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.

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.

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?

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.

“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.

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).

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

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).