Jesus Turns Water Into Wine

[Guest]

I've been taking a look at John 2.  This is the chapter where Jesus turns water into wine. 

I often thought that whenever a miracle was done, there was usually either a need or a long term/spiritual purpose for it.  Simple survival or convenience is not really what God tends to do with miraculous powers.  When he fed the multitudes, people say it was because they were hungry.  That was part of it.  But it was also to provide the backdrop for his declaration: I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE.

So, I ran the water to wine story backwards and forwards until I realized there is probably a chiasm there.

Quote

A: Marriage at Cana. Jesus and disciples called in.

... B: Needed Wine

......C: Mary didn't know what to do. Called forth Jesus.

..........D: Whatsoever he saith, do it.

..............E:FILL THE WATERPOTS USED FOR PURIFYING

..........D': Draw the wine and give to the governor

.......C': Ruler didn't know where it came from.  But servants did. Calls forth the bridegroom.

....B': Ruler makes statement about good wine and best wine.

A':Beginnings of miracles at marriage in Cana; disciples believed.

This is the best I could come up with.  For the most part things line up.  Some lines may need some massaging.

A-A' indicates that some disciples were present.  Then they believed in Jesus because of the miracle.

B-B' indicates wine was needed.  It doesn't seem to say that no one brought any wine.  But they simply ran out.  They were short of wine for the size of the feast.  (Potluck with only a few who actually brought food).  The governor talks about good wine and best wine.  I believe this is analogous to the history of Christianity.  The early Saints were the good wine.  The Christianity that survived through history was the lower quality wine.  And they were about to run out.  Then with the restoration, we have the best wine of all.

C-C' is about people in charge not having knowledge.  But the Lord and those who follow Him do.

D-D' is the tough one.  Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus says.  But the parallel to drawing the wine for the governor?  First we need to remember that weddings were often celebrated during one of the Feasts that were celebrated by all.  The governor of the feast was ruling over the feast, not necessarily the wedding.  So, the governor of that would be a high level religious/political figure.  By doing what Jesus wants, it will astound the earthly figures.  Consider Ammon and King Lamoni.

E: I believe this refers to baptism, initiatories, etc.

The spiritual miracle that this teaches us about is that as those who have had the lower quality wine and are then left with only water to drink, may be cleansed and purified to receive the wine.  And not only a bad wine, or a good wine, but the best wine.

In the dispensation of the fulness of times, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the servants who draw forth the wine that Jesus has prepared to be given to all.  And as we give this to them in its purity, those who witness it for themselves will believe.

Edited April 22, 2018 by Guest

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I ran the water to wine story backwards and forwards until I realized there is probably a chiasm there.

I see what you did there.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

I see what you did there.

Hah!  That literally is what happened.  I was trying to figure out why this story had any spiritual purpose.  And I read it backwards just for the fun of it.  It was then I noticed a pattern.

[Sunday21]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Hah!  That literally is what happened.  I was trying to figure out why this story had any spiritual purpose.  And I read it backwards just for the fun of it.  It was then I noticed a pattern.

Clever you!

[wenglund]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've been taking a look at John 2.  This is the chapter where Jesus turns water into wine. 

I often thought that whenever a miracle was done, there was usually either a need or a long term/spiritual purpose for it.  Simple survival or convenience is not really what God tends to do with miraculous powers.  When he fed the multitudes, people say it was because they were hungry.  That was part of it.  But it was also to provide the backdrop for his declaration: I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE.

So, I ran the water to wine story backwards and forwards until I realized there is probably a chiasm there.

This is the best I could come up with.  For the most part things line up.  Some lines may need some massaging.

A-A' indicates that some disciples were present.  Then they believed in Jesus because of the miracle.

B-B' indicates wine was needed.  It doesn't seem to say that no one brought any wine.  But they simply ran out.  They were short of wine for the size of the feast.  (Potluck with only a few who actually brought food).  The governor talks about good wine and best wine.  I believe this is analogous to the history of Christianity.  The early Saints were the good wine.  The Christianity that survived through history was the lower quality wine.  And they were about to run out.  Then with the restoration, we have the best wine of all.

C-C' is about people in charge not having knowledge.  But the Lord and those who follow Him do.

D-D' is the tough one.  Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus says.  But the parallel to drawing the wine for the governor?  First we need to remember that weddings were often celebrated during one of the Feasts that were celebrated by all.  The governor of the feast was ruling over the feast, not necessarily the wedding.  So, the governor of that would be a high level religious/political figure.  By doing what Jesus wants, it will astound the earthly figures.  Consider Ammon and King Lamoni.

E: I believe this refers to baptism, initiatories, etc.

The spiritual miracle that this teaches us about is that as those who have had the lower quality wine and are then left with only water to drink, may be cleansed and purified to receive the wine.  And not only a bad wine, or a good wine, but the best wine.

In the dispensation of the fulness of times, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the servants who draw forth the wine that Jesus has prepared to be given to all.  And as we give this to them in its purity, those who witness it for themselves will believe.

Could the wine be symbolic of the blood of Christ, just as the bread that feed the 5,000 was symbolic of the body if Christ? The sacrament used to consist of wine and bread.

If so, then the object lesson for me  is that the redeeming blood made available by mankind is inferior and insufficient. Complete redemption requires the miraculous and superior blood of Christ. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[onewatt]

I believe that more often than fulfilling a need, miracles done by Christ are symbolic of his mission in some way. 

In the case of the water to wine, there is something really beautiful happening here. These containers of water are the water pots used by Jews as part of their ritual cleaning. People would enter the feast and dip their dirty hands into this series of water pots one by one. 

Imagine, now, Jesus christ saying to the servant, "pull a cup full of this disgusting, filthy water that has had the hands of EVERY PERSON here in it, and give it to the guy in charge." 

I imagine that the servant would believe this would be a deadly insult.

But instead, the water isn't just cleansed, it is improved. It is changed into the finest drink available. 

This, of course, is an allegory for Christ's mission. To take what was filthy, to cleanse it, and improve it - to transform it into something far better.

[Guest]

On 4/23/2018 at 1:05 AM, wenglund said:

Could the wine be symbolic of the blood of Christ, just as the bread that feed the 5,000 was symbolic of the body if Christ? The sacrament used to consist of wine and bread.

If so, then the object lesson for me  is that the redeeming blood made available by mankind is inferior and insufficient. Complete redemption requires the miraculous and superior blood of Christ. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's possible.  Do you see some literary evidence of that in Chapter 2?

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, onewatt said:

I believe that more often than fulfilling a need, miracles done by Christ are symbolic of his mission in some way. 

In the case of the water to wine, there is something really beautiful happening here. These containers of water are the water pots used by Jews as part of their ritual cleaning. People would enter the feast and dip their dirty hands into this series of water pots one by one. 

Imagine, now, Jesus christ saying to the servant, "pull a cup full of this disgusting, filthy water that has had the hands of EVERY PERSON here in it, and give it to the guy in charge." 

I imagine that the servant would believe this would be a deadly insult.

But instead, the water isn't just cleansed, it is improved. It is changed into the finest drink available. 

This, of course, is an allegory for Christ's mission. To take what was filthy, to cleanse it, and improve it - to transform it into something far better.

That is interesting.  Do you believe it stands up to scrutiny when considering that this was fresh water that Jesus had told them to place in them JUST before pouring out again?  If so, explain.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/22/2018 at 4:03 PM, Carborendum said:

I was trying to figure out why this story had any spiritual purpose. 

Isn't the spiritual purpose to show that Jesus did miracles?

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Isn't the spiritual purpose to show that Jesus did miracles?

Explain.

The reason I ask is that we're continually told that his miracles were a tool to do something else.  It was not just to show he can do miracles.  We already know that is inherent in an Omnipotent Being.  But it is more background than the lesson itself.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Explain.

The reason I ask is that we're continually told that his miracles were a tool to do something else.  It was not just to show he can do miracles.  We already know that is inherent in an Omnipotent Being.  But it is more background than the lesson itself.

Simply that it is evidence that He is/was who He and others claimed He was. God is a God of miracles. Where faith is miracles follow. Etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "we're continually told" that miracles were a tool for something else. Where are we told this? And how do you mean?

I mean I'm sure there can be many layers, etc., in these things. And I'm not suggesting your idea is invalid or useless or anything of the sort. Just seems to me that the core "spiritual" purpose of the miracle stories are: We read them. The Spirit testifies to us they are true. We have greater faith and love in and for our Savior.

Edited April 24, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Colirio]

I tend to see this case the same way TFP does. 

 

The Savior even mentioned that His time had not yet come. It might explain the somewhat out of place nature of this particular miracle. 

 

But, the truth is that many of His miracles were such that they accomplished a need at the time. He served others with love and even tended to their temporal needs at times. 

[Crypto]

On 4/22/2018 at 2:54 PM, Vort said:

I see what you did there.

Wait, am I missing something?

[zil]

6 hours ago, Crypto said:

Wait, am I missing something?

Chiasmus is where the idea is presented forward and then backward.  Carb discovered it by going forward and backward through the text...

[Traveler]

I believe that @Carborendum and done a profoundly important thing.  That is to study scripture for deep spiritual content.  Mostly, it would seem that those that study scripture do so for doctrine – I use to think this was the primary purpose of scripture but I have come to believe otherwise.

Perhaps I am wrong but some posts seem to contain a undercurrent that G-d performs miracles to show off or as a fringe benefit for those that believe desired doctrine.  All of which play into the notion the good things only happen to good people and the reverse logic of the same - that if you are not good – bad things will happen to you.  And that what makes a person good is to believe the doctrine.  This kind of thinking sets the stage for a lot of arguing over “correct” doctrine.  A process that leads to “forever learning but never coming to an understanding of the truth”.

The story of changing water to wine at the wedding has so many “levels” of deep spiritual meaning – I believe we could counsel with one another for weeks and months about how to apply understanding to covenants (like marriage) that we enter into with both our fellow man (earthy society) as well as G-d concerning the eternal plan of salvation.  But to be honest – I believe there is (among many) a spirit of contention or desire to reduce everything to doctrine and leave our covenants with G-d out of our exchanges with one another.

So, I will ask a question concerning covenant – especially the covenant of marriage.  What do “YOU” do when you have an obligation by covenant to provide (in this case wine at a wedding – which is a covenant between a man and a wife and a community and G-d) and you run out?  It would seem to me that this is a topic (of many forms) of many a thread of this forum – now being asked again.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

21 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "we're continually told" that miracles were a tool for something else. Where are we told this? And how do you mean?

I'm not sure.  I'll have to research this.  It may just be an earworm.  But I'll find out.

21 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I mean I'm sure there can be many layers, etc., in these things. And I'm not suggesting your idea is invalid or useless or anything of the sort. Just seems to me that the core "spiritual" purpose of the miracle stories are: We read them. The Spirit testifies to us they are true. We have greater faith and love in and for our Savior.

Again, I'll say "I'm not sure."  How often are we told that "miracles don't make a person have a testimony"?

21 hours ago, Colirio said:

The Savior even mentioned that His time had not yet come. It might explain the somewhat out of place nature of this particular miracle. 

Expound a bit.

21 hours ago, Colirio said:

But, the truth is that many of His miracles were such that they accomplished a need at the time. He served others with love and even tended to their temporal needs at times. 

Yes, a need at the time is found elsewhere.  So, I agree with that idea in general.  But to provide wine instead of water... was this really a need?  It seems like an inconvenience.

[zil]

Pretty sure water wasn't for drinking back in the day.

Would it really be so awful if the only reason he did this was because his mom asked for help with the "out of wine, but the guests won't leave" problem?

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

Pretty sure water wasn't for drinking back in the day.

Would it really be so awful if the only reason he did this was because his mom asked for help with the "out of wine, but the guests won't leave" problem?

Anciently water had different classifications - for example "living water" was a classification that had specific ritual significances as well as purity symbolism.   It was not so much that water was not used for drinking as that water consistently suitable for drinking was difficult to come by and hard to validate - think vacationing in Mexico.  Access to “living water” was symbolic of power, wealth and divine approaval.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, zil said:

Pretty sure water wasn't for drinking back in the day.

Would it really be so awful if the only reason he did this was because his mom asked for help with the "out of wine, but the guests won't leave" problem?

Well, first, I don't see any explanation for why they were out of wine.  It seems that since the governor was sober enough to discern the quality of the wine, it wasn't because everyone was drunk.  It would seem that they just didn't bring enough.  Predicting the turnout for a mass event is difficult.

As for the water being unfit to drink?  That's a consideration.  But "Best wine" is easily understood to mean "most alcoholic" as well.  Not a slam dunk.  It could just as easily have meant that it was just "better tasting".  But either way, it still makes me wonder why.  I'm reminded of the sandbox for refugees in Europe and realize that things often get done by imperfect means.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Guest