A recent discussion in our community made me think of some of the problems I had as a young South African Pentecostal Christian with the idea that Jesus might have actually turned water into wine. (See John 2:1-12) In the church I went to the consumption of alcohol was seen as a grave sin by many. Even from people, including my parents, who were less prone to pronounce this judgment on someone who would drink the occasional glass of wine, I always got the feeling that alcohol in any form could better be avoided as something that inevitably leads to abuse.
To me this attitude in a society where the abuse of alcohol is a very real problem that has devastated many families is quite understandable, although the fact that it is understandable would no longer automatically convince me that this is the only appropriate attitude towards all alcoholic beverages. Racism could be explained in a society that has been plagued by racially motivated violence, but it could not be acquitted on that basis. I know this example is extreme but I am using it to show that an explanation could not automatically be accepted as an excuse. But wait, I am digressing.
It was clear to me. If wine was not inherently evil it was at least potentially poisonous. How on earth could Jesus make something like that? When I learned about the quantity of the water turned into wine, the problem became even worse. It became apparent that this miracle did not concern the small quantity of communion wine which would be allowed to wet the lips in some less spiritual churches. It is actually amazing that as a young person in the 20th century, my biggest question did not concern the question whether Jesus literally changed the chemical substance of water into that of wine, but whether that substance would in any way resemble the one that could only be purchased by adults under certain restriction at specific licensed stores. God’s infallible Word could not possibly embarrass us as Bible-believing Christians in such a way! There must be a good explanation.
I was relieved to hear that I was not the only person thinking that. A well known evangelical speaker , wife of a pastor in a traditional church, solemnly declared that Jesus, who loved people would never make wine that could be intoxicating and thus damaging to families. I was also comforted to hear from another speaker that there are different words in the original language for wine and that some of them could actually refer to mere grape juice.
After the recent discussion I revisited some of these explanations on the internet and noticed again the serious inconsistencies present in evangelical hermeneutics.
Let me quote an example written by one Chuck Northrop:
“ ...Consider these examples of the word "wine" being used in Scripture with reference to unfermented grape juice. Joel 1:10 says "The field is wasted, the land mourneth; for the corn is wasted: the new wine is dried up, the oil languisheth." (This refers to grapes dried up in the fields, which could not be intoxicating.) ...”
Now I may be stupid, but I see no indication in this description of economic crisis suggesting that the grapes were still in the fields unless of course you ignore the reference to the land mourning. In fact, the phrase about the wine is followed by one about the waste of oil, another liquid just as common as wine in the ancient Middle-Eastern home as part of a parallelism. What makes this argument even worse is the fact that this references comes from the Old Testament where the source language is Hebrew whereas the reference to Jesus turning water into wine belongs to the New Testament which was written in Greek. So even if the writer of this article could prove that the word translated with wine in English could mean non-alcoholic grape juice, which he doesn’t, his proof is still irrelevant as John’s account of the changing wine does not concern a translation of that Hebrew word, but the translation of a Greek word for which he has no similar proofs.
It is this kind of conjuring that not only makes a mockery of Christian apologetics, but also discredits the very Bible such people profess to believe. This type of explanation is not seriously interested in what the Bible really has to say on the subject, but more interested to use (read abuse) the Bible to defend a point of view that is already fixed in concrete.
The evidence from both the text and history seems to point to wine that probably contained at least some amount of alcohol. I like the idea of someone that the wine Jesus made, although real wine, would not have an intoxicating effect on any guest, no matter how much of it he drank. Yet even though I like the idea, the problem with it is that it again reads things into the Bible that is simply not supported by the text.
Our reading of the Bible will be healthier if we would simply recognize that when coming to the Bible we need to first put our questions aside and try to understand what the original intent of the writer was. What questions were the author of the fourth gospel trying to answer. What was it about Jesus that he was trying to say in relating this incident? Simply put: Is our reading of the Bible determined by what we think or is our thinking formed by what we read?
Apart from the issue of hermeneutics in this matter there still is the issue of theology. We are often encouraged not to limit God because for Him “All things are possible!” This actually usually refers to expecting God to do certain types of miracles. It somehow never occurs to people that if what they sing is true, it could also be possible that God is not going to act according to their expectation. Maybe it is possible that God does not always choose to heal, not because He cannot, but because He can choose not to.
Maybe Jesus is the kind of person who could make 600 liters of wine, and yells “Prost” as he raises a glass with his friends!
What would it take to dislodge us from the religious icon we have painted in our minds? Can we try to understand what Jesus was doing at a wedding in a small Galilean town and what this incident wants to say about Him? Can we allow Jesus to be a living person that does things that may conflict with some of the opinions we hold or do we prefer Him to conform to our idea of what is proper? If so, we need to consider the possibility that we are no less guilty of making a graven image than some more traditional forms of Christianity we often criticize for what we see as disguised idolatry.
As a young Pentecostal I was secretly proud that we were not caught up in dead tradition like "some" churches. We had the "new wine" of the Spirit, which we of course did not see as a problem because the wine was spiritual. We may have been oblivious to the pain and devastation sometimes caused by our self-assured “Spirit-drunken” utterances in the family of God. I sometimes wonder if it would not benefit the family of God if we would be a bit more moderate in the consumption of some of our newfound wines. The older I get, the more I appreciate the conclusion of an ancient writer who spoke of the vanity of the doings of man including our certain theologies. He also writes:
(7) Go, eat your bread in joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. (Ecc 9:7)
Even in the middle of the challenges that new knowledge about science and history bring to my faith I still believe that for the Bridegroom all things are possible, not only changing water into grape juice, but also making real good wine.
O thirsty ones, come drink with me
A priceless wine, a fountain free
His living water turned to wine
The taste, the smell – for sure divine
O sinful ones, behold Him there,
The grapes of wrath He treads – despair!
The cup of anger He did toast
Our lives to Him have mattered most
Beloved ones, now to the feast!
With loud applause welcome the Groom!
His words are sweeter than the wine
It rings: “Beloved, you are mine”
Raise up your glass, filled to the brim!
The wine He kept till now is best.
