The Bible Church
Study Page
John Segment 4
All scripture is from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Before beginning this study, I suggest you pray and ask God to guide you through this study. I also suggest that you do you own study of this material in order to ensure its accuracy.
(John 2:1-2) And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: {2} And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
he wedding at Cana is where Jesus performed His first miracle. The word Cana (Hebrew-kana) comes from a word meaning reeds. One Bible dictionary suggests that it means nest or the nest here. Hitchcock says it means zeal, jealousy, or possession. Being Cana of Galilee (as opposed to Cana of Asher) suggests it is close to the sea, so reeds, or better yet, reedy is the most probable meaning. Jesus and His disciples were invited, and Mary, who was favored by God, was present.
The third day may refer to three days after the events concluded in Chapter 1. Or it may refer to the third day of a seven-day wedding.
(John 2:3) And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
What? Why would Mary tell Jesus about a shortage of wine? Wasn't Jesus a teetotaler? It seems that the traditions of men teach total abstinence from any alcohol. No, He was not a teetotaler.
In Sunday School, as a child, I was taught that the wine Jesus drank was not really wine at all, but grape juice. It was just called wine. What nonsense. That is an example of twisting the Scripture to fit one's traditions.
Let us talk about wine. See the study on Wine. The Bible distinguishes between new wine and wine. In the Old Testament, there was wine (yayin) and new wine (tirosh). New wine was the must or fresh squeezed grape juice. It was either drunk as a beverage, or stored and used later to sweeten wine. It was stored in a cool place, like a cave, or buried to make it cooler and retard fermentation. But even under those conditions fermentation did take place after a few days. When the term new wine was used to mean must (must is the fresh squeezed juice, pulp, and skins ready for fermentation), it was not alcoholic at the time of harvest, but a while after harvesting it did contain alcohol. Yayin, the most commonly used term in the OT, was regular fermented wine with alcohol. It was used as a sacrament in Tabernacle worship.
There is no doubt that wine could be intoxicating. Acts 2:13-15: "Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. {14} But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: {15} For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day." This was when the disciples were speaking at Pentecost after the Holy Spirit had come upon them and were heard in every language of those present. There were those in the crowd who thought they were drunk after drinking new wine. If wine were not alcoholic then why did some say the disciples were drunk after drinking wine? The word for new wine is gleukos (Strong's 1098). Gleukos, though used of new wine, is also used to denote regular fermented wine sweetened with fresh squeezed grape juice. Sweetened wine is highly inebriating because it was so easy to drink. It is obvious that the mockers believed this gleukos was definitely intoxicating wine. Let me give the definition of gleukos:
1098. gleukos, glyoo'-kos; akin to 1099; sweet wine, i.e. (properly) must (fresh juice), but used of the more saccharine [sweetened] (and therefore highly inebriating) fermented wine:--new wine.
It is silly to believe that wine has only become intoxicating in more modern times than the time of Jesus. The Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that wine has been around since the beginning of written history (c. 4000 BC), and it has always contained alcohol. The wine used in Jesus' day also contained alcohol.
I am a viticulturist (grape grower) and I must tell you that unless the must is refrigerated, it begins fermentation almost immediately. Must that has been around for two or three days has fermented. In fact, in three days' time it has probably reached 5-6% alcohol. That is enough to make it intoxicating (modern beer is around 3% alcohol). Even if you refrigerate grape juice, it ferments after a few days.
So what am I saying? I am saying that Jesus and His disciples consumed alcoholic wine. It was consumed moderately and not used to become drunk. The Scriptures condemn drunkenness and overindulgence. Jesus did not sin, therefore, He was never drunk, nor did He overindulge.
When you see wine in the Bible, it was real fermented wine able to make a person drunk. It is not the alcohol in the wine that is evil. It is the over-consumption that is evil, and that is a choice that people make.
I believe it is permissible to celebrate Holy Communion with wine, but that it is also acceptable to use grape juice if you wish, especially considering the problem we have today with drunkenness.
One last thing. The use of alcoholic beverages in this country has mostly become a way to get high or drunk and to escape from the world. This use of alcohol is bad because it causes untold damage to lives and families. Drunken driving is almost an epidemic, especially among younger people. Drunken driving has killed and maimed a great number of innocent people. Alcoholism has ruined lives and families. Children have gone without food because of fathers who spend all earnings on alcohol. I am not advocating alcohol consumption here; I am just relating the truth about wine in the Bible—the moderate, responsible consumption of wine is not a sin.
I feel that it is necessary to tell you at this juncture that I am a teetotaler. I do not drink nor do I advocate the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Wine was a part of the religious observances and the moderate consumption of wine was perfectly acceptable in ancient Israel. That is not so today. Today it is best to steer completely clear of alcohol. It is good to apply Paul's discussion of meat (food) sacrificed to idols when discussing the consumption of wine in today's society. Let us turn to those scriptures:
1 Corinthians 8:4-6 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. {5} For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) {6} But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
Speaking of idols and the things offered to those idols, Paul says they are really not gods; they are nothing at all but inanimate objects. There is only one God, the One that created all things.
1 Corinthians 8:7 "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled."
But not every man knows this, that idols are deaf and dumb objects and nothing in the world. For those folk, the eating of food sacrificed to idols causes their conscience to bother them. They consider it a sin to eat such food.
1 Corinthians 8:8 "But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse."
What we eat makes no difference in our relationship to God. Food does not bring us closer to God; we are not better off if we don't eat, not are we better off if we do eat. Mature Christians understand this.
1 Corinthians 8:8-12 "But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. {9} But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. {10} For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; {11} And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? {12} But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ."
We have the liberty to eat anything. Neither eating nor not eating is a sin. But if this liberty of ours to eat anything we please causes a weaker brother or sister to eat food sacrificed to idols, themselves believing it to be sinful, then we have caused that weaker brother to take part in an activity he considers to be sinful. If he considers it to be sinful and then participates in that behavior he considers sinful, then he is sinful. He has sinned. In such a case, our liberty to eat anything we please has caused someone else to sin. That in itself is a sin against Christ. When we become a stumbling block that causes another to sin, we have sinned.
1 Corinthians 8:13 "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."
Paul would not eat any flesh that might cause a brother to sin. Even though Paul knew perfectly well that eating food sacrificed to idols is not a sin, he would not do it if it may cause another to stumble. May we not apply the same logic to the consumption of alcohol? Consuming alcoholic beverages is not sinful in itself, as long as it is not overindulgence and does not cause drunkenness. It is not a sin to drink a glass of wine. But if someone who believes it to be a sin to drink alcohol sees us, a more mature Christian, drinking alcohol, then he might decide it is OK to drink even though his conscience tells him it is a sin. If he drinks then he has sinned. If our liberty in drinking has caused him to drink and to sin, then we have sinned.
I state here and now that it is not sinful to consume alcohol in moderation. But, since many, many people believe it is a sin to drink alcohol, in all probability our liberty to consume alcohol will cause another to sin. There is a very good chance that someone would see us drinking and sin. It is much better to not drink any alcohol that to run the chance of becoming a stumbling block to others. Another consideration is that the drinking of alcohol is a detriment to our Christian witness and credibility.
In our current verse (John 2:3), Mary goes to Jesus and tells him they have run out of wine. Why? Because she knew Him well having raised Him and she believed He had the supernatural power to do something about it.
(John 2:4-5) Jesus saith unto her,
Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. {5} His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.A better rendering is: "Woman, what is that to me and you? My hour is not yet come." Jesus was asking what difference it made. His ministry had not yet begun and no one knew anything about His power to do miracles, so why should He be called upon to perform one? He did not rebuke His mother, He was just explaining this to her.
Mary knew He was Messiah because of what Gabriel had told her before He was conceived. The scripture tells us: "But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart" (Luke 2:19). She conceded that His ministry had not yet begun, but also knew He would take care of the situation because she had asked and for the benefit of His disciples (see verse 11).
It is likely that this wedding feast was for a member of Mary's family. In fact, some writers believe that this was the wedding of John the Evangelist, the author of this Gospel, though that is by no means definite. That would explain why Mary came to Jesus with the problem, instead of the host of the wedding feast providing the wine. As a member of the family, it would have been natural to ask Jesus for help. It would also explain Jesus' statement about His hour not having come: it was not for His ministry that he would perform this miracle, but for those at the feast, namely His disciples (v. 11). Jesus' hour would come only when the Father ordained it. What is meant by His hour, was the time of the beginning of His ministry. This wedding was not the beginning of His public ministry. That happened at Nazareth. The story is recited in Luke 4:16-29. The beginning of His ministry at Nazareth came after the wedding at Cana.
(John 2:6) And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
A firkin is an old English measure equal to one fourth of a barrel. A barrel contains 31.5 US gallons, so a firkin contained about eight US gallons. However, the firkin is what the KJV translators substituted for the Greek metretes. According to Smth's Bible Dictionary, a metretes was 8.7 US gallons. The firkin is almost exactly the same measure as the metretes. The capacity of the pots would have been between 104.4 and 156.6 gallons (twelve to eighteen firkins). The KJV translation team wanted to use a contemporary (to their time) term of similar value to help the reader understand what was said, just like my use of US gallons here. These were the water pots used for religious ablutions such as the ceremonial washing of hands, and for the customary washing of feet. It must be noted though, that the assigning of modern equivalents to ancient measurements is not an exact science. Therefor the statistics listed here may be faulty.
(John 2:7-8) Jesus saith unto them,
Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. {8} And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.It is safe to assume that the disciples were with Him and observed when the servants filled the pots. Since this was immediately following His baptism and the events mentioned in Chapter 1, there were probably only four or five disciples at this time. After the servants had filled the pots, Jesus told them to dip out some and give it to the host or director of the wedding feast. This director, or governor, or ruler, was probably hired to take care of the guests. He was the modern equivalent of a caterer. The Greek word was architriklinos, meaning "chief of three tables". Originally a servant was employed to serve three tables. But the name came to mean a person who was given charge over the food and entertainment at a party of many guests just like a modern caterer.
(John 2:9) When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
The water changed to wine sometime between its drawing from the well or cistern and its presentation to the host. It is not likely that the entire 130-odd gallons were turned into wine. That would have been unnecessary and superfluous. It was probably only that water that was drawn out by the servants that actually became wine. That was probably only a few quarts depending upon the number of guests. The water pots were still filled with water.
Only the servants and disciples knew where this wine came from. This miracle was performed not for the benefit Jesus' public ministry, which had not yet begun, but for the benefit of the disciples (v. 11).
(John 2:10) And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
After consuming the good wine first, then people would not notice that subsequent servings of wine were of lower quality because they would be getting a bit intoxicated, or at least the alcohol would have dulled their sense of taste. But here, the good wine came after the first serving, just the opposite of normal. In fact, the words "well drunk" are from the Greek word methusko from methuo, which can mean inebriated, and so it does in this context.
Notice that the governor of the feast does not say that the guests at this wedding were intoxicated, just that this was the usual practice. Since this was probably a wedding in Mary's family, there would be no one intoxicated because they were devout Jews. Devout and religious Jews did not become intoxicated. It was a sin.
Symbolically, wine represents blood. The blood of animals could only temporarily forgive sin, while the blood of Jesus Christ provides eternal forgiveness. The sacrifice of animals was used first, during Tabernacle worship, and the Sacrifice of Christ came later. And because the wine represents the blood of Christ, it was of the highest quality and without blemish. In fact, the juice of the grape is referred to as the blood of the grape in scripture. (See Gen 49:11, Deu 32:14; see also the study on Wine)
(John 2:11) This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
The disciples believed on Him because they witnessed the miracle. Most likely only the servants bearing the water pots, the disciples, and Jesus were aware of the miracle performed at Cana. It is doubtful any of the guests were aware of the act.
________________________________________________
Copyright © 2001, The Bible Church. All Rights Reserved. Contents may be distributed but not sold.
The content of this site is optimized for fast loading. Few graphics are included.
The Bible Church has the right to present its ideas and opinions in this format. We have not made any covenant with the Federal Government, such as a nonprofit agreement or tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3), and according to the