Introduction The Gospel of John is portrayed as a very theological book. It is written from a historical and narrative perspective. The Christology in the Gospel of John is high even though I question some of the things Jesus does. One thing I question is Jesus turning water into wine. The Scripture I will be discussing will be John 2:1-11. Is there Christology in giving wine that can make one that drunk especially when drunkenness can cause one to do dangerous things? However, the Christology is not in the drunkenness. My objective is to prove that there is humanistic side to making the water into wine and a Christological side of turning the water into wine. My rationale in accomplishing this objective is if Jesus does something, does it make it right for us to do the same thing. My plan on addressing this is to research wine physically and spiritually.
Social Location
I am a married African American southeastern United States of American, Pentecostal female. I also consider myself reasonably educated. I look at things also based on a small town and small city background. My social location causes me to question things and not accept everything at face value.
Methodology
The Methodology to argue my thesis statement is Reader Response Method and the method of Reader Response Criticism I will use is individualistic criticism.
Background/History/Theological Foundation
The Gospel of John has 21 chapters in the state it is in now. According to An Introduction to
The New Testament by Raymond E. Brown, this is the information Brown gives about John’s Gospel:
Date:80-110. Those who think that the Gospel was redacted (edited) by another hand after the main writer composed it may place the body of the Gospel in the 90s and the additions of the redactor ca. 100-110, about the same time as III John.Traditional (2nd-Century) Attribution: To John, son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve. Author Detectable From the Contents: One who regards himself in the tradition of the disciple whom Jesus loved. If one poses a redactor, he too may have been in the same tradition. Plausibly there was a school of Johannine writing disciples. Place of Writing: Traditionally and plausibly the Ephesus area, but some opt for Syria.
There appears to be more than one edition of the Changing the Water into Wine story.
According to Eerdmans Critical Commentary, The Gospel and Letters of John, Urban C. von Wahlde says, “In the first edition, the Changing of the Water into Wine functioned as the first public signs of Jesus. It demonstrated his power over nature with the quality and the quanity of the wine he created. It also was the cause of belief among his disciples.”The Christology is high in this first edition by changing the water into wine proves that Jesus is the Christ. von Wahlde also says, “In the second edition of the Gospel, the first Cana miracle functioned to demonstrate how the disciples responded to the second of the ‘witness’ to Jesus.” Part of Jesus
Christology was signs. If Jesus did not perform signs and wonders, some people would have not believed that he was the Christ, which was the Son of God. von Wahlde goes on and says, “The author of the third edition made only a brief alteration to the Gospel as he found it. By the introduction of v. 4, the author first creates a mysterious anticipation about the role of the mother of Jesus.” Jesus recognizes his human side in this verse as he addresses his mother, but it leads up to him doing what his mother wants because she knows he is the Christ.
According to Word Biblical Commentary, the comment on verse 1 says,
The mention of the third day has led to various attempts to read a symbolic reading into the date. For some it is allusion to Easter: the miracle anticipates the manifestation of Christ’s glory in the Resurrection (Dodd, Interpretation, 300). Others note that 1:19-2:1 implies the passage of a week; they see here a comparison of the first week; they see a comparison of the first week of the new week with the work of creation (Boismard, Du baptême à Cana, 15). A simpler interpretation is preferable: “The promise made by Jesus in 1:50 0r 1:51 was fulfilled very soon” (Schnackenburg, 1:325).
I do not believe this chapter is trying to allude to Easter. I believe it was just the third day of the week. Some people are looking for Christology in some things that are just a natural occurrence.
According to Word Biblical Commentary, comment on verses 2-3 say,
The disciple group invited with Jesus will have been viewed as his family, for those whose contributions to the marriage feast he will have been responsible. It is a natural assumption that this motivated Mary’s drawing the attention of Jesus to the lack of wine—not that she hoped for a miracle, but that his presence with his disciples, jointly embarked on a mendicant ministry which rendered them unable to fulfill the obligations of guests, contributed to the embarrassing situation (for customs on the obligations of wedding guests and their relation to this event see Derrett, Law in the NT, 228-38).
This makes it look like since Jesus and the disciples were considered a family and was obligated to bring part of the wine to the wedding feast, but did not because of the nature of their ministry. I do not agree wholly with this concept. I believe Mary knew of the Christology of Jesus and knew he could make wine, so that was why she called Jesus’ attention to the lack of wine.
According to Word Biblical Commentary, comment on verse 4 says,
It is not impossible that this verse was inserted by the Evangelist into his “signs source”; the passage would read more smoothly without it. By contrast Becker claims that the thought is characteristic of the Sign Source itself (he notes 5:6; 6:5ff.; 7:6ff.; 11:6 ff.). It is wiser to retain the narrative in its wholeness…is a well known but ambiguous expression, which can express a hostile or peaceful attitude (contrast Judge 11:12 with 2 Chron 35:21). 2 Kgs 3:13 is of interest, in that it expresses rejection of Mary’s initiative, yet a granting of the request for intervention. The question may, however, have a gentler tone; an analogical expression from east Syrian “Chaldean” suggests not division but unity of thought, which could here be rendered, “Why are you speaking to me of this need? With you, I understand it” (see Derrett, 241-242)…has caused needless perplexity. While it is an unusual mode of address to one’s mother, it also may be affectionate.
I believe the Evangelist had a source for the signs. The evangelist may have not written down all there was to say about the sign at first and inserted v. 4 to make the narrative more complete. Jesus did not think he or his mother should be concerned that the feast ran out of wine and expressed this. Base on the tone of v. 4, Jesus was just frustrated with his mother, but not angry with his mother.
According to Word Biblical Commentary, comment on verse 6 says,
The Jewish requirements for which the jars were used included ritual cleansing of the hands through pouring water on them and washing of vessels (cf. Mark 7:3-4, and for the regulations Str-B 1:695-705). The jars were of stone, since stone vessels did not contract uncleanness. Their large size was natural, but the sequel suggests that the great quantity they contained reflected the fullness of Christ’s grace, in contrast to the limitations of the old covenant (John 1:16-17).
The stone jars were big and needed to be filled up and the quantity of the jars can be alluded to the fullness of the grace of Christ. The grace of Christ does fill one up spiritually. If the quantity of the jars reflects the fullness of his grace there is Christology in v. six.
According to Word Biblical Commentary, comment on verse 8 says, “Jewish sources do not enable us to be certain whether the…was a guest chosen to supervise the feast (“the president of the banquet,” Barrett) or a servant appointed for the task (a
“butler,” Lindars). The issue is secondary; whether guest or a servant, he acted as master of ceremonies.” The background of the chief steward is unimportant, but because of his position at the feast the wine had to be taken to him to show that there was more wine at the wedding feast.
According to Word Biblical Commentary, comment on verse 10 says, “The statement to the bridegroom is neither a proverb nor a rule; it may be an ironical or humorous or simply shrewd comment on human conduct. For the Evangelist it serves as a testimony of the sign performed by Jesus.” This verse confirms to others the water has been changed into wine.
According to Word Biblical Commentary, comment on verse 11 says,
“The miracle of the wine revealed the glory of Jesus. We are to recall 1:14 and 1:51: the Word made flesh, the only Son of the Father, who is the Son of Man, manifested his creative power. Does that exhaust the content of the sign? To what end does he use his power and glory?” Jesus revealed his glory because he already had the creative power because he is the Word. It was just hid at first from the disciples and the servants at the feast. The Christology is high here because Jesus revealed his creative powers. According to Word Biblical Commentary, comment on verse 11 continues and says, Some scholars view the glory of Jesus here set over against that claimed for Dionysus,
The provider of wine, and the fullness of life experienced in intoxication. Various stories were told of this provision, such as the placing of three empty basins at night in the temple at Elis and finding them to be full of wine the next day; or of the spring of wine that flowed in the temple of Bacchus in Andros on the feast day known as Theodosia (see Dodd, HistoricalTradition, 224-25). An exhaustive examination of the evidence relating to such parallels was made by H. Noetzel (Christus und Dionysus); he has convinced most scholars that the parallels are insufficient to support the claims made for them. In particular the motif of changing water into to wine is not present in the Dionysus legends; the jugs of Elis, for example were not filled with water, but were empty, and the font of wine in Andros did not replace one of water. To suggest that the Evangelist or his source wished to demonstrate through the Cana miracle that a greater than Dionysus has appeared is a speculation without warrant.
Many civilizations or religions may have similar stories to the “water into wine,” story but none of them had a story that someone changed the water into wine. I know some of the writers in the Bible borrow stories or themes from other civilizations or religions, but I believe Jesus is God and does not need any help from other civilizations or religions to prove he is God. I believe the “Wedding of Cana” feast actually happened, but I do not know how accurate was the situation was about the drunkenness. Word Biblical Commentary continues and says,
Most writers acknowledge that in the Johannine narrative there is an implicit contrast between water used for Jewish purificatory rites and the wine given by Jesus; the former of the older, the latter of the new. There can be little doubt that the change of which the miracle is a sign of the kingdom of the kingdom of God in and through Jesus. The picture of the kingdom of God as a feast is prominent in Judaism and in the synoptic teaching (e.g., Matt 5:6; 8:11-12; Mark 2:19; Luke 22:15-18, 29-30a), and abundance of wine is a feature of the feast (e.g. Isa 25:6). The glory of Jesus, manifest in Cana was a sign of his mediating grace of the kingdom of God in his total ministry. The glory of God is seen precisely in God’s bestowal of life in his kingdom, and this he gives through the Son.
Water can be used symbolically for the spirit, but in this context the wine motif places precedence over the water. I like the fact that the wedding feast is symbolically used as the kingdom of God. This means we are going to have a good time in the kingdom of God. God loves us and shows this through the sign of making water into wine. In this context, the wine symbolizes new life. This means there is Christology in the wine. According to An Exposition of the Gospel of John by Herschel H. Hobbs says,
But John does say that the changing of water into wine was the first of specific signs performed by Jesus (but note his baptismal sign, 1:32f.) which manifested His glory (cf. John 1:14). And because of this “his disciples believed on him” (2:11). They had already accepted Him as the Christ. This “visible pointer” only served to confirm their faith. It will be so throughout the Gospel. Jesus’ “signs” will increase the faith of His friends and will increase the hatred of His enemies.
The sign certainly revealed Jesus was certainly God. The disciples would not have been his
Disciples, if they had not already believed in him. The water into wine sign certainly escalated their faith. They probably believed he was more than the Christ, they believed more probably that Jesus was indeed the Christ and the Son of God. According to Interpretation,
The wedding tale is told almost laconically. “When the wine failed” (v. 3) is a genitive absolute, having in this context of celebration some of the characteristics of the sun’s rising or the tide’s going out. Jesus’ mother alerts him to the problem of the exhausted supply. There are no details provided, no moralizings proposed. The party has become come to a dessicate halt: bone dry. The maidens cannot rejoice in the dance nor the young men and the old be merry (Jer. 31:13a), for there is no new wine on which the virgins may flourish (Zech. 9:17). Jesus’ response to the observation of his mother is hardly gallant. It is hardly acceptable Greek. It is, however, recognizable Septuagint Greek as we shall see shortly. This puts us on notice that something different is going on than a family vignette about concern for a host’s embarrassment.
It seems like people cannot have a good time unless there is wine. Jesus at first did not want to be concerned about the issue of running out of wine. The running out of wine leads to something spiritual.
According to Interpretation, No one speaks ill of water in the Middle East. Similarly, no one should suppose that wine flowed freely and was drunk everywhere in the land of the Bible. It was a cash crop for vinters like olive oil. Many a peasant was busy in its production. But the poor drank little wine and ate less meat. Cheese and bread and olive oil were their fare, with water for their daily thirst. At a wedding or other family celebration, it was different. There, a couple’s parents would have scrimped and saved long to do it right. Family and friends passed harsh judgments on those who could not carry a wedding off in style. Sheep and calves and every delicacy would have been served in profusion and the wine flowed freely. There can have been no misprizing of water in the situation described in the Johannine tale, only a praise of wine as uniquely befitting the occasion.
Wine consumption apparently is not as widespread as people think in biblical times. It was something that was served at a wedding celebration or other celebrations. It seems like if one did not have wine at a wedding one would be looked down upon. The hosts of a wedding would have been ashamed if they did not have wine. The above comment still did not say if this was the alcoholic wine. This means drinking wine at celebrations was a culture event.
Interpretation goes onto say, “Moral lessons about excessive drinking are out of place in conjunction with this tale: elsewhere, perhaps, but not here.” The comment in Interpretation seem to think there was excessive drinking at the party. If Jesus knew there was excessive drinking at the party and provided more wine to add to this, does it give us the right to drink excessively, when we know this can lead to dangerous drinking? I think if this is so, I need to question whether Jesus is acting humanistically and his Christology is gone at this point even though the creation of the wine is Christological. I know spiritually we can get so full with God’s spirit that it seems we have drunk a new wine.
Interpretation also says, “As with all Gospel truth, we are confronted at Cana by an interpretation of the hoped-for final age. John situates the age in his own time.” A final age could mean that we will all see Christ’s glory and we will be saturated with a spiritual wine. We will not do anything dangerous with this new wine.
Now let us look at the physical component and history of wine. According to Food.Net
Wine is an alcoholic beverage made from fermented grape juice. Wines made from other fruits are always named accordingly. The chemical composition of wine is about
87.7% water, 11% alcohol, 1% acid, and 0.2% tannins…Vitis vinifera was being cultivated in the Middle East by 4000 BC, and probably earlier. Egyptian records dating from 2500 BC refer to the use of grapes for wine making, and numerous Old Testament references to wine indicate the early origin and significance of the industry in the Middle
East.
Ordinarily in our society wine is considered to have alcohol in it. If this is true, I wonder if the wine at the Wedding made people intoxicated. I know there are references to wine in the Bible, but are they intoxicating wine. I wonder if there is Christology, if Jesus’ wine made one drunk. Some people do not think Jesus’ wine made people drunk. Let us look at some of the article, “Did Jesus turn Water into Wine,” by Chuck Northrop and his article states:
The obvious answer to the question, "Did Jesus turn water into wine?" is yes. At the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee recorded in John 2:1-11, Jesus turned water into wine. However, this question does not usually ask what is meant by it. What is usually meant is "Did Jesus make intoxicating wine?" And the answer is no. Let me explain. The word translated "wine" in English ( in Koine‚ Greek) can refer to either alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine. At present, the term "wine" is almost used exclusively of alcoholic wine, but let us never be guilty of interpretation based solely upon modern day definitions.
If nonalcoholic or alcoholic wine has the same name in Greek, then I think more people need to start studying Greek before teaching or preaching on this narrative. I decided to look up a word for fermented wine in Greek. The word that I found closest to the word for wine in the Greek Lexicon for John 2:3 is Οἴνος and according to A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Οἴνος means “a beverage made from fermented juice of the grape, wine; the word for unfermented juice is τρύξ (Anacr. Et al.; pap); lit J 2:3, 9f” If this is true then the wine at the wedding feast was fermented, and the wine Jesus made was fermented. This means that Jesus could have contributed to the drunkenness of the guests. Nonetheless, the text is not clear if the guests were drunk. If they did get drunk, this makes me question what Jesus did because I think it is wrong to get drunk.
Let us look at more of what Northrop has to say and he says:
The immediate context of John 2:1-11 is quite clear. The guests at the marriage feast of Cana were able to discern between the quality of the drink that the Lord had made and that which had already been served. If intoxicating wine had been served, and people "well drunk" or "drunk freely" (American Standard Version,1901) of it (verse 10), then they would not have had such keen discernment. Though the amount is not specified as to what they had previously drunk, if they consumed the six waterpots that Jesus had the servants fill with water and which contained "two or three firkins apiece" (verse 6), then they would have consumed somewhere between 106 to 162 gallons of booze! This is far more than enough to make the most casual drinker drunk. Those who twist this account to condone social drinking say the term "well drunk" refers to the idea that the crowd was so drunk that they could not distinguish. However, the point of "the governor of the feast" to the bridegroom is that the guest were able to discern between the "worse" and the "good wine." If it is the case that these wedding guests were so drunk that they could not distinguish, then the Lord made the six pots of alcoholic beverage for those who were already strongly under the influence, and caused them to be even more drunk! Thus, the "good wine" of the wedding feast of Canaan must have been the fresh juice of the grape.
I believe if there was between 106 to 162 gallons of booze this must have been a big party. I do not think Jesus wanted that much alcohol around. I wander if the wine was alcoholic or did the author of this narrative have his facts straight. I am pretty sure Jesus would not have wanted the guests at the party to be that intoxicated. Jesus is God and does not want any harm to come to us.
Northrop continues and says:
Further, consider the general context of the Bible. Habakkuk wrote, "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!" (2:15). The sin Habakkuk is rebuking is the sin of contributing to drunkenness. If Jesus supplied intoxicating wine to the wedding guests at Cana, then He contributed to their intoxication. Not only did Jesus contribute to it, He, also, condoned and encouraged people to get completely soused! Since intoxication is sinful, then Jesus sinned, and the "woe" of Habakkuk would be upon Him. If this be the case, then it would be better for Jesus "that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea" (Luke 17:2). As a perfect man, Jesus could not have turned water into alcoholic wine and offer such to others.
If Jesus did contribute to the people’s intoxication, I wonder about his Christology since intoxication is a dangerous state of being. Since we do not know how accurate this narrative is, we have to use common sense that something in this narrative just does not click. Before anyone teaches or preaches this narrative they need to research the culture, the authorship and definitely research Greek more. According to An Exposition of The Gospel of John by Herschel H. Hobbs, Hobbs says:
There is no point in debating whether or not point in debating whether or not this was real wine. The Greek word oinos normally denotes the fermented juice of the grape. The ruler’s appraisal of it in verse 10 suggests that it was wine of the best quality. However, this does not merit the claim that either Jesus or the Bible supports the present-day liquor interests with their ravages upon humanity. Jesus’ concern for man’s welfare militates against any such idea.
The Greek word oinos is used in the “Wedding at Cana” narrative as a matter of fact it is used more than once, but this does not mean oinos in one hundred percent of all cases means fermented wine. If it was fermented, it may have not been abused. Hobbs continues and says: Naturally at the beginning of a feast the host would serve his best. But as the festivities continued, if necessary, he would augment the supply with that of inferior quality. The words “have well drunk” are debatable as to meaning. Basically the verb methuskō means “cause to become intoxicated” (cf. Eph. 5:18). Marcus Dods so interprets the word here. However, he cites the Revised Version reading: “when men have drunk freely.” He comments, “And if the word does not definitely mean ‘when men are intoxicated,’ it at least must indicate a condition in which they are unfit to discriminate between good wine and bad. The company then present was not in that condition, because they were able to appreciate the good wine; but the words of the architriklinos unquestionably imply that a good deal had already been drunk.
One does not know really what happened at the “Wedding of Cana,” One can say if people are at a party or feast they are more than likely going to serve fermented wine in order to have a good time. Since verse 10 has the Greek word methuskō, it looks the guests may have been drunk. Then it looks they might have not been drunk because they are able to discern between the good wine and bad wine. People may have culturally become immune to some of the effects of the alcohol, so consequently did not become drunk. I do not think Jesus wants people to become drunk and become dangerous to themselves and to others.
Best Version I read the ASV, NAS, NRSV, ESV, and the CEB. The CEB seem to be an easier version to read, but the NRSV seems like Jesus has a harsher tone when talking to his mother. It depends on what version one reads to determine if the guests were drunk. The NRSV seems to make it clearer that the guest were drunk. However, I will use the NRSV version for my text.
Outline of Text
John 2:1-2 (The Mother, Jesus and his disciples at a Wedding)
John 2:3-4 (They ran out of wine)
Jesus’ mother is concerned that they ran out of wine
Jesus does not think it should concern him
John 2:5-7 (Jesus obeys his mother and uses the water)
John 2:8-11 (The best wine )
Delineation
I will now look at the Scriptures before and after my chosen text. The Scripture before my chosen text says “And he said to him, ‘Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of Man”” (John 1:51 NRSV). The scripture after my chosen text says, “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there a few days” (John 2:12 NRSV). I do not see how John 1:51 has anything to do with my chosen text, but John 2:12 may have something to do with it because Jesus, Jesus’ mother and the disciples were all invited to the party and the wedding.
Reading of Text
In v.1, the text is making a point of the third day and letting one know Jesus’ mother was at the wedding at Cana. There is no mention of Jesus in this verse, so there is no Christology in this verse. The third day just measures time. In v. 2, it lets one know, Jesus and his disciples were there because they had been invited. There is Christology in this verse because of the presence of the Christ was at the wedding. One should know that there is something spiritual about the wedding because Jesus is there because he was invited. If one invites Christ in they are receiving Christ. They were all guests of the wedding. In v. 3, Jesus’ mother was concerned when the wine ran out at the wedding. I believe Jesus’ mother knew he was the Son of God and knew he could use his divine nature to make wine. This is Christological because she has faith in Christ. In v. 4, Jesus still did not think it was any concern of his and his mother that the wedding had ran out of wine. According to Harper Collins Study Bible commentary, “Wedding festivities usually lasted a week; those invited might be expected to contribute provisions such as wine.” Jesus’ mother may have thought Jesus could use his divine nature to contribute more wine. Jesus did not feel it was the appropriate time to perform a sign. The reason may have been because the guests were already drunk. Nevertheless, Jesus’ mother thought it was inappropriate to run out of wine. She thought the only solution to this was for Jesus to solve this by making more wine. Jesus’ mother recognizes the Christology in Jesus, so she thought she had the right to tell Jesus they had ran out of wine and may have thought Jesus should be concerned if they had not brought anything to the feast. However, Jesus presence is enough.
In v. 5, Jesus’ mother has so much faith in Jesus in providing wine that she told the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them. There is Christology in her faith. The Christology in this verse is also high because Jesus knows who he is and commands the servants to obey him. Jesus wanted to downplay his Christology at first, but out of respect to his mother, he decided to make more wine. In v.6, Jesus’ is starting to reveal his glory to those around him. It is beginning to be revealed because Jesus noticed the water jars. The water jars may have signified the vehicle for faith. Word commentary, “Suggests it reflects the fullness of his grace.” In v.7, Jesus is performing a sign by asking people to do something. Jesus could have made wine automatically, but he decided to order the servants to fill the jars with water, so he could change it to wine. The Christology is high in this verse because when one wants something from Christ one has to do something too. Jesus just does not force himself on anyone. In verse eight, The Christology is becoming higher because Jesus knows he is the Word and therefore the Christ by telling the servants to draw some out and taking the wine to the chief steward because he has made the water into wine. The Christology in having the water made into wine is strong because only Jesus could change the chemistry of the water into wine. Jesus could do it because he is God. In v.9, the steward tasted the water that had become wine, thereby this confirms to the witnesses the water had been changed into wine. The Christology is increasingly higher in this verse because the wine was received and tasted. This verse has Soteriological implications because in order to have salvation one has to receive Christ, and this alluded to when the steward receives the wine. The tasting of the wine by the steward alludes to knowing the joy of receiving Jesus.
There was Christology in the taste of the wine because the wine Jesus made was superior to the other wine. Jesus was surely the Christ because he made wine better than humankind because he was the Son of God. The Christology in Jesus caused the disciples to realize that he was more than the Messiah; he was the Son of God. The steward did not know where the wine came from this in itself is Christological and Soteriological because this alludes to John 3:8 which says, “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (NRSV). In v. 10, the steward is complimenting the bridegroom of the quality of the wine that has been brought to him. The steward is saying, “The best wine was served last.” The best wine was what Jesus had made. There is Christology and Soteriology in the quality of the wine Jesus made because when one is in Christ one receives a new wine. Spiritually this wine makes life new. Anything before the wine of Christ is inferior. The life anyone has before receiving Christ is inferior and bad. In v.11, it is letting one know that when Jesus changed the water into wine this was his first sign. This sign revealed Jesus’ glory because it revealed not only was he human, but he was also God. Jesus was God incarnate, and this verse lets us know the disciples believed in him more because of the sign. Jesus’ Christology is high here because he revealed his glory. Teaching the disciples was not enough, following Jesus was not enough, but revealing his glory proved he was God.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I question whether the wine Jesus made would make one drunk. I know he showed he was the Christ by making water into wine. My implications are I have to study more of the Jewish culture and Greek language to determine if Jesus made alcoholic wine. It is implied that he did. Spiritually the story of the “Wedding at Cana” makes me think there is nothing impossible for Jesus to do. The Wedding at Cana is very Soteriological because we all have received the new wine when we were born from above. The Wedding of Cana is a story of seeing and believing and that is one reason for the sign. My personal findings seem to be that anything of excess is bad for a person. Physically, I do not know if the guests at the “Wedding at Cana” were drunk as we know it in today’s times. Nonetheless, one can drink God’s new wine spiritually and be drunk in the Spirit. My findings about the Greek language concerning this wine are that the wine was fermented and the guests were probably drunk. The Greek word for wine in this text is not a one hundred guaranteed that this was intoxicating wine. According to one source in most cases the word is used for intoxicating wine. I know one thing the making of wine revealed who God was to the disciples. This narrative is very controversial, and since it is supposed to be Scripture, it should not be. Nevertheless, since Jesus was one hundred percent man and also one hundred percent God; could he have blended Christology with culture? Could it have been part of the Jewish culture to get drunk at wedding feasts and could Jesus used making the water into wine as a symbol of the Jewish culture of drinking wine at wedding feasts, as a sign of the joy one has in receiving salvation? Since Jesus is the Christ, he used this sign to help others and to cause people to believe that he was God incarnate. The disciples are more convinced that Jesus is the Christ or the Son of God. It seems to me one can make anything have a theological nature regardless of its intent. This passage of Scripture has positive and negative connotations in it. The positive connotations in this narrative are that it showed Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. It also shows that Jesus is concerned about our Spiritual well-being. Jesus is concerned about those who need him spiritually. Jesus was willing to make water into wine because spiritually this means that people are perishing and need the new wine. The negative connotations in this narrative are people will use this narrative to condone getting drunk in the physical and thereby hurt themselves and maybe others. One should use this narratively figuratively.

Bibliography
Beasley, George R. et al, John: Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.

The Book of John Commentary, pg.1818 in Harper Collins Study Bible, Edited by Harold W. Attridge. San Francisco: Harper One, 1989.
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament: The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1997.
Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Hobbs, Herschel H. An Exposition of The Gospel of John Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1968.
Northrop, Chuck. “Did Jesus Turn Water to Wine ?No Pages. [Cited 1 October 2012]. Online: http:// www.kc-cofc.org/39th/IBS/Tracts/didjesus.htm
Sloyan, Gerald S. John: Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988

Wahlde, Urban C. von. The Gospel and Letters of John. Eerdmans Critical Commentary: Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B, Eeremans Publishing Company, 2010. “What is Wine?” No pages. [Cited 1 October 2012]. Online: http://www.food-info.net/uk/products/wine/intro.htm