Christ's First Miracle

What is clear is that you have no intention of actually addressing this scripture in context.

If you believe a Jew, that had spent 15-30 minutes ceremonially cleansing himself in a 30 gal. water pot, would turn around and drink wine from the same pot, you are indeed blinded by your agenda.

Read the text. Don't read into the text what you want it to say. If Jesus had wanted to give 120 gals. of wine to the party, why not fill up the empty wine skins with water? He had them fill up the ceremonial water pots for a reason. That reason was not so people at the party would have 120 gals. more wine to drink.

Another thing. You come across as an arrogant person in your posts. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I know it will happen. But do not attack me personally if you disagree with what I have posted. If you keep talking to people the way you do, it is going to get real ugly, real fast.

peace to youraying:

 

I do not believe that the story itself reveals whether the wine that Jesus made was alcoholic or not. The argument that the master of the banquet proclaimed it to be the best wine he had tasted does not prove that the wine was alcoholic. I merely proves that he considered it to be the best.

If the story does not reveal whether the wine was alcoholic or not, how can we determine it? I believe that we must understand the story the way the original readers would have understood it. Since the book of John was written and circulated after the synoptic gospels were written, the readers would have understood the wine in John in light of the teaching about wine as it represents the new covenant and the eternal state in the synoptic gospels.

In the synoptic gospels the wine that Jesus brings, which pictures the new covenant, is ALWAYS represented with new wine, not old. The wine that Jesus brings is new, unfirmented wine which, when poured into old wine skins, causes the old wine skins (which represent the law) to burst. Jesus notes when he teaches this that the pharisees and teachers of the law will say that the old wine is better. Of course, they are wrong, the new wine that Jesus brings, the wine of the new covenant is far superior to the old wine. So, in this instance, the wine that Jesus brings is new wine, not old firmented wine, and the new wine is superior.

Jesus attendance at a wedding also points forward to the marriage supper of the lamb and pictures the feast that will be held then. Will the wine at the marriage supper be alcoholic wine or will it be new wine? Several facts point to its being new wine. First, the firmentation process is a process of decay. Remember that it was Noah who first became drunk on wine because decay set in after the flood in an intensified way that had apparently not occured prior to the flood. This process of decay will not be present in the eternal state for all things will be new and death and decay will be removed.

Secondly, at the timie of passover in the OT, unleavened bread was used. What is the difference in leavened and unleavened bread? In leavened bread, a small piece of bread is kept from the original batch and it is allowed to firment. Each time a new batch was made, a pinch from the firmenting old original lump was put into the new batch to leaven it and make it rise. When passover came, a new batch of bread was made that DID NOT contain a pinch from the old batch. Therefore, this new batch was truly new and contained none of the old decaying bread. This new unleavened batch pointed forward to the new covenant which would be a fresh start from the old one. When we get to the marriage supper of the lamb, all things will be new also. There will be no death nor decay. There will be no leavened bread and there will be no process of decay to firment the wine either. But the wine will be far superior to any wine that any human has ever tasted--well except for one human--the master of ceremonies at the wedding Jesus attended who tasted the new unfirmented wine that Jesus made and declared it to be the best he had ever tasted.

 

Mine says they filled 6 twenty to thirty gallon water pots with water. It doesn't say Jesus turned all that water into wine. You are assuming that.

Jesus said, "Draw out now, and take to the headwaiter." He didn't say, "Draw some wine out now", just "Draw out now." There is no mention of the water turning into wine until the cup is taken to the headwaiter and he tastes it. You can just as easily interpret the passage as saying the water in the cup, and that water only, was turned into wine.

And that makes better sense because when His mother asked Jesus to intervene, He said, "Woman, what do I have to do with you? My hour has not yet come." (v.4) Many scholars see this as Jesus wanting to remain unknown in the country as a miracle worker. It would be inconsistent, then, for Jesus to perform a widely known miracle at that time.

Instead, we see the disciples and them alone are said to "believed in Him." (v.11) This is evidence of the fact the miracle was not widely known.

I still maintain that if the water in the pots were turned into wine (which is not definitive) that the Jews would not have comsumed it because it was in cleansing pots. That is historical, and biblical.

peace to youraying:

 

A key verse to the question as to whether the pots were filled with water or wine is here:

Where then, was the wine? Why... only in the cup used to dip. Read further:

The servants filled the pots with water, and then, the servant drew water out of the pot, not wine. The water was made wine between the drawing out and the bearing to the governor of the feast.

And like swaimj pointed out, the wine was a new wine, not fermented.

The pots, used for purifying, were still filled with the water they had been filled with.

 

But does not John 1.3 teach that everything was made by or through Christ?

Joh 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.​

Are you saying that alcohol, food, sex, diamonds and precious stones, and all things which could lead people into temptation, were not created through Christ? I cannot think of many things in God's wonderful Creation that haven't become a temptation for somebody.

 

God does not tempt man, nor can He be tempted of man.

 

Bring me one as well, please. (And I don't even like popcorn!)

Ed

 

You say nowhere in the Bible is Scripture found that says the pots were used for bathing. Apparently you don't read your Bible enough. Or you don't study it correctly.

After the manner of the purifying of the Jews. Sure looks like pots used for cleansing to me.


Albert Barnes says this of the pots:

After the manner. After the usual custom.

Of the purifying. Of the washings or ablutions of the Jews. They were for the purpose of washing the hands before and after eating (Mt 15:2), and for the formal washing of vessels, and even articles of furniture, Lu 11:39; Mr 7:3-4.

Yes, those pots were used for cleansing.

Going through my commentaries and Bibles, I see most agree with the fact that the pots were for cleansing; washing hands, face, feet.

 

Is that why you only ordered one kernel, Ed?:laugh:

 

No problem! I've got other choices, though. Maybe you prefer raisinets, malted milk balls, chips, etc. I've also got beer (non-alcoholic so that our drinking it won't cause those in the thread to freak out).

 

"I gets to set all the limits, no!?!?!"

Lovely thread! {Snort!} {Cough!} {Wheeze!}

"npetreley, are you almost back with the popcorn?? I'll get us a couple Pepsis®!"

Ed

 

Exactly. That's why when God told Jeremiah (Jeremiah 35:1-11) to go to the home of the Rechabites and bring them into the temple of the Lord, and place before them jars filled with wine...yes wine... and told them to drink...they weren't being tempted by God, as drinking wine is NOT SIN!

 

Good one! :thumbsup:

And welcome back from purgatory or "exclusion" or whatever it was.

Now we can argue some more! :thumbs:

Since you can "not defend" yourself, in person. :laugh:

Ed

 

Yayin (the wine in Jeremiah 35) is either fermented or non-fermented depending on the context.

Since God commanded that one is not to look at yayin (fermented wine) in Proverbs, He is not going to tell one to drink yayin (fermented wine) in Jeremiah. The yayin in Jeremiah is not fermented.

 

...you mean "depending on the context I want to use it in". The yayin in the temple would HAVE to be free from impurities (leaven) to be used as a sacrifice (as in Christ's blood). This would either be alcoholic wine, or pasteurized grape juice. Since pasteurization wasn't invented for another 6000 years later...you know exactly what it was, but will not admit to it because it would put a hole in your legalism.

I can't believe you would think a juice with leaven would be allowed in God's temple!

edited in...the usual arguments...the grape juice was boiled, and mixed with water. Wrong. That would still ferment due to the natural leaven in the air.
It was real wine...watered down with water. Wrong. The water contained contaminants, and there would still be alcohol, anyway. Alcohol is not eliminated due to being watered down.
It was preserved juice that was hundreds of years old from a clay jar buried underground. Wrong. Urban legend, as there is no way to preserve juice in that way, for that long.

 

HA! This is hilarious! Just like the old days! The original group is almost all in this!

I think I'll sit back and watch this one as well....although its sooooo tempting!