John 2:1-11

Discussion in 'The Gospels & Acts' started by Christopher88, Jul 26, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Christopher88

    Christopher88 Puritan Board Sophomore

    I am doing a study on this passage here (John 2:1-11) is what I believe to be true, is this correct?
    A. This wine is pointing to the New Covenant
    B. Tim Keller states this wedding points to the hour of Christ and to the final ressurection
  2. timfost

    timfost Puritan Board Junior

    Can't wine represent... just wine? What is obvious from the text is that Jesus is the God who can create from nothing. This first miracle is a demonstration of who He is. It is also a proof that Jesus honors marriage.

    Why speculate?
  3. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    I don't mind the metaphorical reference; I don't generally speculate to too much w/ this passage and agree w/ Tim.
  4. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

    I wish not a few would resist the temptation of employing the quadriga method of interpreting Scripture. ;)
  5. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    John recorded this event down as being the first sign in His Gospel to the truth that Jesus was God Incarnate, as He could affect the very elements themselves.
  6. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Junior

    which Tim?....haha there is a difference
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2018
  7. Jack K

    Jack K Puritan Board Professor

    I think there is little doubt that, in John especially, the signs done by Jesus are not merely little ways he found to help people; they have significance, a spiritual meaning tied to his messianic purpose. The difficulty with this first sign is that, unlike the feeding of the five thousand or the healing of the blind man, John does not include a teaching section in which Jesus explains the spiritual meaning behind the sign. Instead, we are left to wonder what the sign might mean.

    Some suggest the use of purification jars gives this sign a meaning tied to purification. Leon Morris (p. 76) says the transformation of water into wine is about Christ's power to transformation the lives of all who come to him.

    But many commentators (D. A. Carson is a well-known example) point to what you mention: both wine and weddings are used throughout Scripture as indicators of the messianic age and of the coming feast in glory. This seems to me to be the clearest allusion. It is also true that, in John, when Jesus refers to his "hour" he is usually looking ahead to the cross.

    I am hesitant to say with certainty that Jesus intended us to see exactly those connections, since the text does not point out the spiritual meaning as it does with other signs in John. But I would be much less comfortable suggesting there is no deeper spiritual meaning, given how other signs do have such meaning and John generally is very deliberate in choosing the words and events he includes. I think there probably is a spiritual meaning, and you're probably on the right track, though you should stop short of declaring you are certain.
  8. Cymro

    Cymro Puritan Board Junior

    I am of a similar opinion Chris. “This beginning of miracles,”is significant as it is used to show the change to the fullness and reality of the NC. John has taught in ch1, “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” What better venue to demonstrate this change than at a wedding which in itself is covenantal. And that’s what the the NC is, and is finally consummated at the marriage alter of the lamb. (rev 19:7).
    The “6 water pots of stone, were after the manner of the purifying Of the JEWS,” which would lead us to see the legalistic nature and symbolism of the passing of the OC by the water being changed into wine. Thus wine is used in the Lord’s Supper to represent the blood of life and salvation. “This cup is the NT in my blood”. I read a quote of the poet George Herbert that reads,
    “Love is that liquor, sweet and most divine,
    which my Lord feels as blood, and I as wine.”
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
  9. Grant Jones

    Grant Jones Puritan Board Junior

    I am taking my family through John during family worship currently, so this text is still fresh on my mind.

    I think there is more to be gleaned in teaching this text than just Jesus values marriage and can transform nature. Both of those truths are still paramount and worth dwelling on. But all of the miracles of Christ pointed (in some way) to what he came to accomplish. Matthew Henry exert below on the text (only partial as the full commentary is LONG):

    “The beginning of Moses’s miracles was turning water into blood (Ex. 4:9 Ex. 7:20 ), the beginning of Christ’s miracles was turning water into wine; which intimates the difference between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ. The curse of the law turns water into blood, common comforts into bitterness and terror; the blessing of the gospel turns water into wine. Christ hereby showed that his errand into the world was to heighten and improve creature-comforts to all believers, and make them comforts indeed. Shiloh is said to wash his garments in wine (Gen. 49:11 ), the water for washing being turned into wine. And the gospel call is, Come ye to the waters, and buy wine, Isa. 55:1 .[2.] The circumstances of it magnified it and freed it from all suspicion of cheat or collusion; for,First, It was done in water-pots (v. 6): There were set there six water-pots of stone. Observe, 1. For what use these water-pots were intended: for the legal purifications from ceremonial pollutions enjoined by the law of God, and many more by the tradition of the elders. The Jews eat not, except they wash often (Mk. 7:3 ), and they used much water in their washing, for which reason here were six large water-pots provided. It was a saying among them, Qui multâ utitur aquâ in lavando, multas consequetur in hoc mundo divitias—He who uses much water in washing will gain much wealth in this world. 2. To what use Christ put them, quite different from what they were intended for; to be the receptacles of the miraculous wine. Thus Christ came to bring in the grace of the gospel, which is as wine, that cheereth God and man (Jdg. 9:13 ), instead of the shadows of the law, which were as water, weak and beggarly elements. These were water-pots, that had never been used to have wine in them; and of stone, which is not apt to retain the scent of former liquors, if ever they had had wine in them. They contained two or three firkins apiece;two or three measures, baths, or ephahs; the quantity is uncertain, but very considerable. We may be sure that it was not intended to be all drank at this feast, but for a further kindness to the new-married couple, as the multiplied oil was to the poor widow, out of which she might pay her debt, and live of the rest, 2 Ki. 4:7 . Christ gives like himself, gives abundantly, according to his riches in glory. It is the penman’s language to say, They contained two or three firkins, for the Holy Spirit could have ascertained just how much; thus (as ch. 6:19 ) teaching us to speak cautiously, and not confidently, of those things of which we have not good assurance.Secondly, The water-pots were filled up to the brim by the servants at Christ’s word, v. 7. As Moses, the servant of the Lord, when God bade him, went to the rock, to draw water; so these servants, when Christ bade them, went to the water, to fetch wine. Note, Since no difficulties can be opposed to the arm of God’s power, no improbabilities are to be objected against the word of his command.Thirdly, The miracle was wrought suddenly, and in such a manner as greatly magnified it.a. As soon as they had filled the water-pots, presently he said, Draw out now(v. 8), and it was done, (a. ) Without any ceremony, in the eye of the spectators.”

    Hope this helps you brother.

    MH is my “go to” so often. I had never heard of quadriga.... so I read Some of the linked article.

    I do Not think Matthew Henry is here guilty of taking the text beyond its intent. I think all of his implications are grounded in the specific text, the context of The whole book of John, the broader context of the NT, and further the broadest context of the whole of scripture....

    I don’t know about you, but that sounds like good Exegesis to me (zoom in and Zoom out):2cents:.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2018
  10. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

    Crossed my desk this morning:

    “Literalism” frequently gets a bad rap nowadays when it comes to the Bible. The word “literal” is fraught with ambiguities, especially in its modern usages, which I have no intention of getting into here. But the practice of reading the Bible ad litteram–“according to the natural sense of the words,” perhaps–of course goes back to the ancient church; and at least one very bright theological mind found it more difficult and intimidating than allegoresis.​

    For more:
  11. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    Could it just be as simple as Jesus was showing to us that He is the Creator and has control over nature itself?
  12. Jack K

    Jack K Puritan Board Professor

    As we all know, John's purpose in selecting the accounts he wrote down is to show us that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so that we might believe and have life in his name (20:31). Therefore, any way we read this account that causes us to have faith will not be far off the mark.

    But HOW do Jesus' miracles declare him to be the Messiah and the Son of God? It cannot merely be the fact that they are supernatural works, or else all the miracle-working prophets who came before and after Jesus would also be proven to be the Creator. For that matter, Pharaoh's magicians did a parlor trick similar to the miracle in John 2, and they weren't even sent from God. So merely changing water into another liquid does not show that one is the Messiah.

    Rather, diverse aspects of the signs combine to show that Jesus is the Messiah: there is the supernatural power itself, yes, but also the compassion behind the miracles, or in some cases the scope or ease of the miracles compared to those that came before, or how the nature of the miracles fulfills those that came earlier, or a message/meaning inherent in the miracles. For example, Moses fed the people in the wilderness, and then Jesus feeds five thousand men as a sign that he is the fulfillment of the bread that came down from heaven.

    Do you see? It is not just the power that testifies to Jesus, but also the meaning and fulfillment in the sign. The whole point of John 6:25-59 is that if you understand what the bread sign means, you will believe that Jesus is the Christ.

    So might there be some meaning in the fact that Moses and Pharaoh's magicians turned water into blood, but when Jesus comes to inaugurate the messianic age he turns water into wine? It is not unreasonable to suggest there might be, given the connections wine has to the Messiah's work.
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
  13. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    Jesus could do miracles that due to His own deity, but everyone else had to have God Himself do it through them.
  14. Jack K

    Jack K Puritan Board Professor

    I'm not sure it's quite that simple, since we might also say that according to his human nature Jesus did miracles in the power of the Spirit—but that's a whole different discussion.

    In any case, his miracles do not testify to his person merely because they are displays of power. That's part of it, of course. But they also show him to be the Messiah due to the compassion behind them, the fulfillment of earlier signs, the larger meaning inherent in them, etc. It all combines to make a robust testimony that Jesus is the Christ.
  15. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    It would be interesting to read a book where someone linked all 7 signs of John concerning Jesus to how they painted a portrait of Jesus as Messiah and King.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page