scarcely be imagined than between the wilderness and the supply of wine at the marriage -
feast. Rather, since this essential difference really existed, it naturally appeared at the
very commencement of Christ's Ministry. 4 And so in regard to the other meaning, also,
which this history carries to our minds.
4. We may, however, here again notice that, if this narrative had been fictitious, it would
seem most clumsily put together. To introduce the Forerunner with fasting, and as an
ascetic, and Him to Whom he pointed with a marriage-feast, is an incongruity which no
writer of a legend would have perpetrated. But the writer of the fourth Gospel does not
seem conscious of any in congruity, and this because he has no ideal story nor characters
to introduce. In this sense it may be said, that the introduction of the story of the
marriage-feast of Cana is in itself the best proof of its truthfulness, and of the miracle
which it records.
At the same time it must be borne in mind, that marriage conveyed to the Jews much
higher thoughts than merely those of festivity and merriment. The pious fasted before it,
confessing their sins. It was regarded almost as a Sacrament. Entrance into the married
state was thought to carry the forgiveness of sins.5 6 It almost seems as if the relationship
of Husband and Bride between Jehovah and His people, so frequently insisted upon, not
only in the Bible, but in Rabbinic writings, had always been stand ing out in the
background. Thus the bridal pair on the marriage -day symbolised the union of God with
Israel.7 Hence, though it may in part have been national pride, which considered the birth
of every Israelite as almost outweighing the rest of the world, it scarcely wholly accounts
for the ardent insistance on marriage, from the first prayer at the circumcision of a child,
onwards through the many and varied admonitions to the same effect. Similarly, it may
have been the deep feeling of brotherhood in Israel, leading to sympathy with all that
most touched the heart, which invested with such sacredness participation in the gladness
of marriage,8 or the sadness of burial. To use the bold allegory of the times, God Himself
had spoken the words of blessing over the cup at the union of our first parents, when
Michael and Gabriel acted as groomsmen, 9 and the Angelic choir sang the wedding
hymn.10 So also He had shown the example of visiting the sick (in the case of Abraham),
comforting the mourners (in that of Isaac), and burying the dead (in that of Moses).11
Every man who met it, was bound to rise and join the marriage procession, or the funeral
march. It was specially related of King Agrippa that he had done this, and a curious
Haggadah sets forth that, when Jezebel was eaten of dogs, her hands and feet were
spared,12 because, amidst all her wickedness, she had been wont to greet every marriage -
procession by clapping of hands, and to accompany the mourners a certain distance on
their way to the burying.13 And so we also read it, that, in the burying of the widow's son
of Nain, 'much people of the city was with her.'14
5. Yalkut on 1 Sam. xiii. 1 vol ii. p. 16 d.
6. The Biblical proofs adduced for attaching this benefit to a sage, a bridegroom, and a
prince on entering on their new state, are certainly peculiar. In the case of a bridegroom it
is based on the name of Esau's bride, Machalath (Gen. xxviii. 9), a name which is derived
from the Rabbinic 'Machal,' to forgive. In Jer. Biccur. iii. p. 65 d, where this is also
related, it is pointed out that the original name of Esau's wife had been Basemath (Gen.
xxxvi. 3), the name Machalath, therefore, having been given when Esau married.