Of Wine and Water

Jesus turned water into wine. It was a miracle. Some also consider it a miracle - they use the very word - that they have managed to turn their wine into water.

The former miracle, during the Wedding at Cana, is recounted in the Gospel of John. It has no place in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. John also differs from the authors of the synoptic gospels by calling this and six other miracles “signs” rather than “miracles,” or “works” instead of “acts of power.” Regardless of what he calls it, for some true believers, this work or act of power in John is a miracle too far.

“Did Jesus Turn Water Into Wine?” asks Chuck Northrop, graduate of the Preston Road School of Preaching in Dallas. “The obvious answer to the question,” he concedes, “is yes.” But Mr. Northrop is not one to be deterred by an obvious answer. In fact, he has posed a trick question, because “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.” Please do.

“At present, the term ‘wine’ is used almost exclusively of alcoholic wine,” he continues, “but let us never be guilty of interpretation based solely upon modern day definitions.” Indeed not. He notes that the guests at the wedding were able to discern the difference between the wine already served (this is in the text: “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now”) and concludes that “they would not have had such discernment” if intoxicating wine had been served (this is not in the text).

There’s more: “If it is the case that these wedding guests were so drunk that they could not distinguish” – the text has been entirely abandoned at this point – “then the Lord made six pots of alcoholic beverage for those who were already strongly under the influence, and caused them to be even more drunk!” Apparently, the conclusion to be drawn from this extra-textual hypothesis is self-explanatory: “Thus,” he says, without so much as a by-your-leave, “the ‘good wine’ of the wedding feast of Canaan must have been the fresh fruit of the grape.”

So: you can tell good fresh fruit of the grape if you’ve been drinking what you only thought was good fresh fruit of the grape but you can’t tell good intoxicating wine if you’ve been drinking what you only thought was good intoxicating wine, and that it might make sense to serve poorer intoxicating wine (the cheaper stuff) after people are a little intoxicated by having drunk good intoxicating wine (at least until Jesus turns up and complicates matters by producing even better intoxicating wine) is not, under any circumstances, to be considered.

It’s worth pausing here to look at what Northrop is doing to Logic 101:

The first argument can be summarized as follows: (a) “wine” can refer to intoxicating wine or grape juice; (b) the guests are able to determine that good wine follows the bad; therefore, (c) it can’t be intoxicating wine that is served.

If that doesn’t work (and it doesn’t), the next argument simply involves diving headfirst into fantasy: (a) everyone is so drunk that they can’t distinguish between good and bad wine; (b) Jesus makes more intoxicating wine for those already drunk; therefore, (c) He doesn’t.

The number of possible syllogisms is uncountable, but there are two hundred and fifty-six possible types of syllogisms. Chuck Northrop employs none of them. He doesn’t work a single inference, even by accident. He is a miracle of the anti-syllogism. Sadly, the Preston Road School of Preaching, having briefly changed its name to the Center for Christian Education, is now closed, so a quick glance at the qualifications required for entry, or the qualifications required for graduation, is not possible. But (a) Chuck Northrop is a graduate of Preston Road School of Preaching; (b) Chuck Northrop demonstrates an understanding of logic comparable to that of a stubborn, three-year-old child; therefore, (c) either the Preston Road School of Preaching offered no course in logic or Chuck Northrop attended the Preston Road School of Preaching after it had closed.

The pudding calls for still more eggs. There are other reasons why those who believe Jesus turned water into wine are very much mistaken: “Since Jesus produced alcoholic wine (as they claim), then not only would it be morally right to drink it, it would be morally right to produce it, sell it, distribute it, and make a living from it.” At this point, one might feel that Northrop is simply ready to send the whole of France to Hell, but he goes on: “But since that would certainly cause someone to stumble, then it must be morally right to cause someone to stumble. However, the logical consequence of their argument would oppose the Lord's teaching (Luke 17:1-2) [Jesus teaching his disciples of the punishment awaiting those who cause the vulnerable to stumble: “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea …”]. No, the reasoning is a foolish argument that has no foundation in scripture.” He means other than the Gospel according to St. John.

For those drawn to a literal reading of a multi-authored, densely metaphorical text who are confronted with a sentence they have no interest in reading literally, the switch from John to Luke is typical, but not as typical as the switch to Habakkuk. “[C]onsider the general context of the Bible,” if you will: “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.’” This, in Northrop’s considered opinion, is the “sin of drunkenness,” although it may look to you and I and the authors of The Oxford Bible Commentary like the sin of getting someone else drunk for your own illicit advantage. Anyway, before we run out of breath: “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” and “it would be better for Jesus ‘that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea.’”

And that can't be right.

Northrop has reached a new high here: this can’t even be reduced to a false syllogism. He is also on dangerous ground for a graduate of the Preston Road School of Preaching, flirting with all that “woe” of Habakkuk, and putting Jesus within the range of His own wrath. But it isn’t easy to prove that something means the opposite of what it says.

“What, then, was the miracle of the wedding feast in Cana?” Northrop asks, as well he might. The answer: "The miracle of Cana was that Jesus surpassed or transcended the normal amount of time and the natural process that it takes to produce and harvest grape juice.” You can see why John chose a shorter explanation.

So, Jesus surpassed or transcended the normal amount of time and the natural process that it takes to produce and harvest grape juice, or Jesus turned water into wine. It depends on who you believe, Chuck or John. Either way, or neither way, it is still right next door to a miracle, for some, that they have managed to turn their wine into water.