Posted on 01/16/2016 11:55:56 PM PST by Charles Henrickson
"The Wedding at Cana" (John 2:1-11)
It is sometimes the case with a biblical text that one can draw various points from it without exhausting all the points that are there to be had. I think that is the case with our text for today, Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana, from John chapter 2. There are a number of points or sub-points we can draw from this passage without getting to what I think is perhaps the main point. So let's see how that goes now with this story of "The Wedding at Cana."
So Jesus is going to a wedding. It's at Cana in Galilee, not that far from Nazareth, where Jesus grew up, or from Capernaum, where now he was making his headquarters. How he got invited to the wedding is not directly stated, but it may have been because his mother was a friend of the family. So Mary is there, Jesus is there, and Jesus brings along his disciples.
So one point or sub-point we could draw from this is that Jesus is affirming God's institution of marriage. That he is blessing this marriage by his presence. Just as Jesus is present at Christian weddings and blesses Christian marriages to this day. That is true. But that's not all there is to this story, not by a long shot.
Now another point, this one about Jesus' mother. She finds out that the big wedding celebration, which, by the way, would last for days--she finds out that they have run out of wine. That's not good. That would be a disaster, an embarrassment, and would really put a damper on things. So she goes to her son, Jesus, and asks him if he can do anything about this. Apparently, she realizes that her son has the authority and the power, from God, to do some pretty amazing things. And she trusts her son to do the right thing in this situation. So she tells the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." That is faith speaking. "Do whatever he tells you"--that's pretty good. It shows Mary to be a model of faith, a role model for the church. Would that we all had the faith of Mary to say about Jesus, "Do whatever he tells you."
But there's more to this story than that. Well, OK, let's look further. So Jesus addresses the situation of the need for more wine at the party, and--poof!--there, he makes some! Now one point we can draw from this is that Jesus approves of drinking wine. He's OK with that. He even provides wine for this celebration. Jesus is no teetotaler. There is nothing inherently wrong or sinful in drinking wine or other alcoholic beverages. It's not OK to get drunk, but it is OK to drink. The Bible says in Psalm 104 that the Lord gives wine "to gladden the heart of man." And so wine is a good gift from our creator to be used and enjoyed, but not to be abused. Well, that's a point we can draw from this, but it's not the main point.
So Jesus turns water into wine, and, there you go, no more wine shortage. What we see is that Jesus clearly has power from heaven to do this mighty miracle. No one else could do this. Jesus is at least, minimum, a prophet sent by God. But wait, more, he is the very Son of God come in the flesh. We read in the beginning of John's gospel that this eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word, the Logos--that he was in the beginning with God, and that through him all things were made. So now as the Word made flesh, the Son of God incarnate has the power of creation at his command, demonstrated here in his turning water into wine. Very important point. But that's not all. There's more to the story.
And the "more" to this story is found in some of the details that John provides in his telling of it. Notice, the water that Jesus turns into wine--where does it come from? John tells us: "Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, 'Fill the jars with water.' And they filled them up to the brim." Now John didn't have to tell us that much detail. He could have just said, "Now there were some large water jars there, and Jesus turned the water in them into wine." But we're told more than that. There were six of these large stone water jars, each of them holding twenty or thirty gallons. And Jesus has the servants fill each one of them to the brim. This emphasizes how abundant, super-abundant, is the gift Jesus is going to give. That's how Jesus does things. Always more than we can expect or imagine. He is rich in his grace toward us. Full to the brim. Always more than we can measure.
So that's one thing that this mention of the six water jars tells us. But John gives us even another detail. He says that these are six stone water jars used "for the Jewish rites of purification." Now he didn't need to mention that, but he does. Jesus chooses to use, and John chooses to tell us, that these are water jars for Jewish rites of purification. The Jews would have various self-ablutions, various washings, to render themselves ritually clean and to get rid of certain types of uncleanness. And with these, they often would go even beyond what God had commanded for Israel. We read elsewhere in the gospels, that the Jews, the Pharisees, would have particular washings--hand-washing, for instance--to make themselves clean. Thus the presence of these six stone jars for ritual purification.
And these are the vessels that Jesus is filling full. And then he replaces them with different content, the new wine in old wineskins, if you will. Or in this case, the new wine in old water jars. Do you get the point? Those old Jewish rites of purification are passing away. They pointed ahead to the new and only way of purification, which is through what Jesus provides. Jesus fulfills--Jesus fills full--what the old covenant pointed ahead toward. He brings in the new wine of the new covenant.
Here is your purification, dear friends! It is in what Jesus provides. It is in what Jesus gives. And what does he give? Jesus gives his own body into death for your purification. Jesus sheds his own blood for your forgiveness. This is how you are clean. This is how you are forgiven: through Jesus giving himself for you, to be your purification.
Notice how Jesus says at this point, early on in his ministry--he says, "My hour has not yet come." Not now, not yet, not at Cana. But that hour will come. For that is why Jesus has come. To accomplish our cleansing, to accomplish our purification, at the cross. Later in this gospel, toward the conclusion of his ministry, Jesus will say, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. . . . Now my soul is troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. . . .And I, when I have am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." And then John adds, "He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die." In other words, Jesus is about to be lifted up on the cross, and this is why he came, and this is how he will be glorified, and this is therefore his "hour." It wasn't yet at Cana, but it will be at the cross, and Cana is a sign pointing us to the cross, where Jesus will provide all the purification the world will ever need, in super-abundance, through his holy blood.
Friends, you need the purification that only Jesus can provide. Your sins would condemn you, and you cannot wash them off on your own. The Pharisees tried that, and it didn't work. Pilate tried that, and it didn't work. The only cleansing that does work is the purification that comes through Jesus' blood. "The blood of Jesus, God's Son, cleanses us from all sin," John writes in his epistle. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." So confess your sins to God, dear friends, for he will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
And with this cleansing, this forgiveness, this purification that only Jesus can provide, what is the result? The answer: Life. And joy. And celebration. Think of it. Where do life and joy and celebration all come together most beautifully in human experience? At a wedding. Here are two lives joined into one. Here is the promise of more life to follow, with the prospect of children to emerge from this union. And a wedding is about the most joyous kind of celebration we have in our experience. It's a great party. There is wine to gladden the heart. And in biblical weddings, the joy and the feasting and the celebrating goes on for days. It's no wonder that Jesus so often in his teaching compares the kingdom of heaven to a wedding feast, a wedding banquet.
And so it is that Jesus chooses to do this miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding. It's a sign. It's the perfect setting for demonstrating the life and the joy that Jesus is bringing through his death and resurrection. Notice, John mentions, "On the third day there was a wedding at Cana." And there will come another "third day" when Jesus will rise from the dead and the celebrating will begin! The celebrating continues to this day, and it will never end. Death cannot stop it. Life is the outcome, the life that Jesus bestows on us in super-abundance.
So come to the party! You are invited. It's the wedding feast of the Lamb in his kingdom, which will have no end. Not just for a week, but for an eternity, this party will go on. Jesus saves the best wine for last. He gives it free of charge. And always more than we can measure.
On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast." So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now." This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
Ping.
>> “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”
Such a great statement.
That was a lovely sermon on John 2! Thanks! :-)
There is another time in the Fourth Gospel when Jesus refers to His mother as “woman”; and was when His hour had come and what was drawn forth was water and blood.
He did indeed save the best for last.
ping-aling-aling
Sorry, Charles. This only echoes a very popular--albeit quite incorrect--translation and interpretation of the status of the wedding. It reflects a quite modern attitude towards the meaning of the word "wine," as well as the emphasis placed by the groom on it in his plan fir the wedding.
What you need to do is develop your own exegesis of the Greek, and be faithful to it, not to someone else's false reading. Please take note regarding John 2:3:
1, The key verb in the original thought is "hustereo" which is "to lack, or to be devoid of," It is in the aorist tense, active voice, participle (= ing) mode, genitive case, singular, and masculine.
2. The verb does not refer to the participants, and is therefore wrongly translated in the KJV
3. The masculine noun "oinos" is in the genitive case, and therefore cannot be the subject of the phrase, thus contradicting the Douay-Rheims and Darby translations.
4. The subject of the verb refers to the masculine noun "gamos" = "wedding" immediately before in verse 2. 5. Therefore the correct translation of thr phrase is, "It lacks wine" where "it" refers to the wedding, not to the people of the wedding,
Going on, Jesus' mother brought this lack of any grape juice as a liquid refreshment to his attention. Looking at what she said: 1. The verb "echo" which means "to have," it is in the present tense, active voice, indicative mode, third person plural, so the subject of the phrase is "they" meaning at least the planners of the feast, which ought to include its principal initiator to whom the bill for it will be sent.
2. The noun "oinos" is in the accusative case and singular, thus making it the direct object of the verb. 3. The KJV, DRB, and Darby translations fail to carry over the sense of the use of continuousness, the implicit nuance of the present tense.
4. These translations say as one voice that the Greek means, "They have no wine" thus themselves fail in communicating entire thought of the Greek, also mistranslating the negative particle "ouk" = "no" or "not." 5. A corrected translation of Mary's sentece is, "They are not having wine." (with the implication that the context is the plan for the feast). This allows the entire sensibility of His reply, "What does that have to do with you or Me?" Obviously then, since neither Jesus nor Mary intitiated, planned, prepared for, or executed the menu and conduct of the feast, what did it mean to them?
Well, as a last-minute invited group, obviously they werer going to consume a goodly portion. And according to custom, they probably ought to have brought a gift, but none is mentioned. Therefore, He saw it beneficial to convert six stone pots of thus ritually cleansed water into abou a hundred fifty gallons of tasty, fresh, pure, cloudless, alcohol-free grape juice as the gift.
(A metaphor here signifying perhaps the conversion of "living water" into the newly-made blood of the cluster, early on signifying the Blood which He was to shed for them, before they were aware of its significance.)
How could He be glorified by your interpretation of making drunk people drunker?
Eh, Charles?
Seriously? Grape Juice?? You think a wine steward doesnt know the differance between wine and grape juice? That saving the best for last would be saving grape juice?
You went into a long explanation of why the sentence structure in Greek indicates that the translations are wrong, but in no way connected that explanation with the idea that the “oinos” was alcohol-free.
In fact, the use of the word wine, and the later comment by the servant: most hosts serve their best wine first, then when everyone has drunk that wine, serve the lesser wine clearly implies that the host had already served some (alcoholic) wine and had run out. Mary pointed this out to her Son, Who made some more wine, better wine, for the wedding.
Eh! It more like it's not okay to get drunk on a regular basis. However, once in awhile, in a harmless setting, it should be okay. Like definitely during hurricanes. What else can you do but drink. Not internet connection and you can't even read because no electricity. Another harmless occasion would be at rum festivals such as the West Palm Beach Tropical Rum Festival I am going to on February 6. It costs $50 for an ALL YOU CAN DRINK ticket. However, since I used GroupOn it was only $35. But wait! There's MORE!!! On the day I ordered it, they had an additional 20% off so it only cost me $28.
Yes, I know what you're thinking. My "sin" will come when I have to drive 40 miles home while drunk. Well, you're wrong, rum breath! I realized that would be the real sin of all that drinking so I told my wife that one of us would have to drive home so I told her I could be the only one to get the ALL YOU CAN DRINK ticket. Don't ask me how I did it, but I actually convinced her to drive me there and then drive me home hours later. We have a relative in the Palm Beach area so she can spend a few hours visiting her until she picks me up hours later.
Hey, ONCE IN A WHILE, you have to let it all hang out. The only sin in this case would be drunk driving and I got that base covered.
p.s. If a certain brand of rum stands out I'll let everybody know about it. I plan on doing LOTS of sampling.
I reviewed the grammar to show that, according to the the writer John, there was no wine being offered at the feast. There is no reason not to believe that the participants shunned the recreational use of intoxicating beverages. The text clearly says that the wedding activity was devoid of wine. Jesus' mother said, "They are not having wine" with "at this wedding" being implied; to which Jesus essentially asked what that had to do with Him or her. To get anything else, the reader must make some assumptions and draw conclusions that are not warranted.
As to the use of the word "wine" to translate "oinos," the definition of what the word means is rather more narrow in English today than it is in the Greek of the first century being translated, and also than in the Elizabethan definition of "wine." In the Koine, "oinos" could be either unfermented or partially-(anaerobically)-fermented juice of the cluster. Which form it takes is determined by the context, if at all, and in John chapter 2 it is not defined. There nominally it could be either. What it could not be is "ogzos" (from which we get "oxygen"), fully fermented to vinegar (acetic acid) because of free access to air during the reactions, with presence of ethanol being only a minor and passing constituent.
When Jesus gave the illustration of storing wine in leather "bottles," He called freshly-pressed liquor of the grape clusters as "new wine"; nevertheless it still was just was "oinos" translated as "wine." But though He used this to picture the process of the New Covenant versus the Old Covenant, the Age of Law, it would be wrong to confer His approval on the drinking of literal wine from its illustrative use in the figurative-literal parable. The Greeks had no word for "grape juice," so they just called it . . . wine.
Regarding the beverage made by Jesus from ritually purified water, it is not clear to me why people seem to insist that it be the same as the filthy stuff made by people stomping grapes in a stone pit with dirty feet in sweaty and otherwise defiled clothes, and transferred into unhygienic goatskins for final fermentation and settling of the sediment; for this is what the non-thinking wine-drinking hypothesizers must have it to be.
To me, it makes a lot more sense that the product of this transformation from clean, pure water could just as well have been a clear, sweet, delicious beverage, of which our store-bought Welch's grape juice (made from concentrate) would be a typical example. Being made without the yeasty content of toe-jam and sweaty human skin-flakes and clothes (and other stuff) it would still have all the fruit sugars and flavonoids and anthocyanins needed to make it "wine"--new wine--the blood of the grape--the fruit of the vine. Such a wine would be that which He drinks with us, sometime in the future, at the Wedding Feast of The Lamb, eh? I see no reason why He would have made His new wine, 150 gallons of it, to be loaded with the intoxicating poison of ethyl alcohol, to harm the emotions and confuse the thinking of both children as well as adults at the feast. Can you find a legitimate reason?
As considering the "governor" of the feast, the caterer/M. C., when the water-made-wine beverage was brought, and he tasted it, apparently he thought it was "the good wine" (and here you need only dwell on the taste which is the only quality separating the "good" from the "worse," not the alcohol content). He then noted that feasts commonly begin with the "good wine" being served at the outset, but commended the bridegroom (who determined when the wine would be served) for strategically (he presumed) not serving the "good wine" at the beginning of the feast, but postponing its serving until the middle of the feast, thus economizing the cost, regulating the crowd's behavior, and ensuring that everyone would think well of his libation's quality.
Clearly, your assumptions, which you take to be fact and which are not fact, are not supported by the text when it is thought out properly. What that line of thinking involves is jumping from the translation(s) (and rather poor ones in this passage) directly into a legend based on unsupportable assumptions, without having applied a literal grammatical syntactical cultural scientific historical technological interpretation to the translation, thereby arriving at a misleading or false conclusion.
Here's the fact: from this text, you cannot prove that: (1) any wine was served at any time in the feast prior to the arrival of the beverage made by Jesus at the M. C.'s table; (2) that the wine made by Jesus was intoxicating; or that (3) the participants would not otherwise have been merely drunken revelers.
And furthermore, if any of these factors had been as you claim, demonstrate how that vignette would bring glory to The Christ of God, or persuade anyone to believe in his Deity.
The answer is that you cannot, and neither can this concocted story by Charles Henrickson. I believe he owes a deep apology to the Lord, and to anyone he has convinced the the Lord Jesus Christ approves of intoxicants as beverages approved for Christian diet or "enjoyment" purposes.
Including use in the Breaking of Bread, the Remembrance Supper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.