Skip to content

In place of purity (more on wine & Jesus)

In John 2, the story of turning of the water into wine, there’s an interesting detail that I’ve never seen commented on at length before. John 2:6 describes the vats of water that Jesus turned into wine: “Now standing there were six stone water-jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.”

These aren’t just random water-jars, they are holy water. Water for the rites of purification given in the Torah. Jesus however turns out to be the enemy of purity. Instead of water for ceremonial purification, he leaves us with wine—120-180 gallons of it!

There’s a deeply transgressive quality to Jesus’s actions. In the place of a system of boundaries and morals, clean and unclean, Jesus gives people enough wine to get all of Dublin hammered. Jesus’s actions are, in a sense, shockingly amoral. Or rather, they transgress and overcome the binary structures that define “religious” morality.

Jesus doesn’t come to offer a new way for the unclean to be made clean, the profane made sacred. He comes to obviate the whole notion and throw a party instead. And this is his glory (2:11).

47 Comments

  1. roger flyer wrote:

    Too much responsibility for ‘us’…see Grand Inquisitor F. Dostoevsky

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm | Permalink
  2. Aric Clark wrote:

    Just preached this passage and had some fun with it. 180 gallons is approx 900 bottles of wine. Assuming 6 glasses per bottle that is 5400 glasses of wine. If this is a giant wedding party of 500 people (the whole town of Cana really) that is nearly 11 glasses each. This, AFTER, they have already drank all the wine the host originally provided, which presumably was enough for a good party. Jesus plans to get absolutely everybody SHITFACED.

    Another fun detail – water is denser than wine (slightly). Jesus instructs them to fill the jars “to the brim” before he performs his little prestidigitation. As such if 30 gallons of water turned into an equivalent amount of wine in vats that were already full to the tippy-top, it would gush over the lip and all over the floor. It is an image of obscene extravagance surpassing the most ridiculous champagne fountain at a celebrity wedding.

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
  3. Ben Myers wrote:

    Along similar lines, one of the best sermons I’ve ever heard was entitled “God is not holy”.

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 4:29 pm | Permalink
  4. Andrew wrote:

    Thanks for the science lesson. I can’t get visions of crazy wine party with Jesus out of my head.

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 4:52 pm | Permalink
  5. This post reeks of strong drink and (protestant/goy) hyperbole; first, 180 gals of anything is not enough to get Dublin blitzed. Second: ‘Jesus is a enemy of purity?’ then what’s he doing getting baptized and washing feet? Thirdly: The water isn’t ‘holy’, the act of washing can be, you got that mixed up with the Catholics, and the jars were empty and had to be filled, they weren’t just sitting there with little sponges floating in them. Fourply: I am all for partying down, but if I am sharing double dipped pork rinds with poached protestants, I pray that any guests that have been handling corpses, changing out tampax, or show up stained with ‘nocturnal emissions,’ have all washed their hands twice in running water, whether they be Talmudists, supercessionists, or ultra-montainists (that’s a nod to you French Canadians).

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 4:55 pm | Permalink
  6. Halden wrote:

    Ahh, but baptism is not “the removal of dirt from the flesh” (1 Pet 3:21) and the washing of feet is all about, you know, sevanthood. Also see Matt 15:2 and Mark 7:3 about how much Jesus and his homeboys were into washing up.

    And, while “holy water” is technically a misnomer, the point is that, especially in Numbers, ritual purification by water is a way of being made clean (holy), able to enter into the fellowship of God’s people and presence.

    Jesus wants to throw a party rather than offer a caveat in that system.

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
  7. Halden wrote:

    I also think that its highly relevant that immediately after this story Jesus goes to the temple and kicks a fair of amount of ass.

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
  8. “ass” like the donkey or “ass” like the bum, Yoder argues for the first, Driscoll for the second (he preahces he could never worship a messiah he could outdrink).

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 5:50 pm | Permalink
  9. Bobby Grow wrote:

    I thought I stumbled onto Mark Driscoll’s site for a second.

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 6:20 pm | Permalink
  10. Halden wrote:

    Actually, it doesn’t matter for my point, but I tend to agree with Yoder. The point for me is how his action violates the normal functioning of the temple.

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 8:39 pm | Permalink
  11. Halden wrote:

    Actually I’d think Mark Driscoll would be way into purity. You know, for women.

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 8:43 pm | Permalink
  12. Bobby Grow wrote:

    It really wasn’t your post, Halden . . . I thought it was interesting. Instead it was some of your commenters, esp. this one:

    . . . Jesus plans to get absolutely everybody SHITFACED.

    What kind of idiot would say something like that? There’s irreverance, and then there’s just plain ole immature idiocy. Aric Clark needs to grow up! And I realize the sword cuts both ways, and I probably shouldn’t be calling Clark an idiot, but that’s pretty much as nice as I can be as I read this, unbelievable.

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 10:25 pm | Permalink
  13. Bobby Grow wrote:

    Oh nevermind, I just visited Aric’s site; I see what kind of guy would say what He did about the Lord . . . I shouldn’t have called Aric an idiot, he’s not, but what he said is idiotic (grow up, dude).

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 10:34 pm | Permalink
  14. I wonder if a resurrected body can handle a bit more drink?

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 10:56 pm | Permalink
  15. Aric Clark wrote:

    Is it the word “shitfaced” that bothers you – in which case I’m surprised you read Halden’s blog – or the idea that Jesus would be involved in a party where people were really really drunk? What would be your preferred adjective to describe a large group of people after a dozen or more glasses of wine each? Pissed? Schnockered? Blasted? Hammered? Inebriated? Juiced? Pickled? Soused? Tanked? Wrecked? We seem to have a lot of synonyms for it actually. Must be our idiotic immaturity as english-language speakers.

    How bout we start again without any name calling?

    Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 11:30 pm | Permalink
  16. Chris Donato wrote:

    Perhaps a little embarrassed by this discrepancy, über conservative exegete Don Carson remarks: “However, although methysko demonstrates some inebriation was involved, there is ‘no ground here for conclusions regarding the degree of intoxication of the guests at this wedding’ (Barrett, p. 193).” Carson chooses instead to focus on the newness and superiority of the new-age messianic banquet over against the old order.

    Also, the probability that this took place on the Sabbath may add a little more “umpf” to your point, Halden.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 7:57 am | Permalink
  17. Halden wrote:

    The Carson quote is, as usual hilarious.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 9:04 am | Permalink
  18. adhunt wrote:

    I think you’re unJudaising the passage. This iis not the uber smack on “religion” universally speaking, as if such a ridiculous category even existed in antiquity; keep it to Jesus and Law as understood Scripturally and leave your Barthinian anti-”religious” rhetoric behind and you might be getting at the point a bit more clearly.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 11:10 am | Permalink
  19. Halden wrote:

    Um, sure.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 11:32 am | Permalink
  20. adhunt wrote:

    You know I’m now sure why you’ve always been so dismissive of me, but it kind of pisses me off.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 11:34 am | Permalink
  21. Halden wrote:

    Well, when you call stuff I write ridiculous and give condescending advise about how I should just wise up and understand things “scripturally” how do you expect me to respond?

    Your comment was cheap, dismissive, and didn’t make any sort of argument that might have facilitated the sort of response you were apparently hoping for.

    If you dish it out don’t whine abut having to take it.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 11:44 am | Permalink
  22. adhunt wrote:

    Halden,

    I came off too assholey, I’m sorry. What I was trying to get at was this: It seems as if you are reading this passage one or both of two ways. On the one hand, in a Barthinian sense where he calls “religion” man’s attempt to please/access/move toward… God, in this case the rites for purification. Given your own theological sympathies I take this to be most likely the horizon that shapes your reading.

    On the other hand it is almost Lutheran in it’s simplicity: “Law (“purification) = bad – Jesus = Good-not-Law”

    Whether or not either of these in any conscious way shapes your reading is really irrelevant as it is in form close enough to be brothers. This similarity is demonstrated by your particular emphasis, “Jesus is the enemy of purity.”

    This is on the one hand poor biblical theology as Torah/Law and even “purification” is a good and God-given thing. Even Paul who is perhaps more able to be charged with antinomianism than John should be read this way – as he explicitly says.

    It is also not a close enough read of John who in his Prologue says that what was given through Moses was indeed a “grace” so that Jesus is not “anti-Moses” nor, moreoever, “anti-purity.” Jesus is a “grace on top of grace.”

    And so Jesus is not anti-”religion/purity/nomian/law/Torah,” rather he is fulfiller of these.

    There is more to say, not least about how the Spirit become living Law dwelling in the hearts of God’s people but that would be going to far off in my opinion.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
  23. Halden wrote:

    Ok, thanks for that reply. I also did not seek to engage in unnecessary assholery.

    A couple of points. First, the prologue to John does not say that what Moses brought was grace. The verse reads “The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

    Second, if “purification” as defined in say, Numbers 8 or 30 is a good thing, why does Jesus violate it, not merely here, but elsewhere? If we are called to rest on the Sabbath, why does Jesus break it? This isn’t just a Johannine problem but a problem with all the gospels. Jesus does break the law, if by that we mean the levitical and deutronomic codes in the Pentateuch. That is just a fact.

    Third, as for the shots at Barth, I’d need to be convinced that he can be so easily dismissed as you think. This relates to the question of “biblical theology.” It is very much a live question how the narrative shaping of the Pentateuch as a whole wants us to think about “the law.” The work of John Sailhamer is helpful on this point. In fact he has a brand new book out on the theology of the Pentateuch that speaks directly to this issue.

    That is obviously a bigger issue than can be broached here, but I just want to make clear that it is not simply “poor” biblical theology. In fact, I think thorough investigation of key work in the Old Testament bears out that this is, in fact a much better reading, albeit one that is not beholden to the old style heilsgeschichte way of approaching the OT.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 12:51 pm | Permalink
  24. adhunt wrote:

    “Poor” was a “poor” choice of word.

    On John’s Prologue, the Greek syntax is far more ambiguous and many interpreters take the “grace” and “grace” to refer, respectively, to Moses’ Law and Jesus. Among them the honorable Right Rev. in Christ Nicholas Thomas Wright.

    re: point 2 – Jesus does break the Law indeed. But this is where I look to the Forest rather than the Trees so to speak. Jesus also says that he comes to fulfill not abolish the Law and the Prophets. Jesus doesn’t seem to be too systematic in explaining his relationship to the Law, hell neither does Paul. But both seem to insist that “The Law,” if we are even to be allowed to assume they thought as systematically or abstractly as we do, is not something that is evil or bad.

    And this flows into my beef with Barth. Barth conceives of this grand and irreducibly abstract idea of “religion” and then goes on to say that Jesus is the great iconoclast of “religion.” Not only has it been demonstrated that the Classical world really had no concept relatively similar to what we think of as “religion,” but it seems even today it is insanely difficult if not impossible to define religion. On this for instance Cavanaugh.

    So if “religion” was not an ancient concept then it isn’t really a biblical concept, which is fine but it makes it much more difficult to universalize and transcendentalize “religion” as a Christianly available category for discussion. And if it is impossible to really define religion even now, then it seems it is something that will persistently elude our grasp and is therefore not something I really want to spend too much time on.

    This is where Pentecost seems a fuller ways to elucidate both Christ’s and our relationship to the Law than ahistorical dogmatics.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 1:38 pm | Permalink
  25. Bobby Grow wrote:

    Well, “new wine” or the “best wine” as I understand it, in the 1st cent. was more akin to our “grape-juice”; I wonder how many bottles of that you would have to drink before you hit your threshold of your preferred adjective?

    Well, I did, I said I was sorry for calling you an idiot, that wasmy “flesh-jerk” response . . . please forgive me for that. I still think your verbiage was idiotic. Actually, given your historical presumption and inaccuracy about the “best wine” any of your adjectives are just as idiotic. Maybe Jesus gave them the “best wine” to sober them up, eh? Remember, I’m no longer calling you an idiot, which I don’t think you are (just immature); I’m calling your “idea” idiotic, or maybe a better adjective would be sloppy. The reason I thought of Mark Driscoll in re. to your remark is because I can just picture you with your arm around Jesus, shootin the breeze with your masculine Jesus, saying: “yeah, Jesus, bro remember that time when you got all those guys shi*faced at the wedding party . . . wasn’t that a riot?” I don’t know, your comment just came off that way (immature) — actually not really in line with the context of Halden’s blog.

    I read Halden’s blog from time to time now-a-days because I think Halden has some good things to say; and, honestly, because I’ve met him once or twice (briefly), and like him.

    Have a good one. Make you don’t drink and drive.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
  26. Halden wrote:

    Be that as it may (re Johhn’s prologue) the clear emphasis is on the contrast between Jesus and Moses (at least in all the commentaries I just checked). This is not to say that the Torah is not a divine gift, but the meaning of Torah is the important point, and precisely why I recommended Sailhamer above. The Law codes in the Pentateuch should not be slavishly identified with “Torah”. To do that is to make a primal mistake. Indeed, the “Torah” is the narrative of the Pentateuch as a whole which has a perspective on the law codes that I think is often missed.

    This is, I think too big an issue to explore fully here, but in brief I think that the Pentateuch itself is quite clearly negative about “the law”. Thus Jesus fulfills the Torah precisely because he does away with “the law” and calls people to join him in following the faith of Abraham, which was God’s desire for Israel all along.

    In other words I am saying that Torah and “the Law” are not the same thing and that the Pentateuch itself manifests this intentionally. Within the theology of the Pentateuch and the Tanakh more generally, “the law” is portrayed negatively in contrast with the Abrahamic-Prophetic faith to which Israel is called.

    Here’s an early article of Sailhamer’s that might be helpful in fleshing this out for you if you’re interested.

    The whole “religion” conversation is also probably too big to have hear. I understand what you’re saying, but I think if you read Barth’s actual work on religion in the Church Dogmatics you’ll find far more nuance than you characterize above.

    Also if you read the Dogmatics you’ll find they’re anything but “ahistorical.”

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
  27. Halden wrote:

    Bobby, I don’t know any serious commentator who takes the notion that this was non-alcoholic wine seriously. That’s something invented by church ladies in the U.S. in the nineteenth century. Every commentary I’ve just looked through, when they comment on it at all, indicate that the “good wine” would be served first because peoples’ taste would be dulled by the end due to inebriation and thus they were served worse wine then. Stands to reason that the “best wine” would be anything but non-alcoholic.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 3:34 pm | Permalink
  28. Halden wrote:

    Here’s some of the relevant sections from Sailhamer’s book as well.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
  29. adhunt wrote:

    I appreciate it. You’re right that it’s not like this can get hashed out on a comment thread. You’re also right that I haven’t read nearly as much Barth as you have, but I have read some so give me tiny bit of credit.

    As a final note – and you’re welcome to leave another, I’m not trying to have “the last word” or anything – Even if the OT narrative can be taken to imply that the “Law” is bad does it not matter far more how Jesus and the Apostolic witness interprets it? We read the OT in light of Christ, not the other way ’round.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
  30. Halden wrote:

    Yes, I agree that Jesus’s view of the Law is of paramount importance (see some of my past comment thread with Brad A. about Hebrews 8). In fact I think that Jesus in the NT shares the view of the Law sketched above and filled out by Sailhamer. That’s why he can say he didn’t come to abolish the Torah but to fulfill it and the go around breaking the Law. So, the fulfillment of the Torah is the passing away of the Law, and sharing the faith(fulness) of Abraham.

    And yeah, I wasn’t trying to say you don’t know anything about Barth, only that I think there’s a lot more there in section 17, On Religion especially the new Garrett Green translation that problematizes the way Barth sometimes gets pegged on the question of religion. Anyways, enough on that point.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 5:40 pm | Permalink
  31. Bobby Grow wrote:

    Halden,

    I’ll have to re-check that, I’ve read some repubitable commentators in my day on this; and they actually weren’t the proverbial old-lady Victorians. It’s interesting how throughout scripture being drunk is associated with God’s judgement, and yet here, apparently we have Jesus promoting drunkeness. It’s also interesting that Paul forbids drunkeness, yet again it appears Jesus promotes and even contributes to it according to the reading you’re promoting . . . and yet I’ve always taken Paul to speak for Jesus in scripture.

    Which commentators did you reference?

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 6:01 pm | Permalink
  32. Halden wrote:

    Brown, Barrett, Kruse, Carter, and Howard-Brook are what I had on hand today. They all seemed to confirm what I said above. Which is the only thing that really makes sense given that the whole emphasis is on the abundance of the wine manifested both in its quantity and quality.

    I’m hesitant to allow other text to force me into an artificial haromonization that runs counter to this text. If anything I’d be inclined to give Jesus’s action interpretive priority when encountering Paul’s witness to him.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 6:17 pm | Permalink
  33. Halden wrote:

    Also, interestingly Numbers 6 clearly differentiates between wine and grape juice, further leading me not to give the non-alcoholic wine theory much creedence.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
  34. Well, not to get in between yuall’s dueling commentaries (this kind of discussion affirms my religious post-structuralism, of the ‘there is no outside the text’ denom.). Still, if I understand your de-judificating point, what your saying is that if a Jew (Ortho/Haredi/Hassidic, etc.) gets ‘shitfaced’ drunk and forgets to unscrew the little lightbulb in their refrigerators before the Sabbath so they can open the Refer (and get a beer) w/o breaking rabbinical rulings that forbid them from turning on a light; If he/she were a Christian, there’s nothing to worry about? That is “good news!”

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 7:56 pm | Permalink
  35. Chris Donato wrote:

    Good to see Sailhamer’s thoughts being evoked. I don’t think he’s the first to be seeing these things, but his most recent work on the subject fleshes it out unlike anyone else I’ve read.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 9:00 pm | Permalink
  36. Bobby Grow wrote:

    Halden,

    Just got home from the hosp. and checked Craig Keener, and he confirms the idea the wine was alcoholic, but that it was watered down with two to three parts water to one part wine; given the Jewish teaching that drunkeness was not allowed. Which makes more sense to me given the context.

    I suppose with Paul’s admonition, one could conceivably drink wine and not get drunk (in fact it seems that he presupposes that in Eph 5). So I don’t think we have to place these texts against eachother in competitive ways after-all.

    So I don’t have a problem with the idea that there was some alcohol in the wine; but given the context (the Jewish), I also don’t think Jesus was contributing to folks getting sh*%faced as our friend Aric seems to suppose. I also don’t think Paul’s teaching, which he received from Jesus (as His “Sent One”) would contradict the ethics/holiness that Jesus set forth in His actions — again reinforcing the idea that Jesus in Jn 2 did not contribute the deliquincy of His countrymen.

    Thanks for the exchange, Halden (and thanks for your cont. prayers).

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
  37. Halden wrote:

    Well, I don’t really buy Keener’s take (though I’ll check out his commentary when I get hold of it), but we’ll leave the matter there.

    And yes, you need never thank me for the prayers, brother.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 11:30 pm | Permalink
  38. Bobby Grow wrote:

    Yeah, happy to leave it there.

    I still want to say thank you, because it means alot to know you are praying . . . thanks, Halden.

    And I’m sorry, Aric (I wish I never said what I said to you, I’m a hot-head sometimes, argh).

    Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 11:48 pm | Permalink
  39. kim fabricius wrote:

    I once attended a wedding without booze. It was the longest afternoon of my life (pace W.C.!). A vasectomy would have brought light relief to that gloomy chapel hall. It was a Welsh Nonconformist wedding, set in a religious culture where they take the swing out of the budgie’s cage on the Sabbath, and practice “the kind of so-called housekeeping where they have six Bibles and no corkscrew” (Mark Twain).

    “Behold, a glutton and a drunkard!” (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34). So that was just slander? I don’t buy it. I think it’s a thin understanding of sin – and a feeble doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ – to insist on a sober saviour. Perhaps, provocatively: Bleesed are those who take no offence at a shit-faced Saviour.

    Friday, January 22, 2010 at 2:39 am | Permalink
  40. Dennis wrote:

    Halden,

    Interesting post. It’s interesting to read the perspectives. Being Catholic, I read this differently. John’s account is pointing us to the Eucharist. Where once they were purified with water, it will be replaced by wine–not only regular wine but the greatest wine–the Blood of Christ.

    So, He’s not doing anything amoral. He’s pointing everyone to His hour which had not yet come.

    Saying that, 180 gallons of wine does seem like a lot. We don’t really know how big the wedding banquet was.

    Friday, January 22, 2010 at 4:36 am | Permalink
  41. adhunt wrote:

    For the record, I’m all about drinking. And even about “antinomianism,” but I tend to see the means of getting there differently that’s all.

    Friday, January 22, 2010 at 5:50 am | Permalink
  42. Brad A. wrote:

    For the record on my own end, I don’t think Halden and I disagree as much as might be apparent in our discussions. I have some other things in mind that don’t go mentioned here much in terms of Israel’s theopolitical identity and mission, which is then continued in the church. It is that continuity alone that has guided my comments in the past, i.e., I don’t think enough credit is given in general discussions (here and elsewhere) to the radical nature of what Israel was called to be in the OT.

    I’ll be checking out Sailhamar soon, and I think there’s a lot there to be considered. From what I read of the reviews, I might have a few problems at points, but probably not much significant.

    Incidentally, Halden, and going off the reviews from Amazon, what do you think of the fact that Piper raves about Sailhamar’s new book?

    Friday, January 22, 2010 at 8:36 am | Permalink
  43. Aric Clark wrote:

    No sweat Bobby. I don’t take anything said on the internet very personally. It’s the first time anyone has compared me to Mark Driscoll, and hopefully the last.

    I tend to find the idea that the wine is non-alcoholic unpersuasive because it smells too much like American tee-totaling. Regardless, though, it is beside the point. Clearly the point of the wine, in my opinion, is that it is just a ridiculous amount and it makes the party “better”. It is an extravagant gift. A sign of the Kingdom because it is just so extreme. To me the wine being alcoholic enhances rather than detracts from that point, but it isn’t really necessary.

    Friday, January 22, 2010 at 9:17 am | Permalink
  44. Halden wrote:

    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    However, I haven’t seen anything in his work on salvation that requires or necessarily even lends to a John Piper-like soteriology. In fact I think he kind of steers clear of entering those debates. So I imagine he could be appropriated differently by different people.

    Friday, January 22, 2010 at 9:30 am | Permalink
  45. JM wrote:

    As I read it, Sailhamer’s work actually cuts against the classic Reformed covenant theology where there is a hard distinction b/w a covenant of works (Law) and a covenant of grace (Gospel), where Law is a precondition of the Gospel. Instead, Sailhamer sees the Gospel as primary and the Law as subsumed within a larger covenant of grace. His book has its moments and insights, even if Sailhamer doesn’t fully understand the implications of his arguments and is a pretty diehard fundamentalist and inerrantist.

    Friday, January 22, 2010 at 9:39 am | Permalink
  46. Brad A. wrote:

    That’s helpful, JM. Thanks.

    Friday, January 22, 2010 at 1:29 pm | Permalink
  47. Doug Harink wrote:

    I tend to agree that there is nothing “transgressive” or “amoral” about Jesus’ act here; or, for that matter, anything against purity. (And none of the obviously Jewish guests see any problem either.) If the Law is the “water,” it is nevertheless taken up and transformed into the “wine” of that age to come. Jesus requires the jars to be “filled to the brim” with water; he does not fill them with wine “ex nihilo”.

    Monday, January 25, 2010 at 11:45 am | Permalink

Switch to our mobile site