we saw that the Wedding at Cana did not in any way support the doctrine of "drink moderately".
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=60688
The reason was simple. Feeding another 180 gallons of "wine" to a party of recreational drug users who are already in a state of being "well drunk" (=drunk), and who have actually consumed all the alcohol, is not any kind of example of the precept, "Drink moderately."
If the passage is to teach anything about drinking, then on the face of it, it seems to say, not 'drink moderately', but "Drink up!". - or in modern parlance, "Lets get wasted!", or "Party on, dude!"
Where are we to go from here?
Interpreted as a lesson on drinking alcohol, it simply proves too much.
But what if that actually ISN'T the intended lesson?
That is, regardless of Jesus' view on moderate drinking, or John the Evangelist's view, what is the real purpose of the story? For as a lesson on drinking, it remains an incompatible enigma, even from the side of the "moderate drinking" crew.
We have previously noted that John's Gospel has a hidden structure, built on groups of seven, and that it also appears to have "substitute" sections intended for public reading when Jewish or Roman spies are present at meetings:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-E...rson2.html#s06
(scroll down for 2nd chart showing Wedding at Cana in schema)
Next, we noted elsewhere, that this section is actually modelled after an incident (or series of stories) in the books of Kings involving an O.T. Prophet Elijah/Elisha.
http://adultera.awardspace.com/COMM/TIA2.html#s15
(again scroll down for the Wedding at Cana analysis)
Next we would like to ask the following question:
If the story is more than a mere "blank filler" to distract enemies from the Cleansing of the Temple incident (the real 1st Sign in John), then what other purpose does this story serve?
It certainly casts Jesus in the role of Elijah through its usage of LXX language. What then does John want us to see in this story?
Since the story cannot be about "moderate drinking", what is it about?
It is not a "lesson". Jesus hardly says a word. There is no wry comment, no argument, no speech, nothing. No parable, no hidden teaching explained, no aside to the disciples.
No confrontation with authorities, secular or religious, no challenge to traditions or laws, no new interpretations of Torah.
Many of the usual Johannine features are either completely lacking or toned down drastically.
I am going to propose something new, to break through this mystery: This is an "acted out" parable, not a spoken one.
We already know Jesus takes the role of O.T. Prophet here, so what is he doing?
We already know that Jesus is performing one of the Seven Great Signs of John's Gospel, so what is the sign? What does it really portend?
I say this is very similar to the "sign" given at the Last Supper: Jesus began by inexplicably stripping down as a servant, and washing the disciples' feet.
But this incident wasn't about literal washing primarily; it was a "sign": Jesus said plainly "What I am doing you won't understand, but you will LATER!" This alone made it clear that it wasn't a simple act, although it had a simple and humble form. Its true significance dwarfed the simple act itself. It wasn't about washing feet, or being clean, or even serving one another, although it included all those elements. But to mistake the "footwashing" for any or all of those things would be disasterous.
It was about the very nature of God the Father, of God the Son and Messiah, and about His mission and the essence of His holiness and being.
We must seek the same KIND of message from the Wedding at Cana. Its not about weddings. Its not about wine, or how to serve it. Its not about pranks or secrets with the servants. Its not about ANY of these things, although these symbols 'encompass' the living, acted out parable.
After Jesus' actions, He simply leaves with His disciples. In other words, all the teaching, all the message, all the secrets are in the acting out of the parable.
This story has nothing to do with earthly wine or earthly weddings. I am normally a 'fundamentalist', that is I look for meaning in the literal and plain text without seeking 'mysteries' when they don't exist.
But even a fundamentalist must confess that here we have a genuine acted out prophetic or allegorical or symbolic statement, which can only be interpreted by going beyond the surface elements and seeking something deeper and more Spiritual than advice about how to serve wine.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=60688
The reason was simple. Feeding another 180 gallons of "wine" to a party of recreational drug users who are already in a state of being "well drunk" (=drunk), and who have actually consumed all the alcohol, is not any kind of example of the precept, "Drink moderately."
If the passage is to teach anything about drinking, then on the face of it, it seems to say, not 'drink moderately', but "Drink up!". - or in modern parlance, "Lets get wasted!", or "Party on, dude!"
Where are we to go from here?
Interpreted as a lesson on drinking alcohol, it simply proves too much.
But what if that actually ISN'T the intended lesson?
That is, regardless of Jesus' view on moderate drinking, or John the Evangelist's view, what is the real purpose of the story? For as a lesson on drinking, it remains an incompatible enigma, even from the side of the "moderate drinking" crew.
We have previously noted that John's Gospel has a hidden structure, built on groups of seven, and that it also appears to have "substitute" sections intended for public reading when Jewish or Roman spies are present at meetings:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-E...rson2.html#s06
(scroll down for 2nd chart showing Wedding at Cana in schema)
Next, we noted elsewhere, that this section is actually modelled after an incident (or series of stories) in the books of Kings involving an O.T. Prophet Elijah/Elisha.
http://adultera.awardspace.com/COMM/TIA2.html#s15
(again scroll down for the Wedding at Cana analysis)
Next we would like to ask the following question:
If the story is more than a mere "blank filler" to distract enemies from the Cleansing of the Temple incident (the real 1st Sign in John), then what other purpose does this story serve?
It certainly casts Jesus in the role of Elijah through its usage of LXX language. What then does John want us to see in this story?
Since the story cannot be about "moderate drinking", what is it about?
It is not a "lesson". Jesus hardly says a word. There is no wry comment, no argument, no speech, nothing. No parable, no hidden teaching explained, no aside to the disciples.
No confrontation with authorities, secular or religious, no challenge to traditions or laws, no new interpretations of Torah.
Many of the usual Johannine features are either completely lacking or toned down drastically.
I am going to propose something new, to break through this mystery: This is an "acted out" parable, not a spoken one.
We already know Jesus takes the role of O.T. Prophet here, so what is he doing?
We already know that Jesus is performing one of the Seven Great Signs of John's Gospel, so what is the sign? What does it really portend?
I say this is very similar to the "sign" given at the Last Supper: Jesus began by inexplicably stripping down as a servant, and washing the disciples' feet.
But this incident wasn't about literal washing primarily; it was a "sign": Jesus said plainly "What I am doing you won't understand, but you will LATER!" This alone made it clear that it wasn't a simple act, although it had a simple and humble form. Its true significance dwarfed the simple act itself. It wasn't about washing feet, or being clean, or even serving one another, although it included all those elements. But to mistake the "footwashing" for any or all of those things would be disasterous.
It was about the very nature of God the Father, of God the Son and Messiah, and about His mission and the essence of His holiness and being.
We must seek the same KIND of message from the Wedding at Cana. Its not about weddings. Its not about wine, or how to serve it. Its not about pranks or secrets with the servants. Its not about ANY of these things, although these symbols 'encompass' the living, acted out parable.
After Jesus' actions, He simply leaves with His disciples. In other words, all the teaching, all the message, all the secrets are in the acting out of the parable.
This story has nothing to do with earthly wine or earthly weddings. I am normally a 'fundamentalist', that is I look for meaning in the literal and plain text without seeking 'mysteries' when they don't exist.
But even a fundamentalist must confess that here we have a genuine acted out prophetic or allegorical or symbolic statement, which can only be interpreted by going beyond the surface elements and seeking something deeper and more Spiritual than advice about how to serve wine.