above commenters illustrate.
I’ve always thought it’s strange that the first miracle happened at a wedding, when, possibly, Jesus himself had been married. (Some suggest he lost wife & baby in childbirth, some of course suggest he was gay, but “married” however). I keep wondering about the correlation, and how Jesus felt knowing he would never have that kind of life-long connection to another person.
Just thinking. Glad to have found your site!
torry
Jan 16th, 2010
there is no way they would have had a public Jewish ceremony for a same sex marriage. I believe the punishment for the lifestyle was death in Jewish culture?
and Terence, the author knew the difference between cana and canaan, come on!
Sunday Readings, 17th January: the Civil Partnership Celebration at Cana. « Queering the Church (towards a reality-based theology)
Jan 17th, 2010
[...] on Gospel reflections by Canadian Catholic blogger Jeremiah. For this week’s Gospel on the wedding at Cana, Jeremiah asks us to imagine the scene as a “gay” wedding. This is not as far-fetched [...]
Terence Weldon
Jan 17th, 2010
David,
Jeremiah didn’t “change” the story. He offered a reflection on it, to offer some fresh thinking. And to viji, Jesus most emphatically would have attended regardless. His words and example showed clearly that he reached out and welcomed all outsiders. Indeed, in many ways the Gospels include more examples of “queer” values than what are now (quite inaccurately) called “traditional” family values.
For instance, His healing of the centurions “pais” shows clearly that he did not reject what was most likely a homoerotic relationship; among his closest friends were Lazarus, Mary & Martha. Although described as “sisters”, this is quite possible a euphemism for a lesbian relationship. It most certainly not a typical Jewish family, in a time when young girls were married off by their fathers in their early teens; and He quite explicitly stated that “eunuchs” were welcome in the Kingdom of heaven. The word “eunuchs” here may be he closest equivalent to our modern conception of “gay man”.
More generally, Christ’s entire ministry was one of clearly welcoming and including outsiders of all kinds, even (especially?) where it conflicted with the legalistic religious scruples of the day.
(For substantiation and more background on these claims, see “queeringthechurch.wordpress.com”, especially the post “The Gospels’ Queer Values”).
Judy
Jul 8th, 2010
Has anyone on this website read Romans 1.27, Lev. 18:22 and 20:13?
Jesus loved all men and women but he wouldn’t have condoned something that from the beginning he condemned as sin. It is clear from the commandments and laws how God felt about homosexuality. If it was sin then and God doesn’t change how can it be OK now?
The bible says my people parish for lack of knowledge and since the beginning man has tried to change the gospel to fit their lusts.
If God intended relationships between same sex couples why did he create only Adam and Eve? Why didn’t he add another man or woman? and why was his fist command to take dominion and be fruitful and multiply which clearly same sex couples cannot do. Wouldn’t it be just like the enemy of man (satan) to bring such deception and confusion to God’s idea of relationship so that His original union (man and women) would be stunted from doing the thing that satan hates most and that is giving life?
I have a great friend who has come out of this lifestyle check out his website. Through prayer and deliverance I have seen many men and women come to the truth.
http://www.ericgarnersetfree.com/forpastors.html
Pancho
Jul 16th, 2010
Judy,
Yes we have read those verses indeed. I have and I do not believe that Lev 18:22 is applicable for all times and all situtations, just as the other laws in that passage. As for Romans, its speaking about lust, not love expressed through sex.
I really do not feel you have the authority to speculate as to what God felt about homosexuality or what he feels now. I think this site is about being humble and putting things out there, thoughts, experiences, rather than slamming your view of what is right.
I do not wish to be rude, but please re-read your arguments, because they do not flow logically.
There is no reason that the creation of Adam and Eve precludes same sex couples from existing. When you say “Why did he not create another man or woman?” I wonder what you mean by that, are taking the creation story in Genesis literally. I do not see that story literally.
As for your friends website, it is good to share it, but please do so out of humility and not out of some sort of authority.
Sending you lots of love in Christ, I mean it,
kulu
Jul 23rd, 2010
There is only one Gospel and one God, one judgement one heaven and one hell. If this Gospel is for gays then you have divorced yourselves from the one truth. The Gospel of Jesus Christ.