7/14/14

From Jim McGuiggan... WINE AND THE CANA WEDDING


WINE AND THE CANA WEDDING


Let me tell you what no one should or would wish to dispute: “The ancient world drank and often got drunk on intoxicating drinks (as they do to this day).” That, I judge, is beyond dispute and it is spoken about in the OT in particular.

Let me tell you what I think is untrue and what no one should claim without plain proof: “The ancient world drank nothing but intoxicating wine and drinks.”

Let me tell you something else I think is manifestly untrue: “The ancients could not keep grape-juice from fermenting.” They not only could; they did it all the time.

Moving on; it’s alleged that only those biased in favour of a teetotal position would question the claim that Jesus made intoxicating wine in John 2. It’s alleged that it’s beyond debate that he did indeed make something like 120 to 180 gallons of intoxicating wine at the wedding feast in Cana.

The miracle of “water to wine” has numerous rich theological truths embedded in it. One of them is this: Throughout the book of John we see Jesus exceeding all that was true about Israel’s ancient worthies; the Baptist, Moses, Jacob, Abraham and whoever. The beginning of Moses’ series of miracles was water to blood (Exodus 7:15-21) as he made himself known as Israel’s deliverer and Jesus’ opening miracle as he made himself known as Israel’s saviour was water to wine and so forth (John 2:11).

The theological truths embedded in this miracle in John 2:1-10 do not depend on whether the wine was intoxicating or non-intoxicating. Jesus turned water into oinos. This we know because the text explicitly says so.

Peter Cotterell thinks the only reason one would dispute that it was intoxicating wine is if he was biased against the booze industry due to a piety that has lost its way. Even though I dispute that claim it might still be true; but what is it in John 2:1-10 that makes it crystal clear and indisputable that the wine was intoxicating wine?

Well, the word “wine”—for starters. The word wine means intoxicating grape-juice. But you don’t need to hate the booze industry to know that today the word “wine” might mean “intoxicating wine” and nothing else but it didn’t always. Click here.

Yes, but the word oinos meant intoxicating wine and nothing other than intoxicating wine, Watson, Ewing and others say. More than three centuries before Jesus Aristotle said the word “oinos” is ambiguous. He goes on to say that one of the “kinds” of wine didn’t intoxicate like ordinary wine so that it isn’t wine in spite of its name.

Many scholars have held and hold that the Hebrew word asis is non-fermented grape-juice and yet it is rendered by oinos in places like Joel 1:5 and Amos 9:11. Eugene Carpenter (NIDOTTE 3.470), for example, thinks Joel 1:5 and 3:18 refer to “juice” (of the grape) though it’s rendered “new wine” (NIV) and “sweet wine” (NRSV). The Greek OT (LXX) has “glukasmon” in 3:18, rendered “sweet wine”. [On the basis of Isaiah 49:26 Carpenter thinks asis could also be intoxicating. There the LXX has “onion neon”—new wine.]

I truly think that the generic nature of the words yayin, oinos and vinum has been downplayed in part because it is true that intoxicating wine and its consumption was universal. Since the above words would have been so often used of what was the preferred drink of the nations the words became the standard description of the fermented state of the grape juice. It appears that the only people who would bother to differentiate the various states of the grape juice (fermented, non-fermented, boiled or whatever) would be people like Pliny, Aristotle, Columella, Athenaeus, Cato who had an interest in agriculture for various reasons. In addition there’d be the Rabbis who would be interested in fermented and non-fermented because of tithing questions and such. The rank and file would only be interested in what was sold by the retailers so if they used the above words they would mean them in the popular usage.

This means that all talk such as: “Look, oinos is intoxicating wine and that’s the end of it” is out of order.
What is there in John 2:1-10 that proves Jesus made “a vast amount” (See semann, TDNT 5.165) of intoxicating wine?
It isn’t that people didn’t drink non-intoxicating wine—they did (as tens of thousands do this very day).
It isn’t that the English word wine is used—the word didn’t always mean “intoxicating” wine.
It isn’t that the word oinos is used—the word is ambiguous.

What is it then? Peter Cotterell (NIDOTTE 1.139) points us particularly to 2:10 where the emcee of the feast remarks on the unusual. Here’s what he said (following the NIV): “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.” The NRSV gives, “after the guests have become drunk.” The NRSV’s blunter rendering agrees with the more euphemistic “too much to drink”.

The rest of the versions (NEB, REB, KJV, JB ESV, Moffatt, JB Phillips, TEV, ASV, NAS, Knox, Douay and even the RSV) give us something like: “have drunk freely” or “have well drunk”. The NAS offers, “have become drunk” in the footnote. The Douay is based on the Latin Vulgate of course and translates “inebriati” as “have well drunk.” [The word methusko warrants discussion.]

I’m going to take it that the master of ceremonies at the feast said to the host. “Everyone brings out the best wine first and when the guests have become intoxicated they bring out the inferior stuff.” I’m going to take it that he stating the general rule.

The general rule then is the general rule today! If we invite guests to eat and drink with us we lay out the best dishes and cutlery and the best food and drink we have. It’s only when we have to that we bring out the lesser quality stuff. It’s a matter of courtesy and other things and there’s nothing strange about it.

But none of that settles anything. The idea that the “choice” wine is better than the “inferior” because of alcoholic content is entirely out of touch with the text. The question is the quality of the grapes, the soil in which it was grown, the care in making it, the weather during the growing season, the nature of the vine—and more related issues. To imply that something in the alcoholic content of wine is what makes it better or worse is nonsense—unless you’re assessing “the kick” that is in it. I’ve drunk lots of fermented and non-fermented grape juice and there’s no persuading me that the alcohol level or lack of it is what makes the juice taste better or worse. I don’t know if any wine drinker today would claim that it’s the ethanol that “makes it” for them (ignoring the buzz effect). I don't mean to say the ethanol doesn't affect the tasteit does; but there are so many other elements that "make" the sensory qualities of fermented wine. Wine-making industries compete with each other and wine-tasting “experts” tell us they know which is the better wine and it has nothing to do with varying degrees of alcohol. It takes more than upping the ethanol content to make a “good” and good-tasting wine.

The idea that the emcee at that Cana wedding would know from his first drink if the wine he was now drinking had ethanol in it is sheer guessing. No, what he seems certain of is this: “It’s usual for the hosts to bring out their best wine first and leave the inferior to the last because (following the NIV and NRSV) by that the time the guests are drunk and can’t really tell the difference.” We’re not to assume he is saying, “by that time the guests are drunk and can’t tell whether they’re drinking intoxicating wine or not.” He says by that time they’re drunk and don’t know the difference between good wine and inferior wine.

He states the rule about host courtesy and wisdom. He isn’t saying about his company at this wedding; he isn’t saying that this company is already drunk (though who knows?).

But what has any of that to do with what Jesus did in producing up to 180 gallons of wine? If the only “wine” drunk by 1st century people was alcoholic we’d be surer that Jesus made alcoholic wine. If it was common to drink sweet, new wine that wasn’t fermented (despite the rule) we’d be less sure that he made alcoholic wine. If everyone drank nothing but alcoholic wine and this company had scoffed the lot and were heading for drunkenness maybe Jesus not only reversed the procedure but reversed the kind of wine they drank. [For something on the parables of the patch and the wineskins in Matthew 9:15-17. Click here.]

If you choose to, write me if you think I’m right off the wall here.


by Dave Miller, Ph.D. ... Will There be an Armageddon?

 http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=952

Will There be an Armageddon?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Many religionists insist that world history will culminate in a cataclysmic global holocaust known as “Armageddon,” followed by the “Millennium”—a 1000-year reign of Christ on Earth. They say that current events in the Middle East are arranging themselves in such a fashion that the Second Coming of Christ is imminent. Of course, this claim has been made repeatedly for many, many years—with no fulfillment forthcoming.
What does the Bible actually say about “Armageddon”? The term “armageddon” occurs only once in the New Testament: Revelation 16:16. In keeping with the literary genre of the book (i.e., apocalyptic), the term is used with figurative connotations. Revelation is literally packed with allusions to the Old Testament. In fact, “no book in the New Testament is so thoroughly steeped in the thought and imagery of the Hebrew Scriptures” (Swete, 1911, p. liii). But the writer does not use direct quotes from the Old Testament. Rather, he adapted, modified, and combined ideas from the Old Testament in order to apply them to the setting to which he addressed himself. He drew freely from Old Testament imagery, but placed a New Testament spin on them with a first century application.
For those who would be familiar with the Old Testament (as Asia Minor Christians would have been), the Holy Spirit capitalized on the meaning that this location possessed. In Hebrew, the term “Harmageddon” means “mountain (or hill) of Megiddo.” Was there a hill of Megiddo? Yes. In fact, Jews and students of Hebrew history were only too familiar with this prominent battlefield and vicinity. Many bloody encounters stained the soil of this region—scenes of military disaster. It was here that Deborah and Barak defeated the Canaanites (Judges 5:19). Gideon was victorious over the Midianites in this region (Judges 7). These positive accomplishments were etched into the Israelite consciousness. But there were other images evoked by Megiddo, for it also served as a place where national tragedy had occurred. Ahaziah died there after being pierced by Jehu’s arrow (2 Kings 9:27). And good King Josiah perished tragically at the hands of Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:29). This last incident was especially poignant to the minds of the Jewish people, who mourned the loss of this great king, enshrining the event in the collective consciousness as an instance of national grief (Zechariah 12:11).
With this long historical background, Megiddo came to occupy a place in the minds of believers similar to places which immediately bring to the American mind definite and strong impressions: the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, etc. This significance was then utilized by the Holy Spirit to convey to struggling, persecuted Christians of Asia Minor near the end of the first century the sure outcome of the conflict then being waged between the forces of evil (Satan and imperial Rome) and the forces of righteousness (God, Christ, and faithful saints who were enduring persecution). These Christians were certainly in no need of assurance that some future global holocaust would occur which Christ would bring to an end 2,000 years removed from their suffering! These Christians were in dire need of assurance that Christ would come to their aid soon (see “shortly”—Revelation 1:1; 22:6). They needed encouragement to hang on, and to remain steadfast in the face of inhuman mistreatment. The symbol of Megiddo fitly symbolized the impending overthrow of an enemy empire, and engendered much needed assurance. Christians were given the solace that soon the outcome of the battle would be realized. The enemies of God and His People would be punished, while suffering saints would be comforted. Thus “armageddon” is purely symbolic, and in no way relates to dispensational dreams of a future world war. There will be no “Armageddon.”

REFERENCES

Swete, Henry (1911), Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977 reprint).

From Mark Copeland... Paul's Ministry At Ephesus (Acts 19:1-41)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                 Paul's Ministry At Ephesus (19:1-41)

INTRODUCTION

1. Paul's third missionary journey began in Antioch of Syria...
   a. Where he started all three journeys - Ac 13:1-3; 15:36-41
   b. As with his second journey, it began by visiting churches 
      established on his first missionary journey - Ac 15:41; 16:1-5; 
      18:22-23 

2. The first major stop on Paul's third journey with the city of 
   Ephesus...
   a. Where he had briefly stopped on his second journey - Ac 18:19-20
   b. Where he had promised to return, God willing - Ac 18:21  

[Paul's stay at Ephesus on his third journey proved to the longest of
any recorded by Luke.  It lasted about three years (52-55 A.D., ESV
Study Bible), and was a very productive ministry by Paul...]

I. PAUL'S MINISTRY AS RECORDED BY LUKE

   A. CONVERTING TWELVE DISCIPLES...
      1. Who needed to be baptized again (see previous lesson) - Ac 19:1-5
      2. Who received the Spirit, spoke in tongues and prophesied, after
         Paul laid his hands on them - Ac 19:6-7

   B. TEACHING IN THE SYNAGOGUE...
      1. As was Paul's custom when allowed - Ac 17:2; 18:4
      2. This Paul did at Ephesus for three months - Ac 19:8
      3. This was longer than at other places - cf. Ac 13:42-45; 14:1-2;
         17:1-10,11-15; 18:4-6

   C. TEACHING IN THE SCHOOL OF TYRANNUS...
      1. As happened elsewhere, Paul was forced to leave the synagogue 
         - Ac 19:9; cf. Ac 18:4-6
      2. He then taught in the school of Tyrannus for two years - Ac 19:9-10; cf. Ac 18:7
      3. During this time, all in Asia (western Turkey) heard the word of
         the Lord - Ac 19:10
      4. Probably through the aid of men like Epaphras - Col 1:7; 4:12-13

   D. WORKING UNUSUAL MIRACLES...
      1. Involving handkerchiefs or aprons from his body to heal others
         - Ac 19:11-12
      2. Prompting Jewish exorcists to try and use Jesus' and Paul's
         names - Ac 19:13-16
      3. The evident contrast between true and false miracle workers led
         many to believe - Ac 19:17
      4. Those who believed were willing to confess and repent at great
         cost - Ac 19:18-19
      5. Thus the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed - Ac 19:20

   E. THE RIOT AT EPHESUS...
      1. Toward the end of his ministry, as Paul began making plans to 
         leave - Ac 19:21-22
         a. Purposing in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia
            - cf. Ac 20:1-5
         b. Then returning to Jerusalem, followed by a trip to Rome - cf.
            Ac 20:5-21:17; 27:1-28:16
         c. In preparation for his departure, he sent Timothy and Erastus
            to Macedonia - Ac 19:22
      2. The Diana incident - Ac 19:23-41
         a. A great commotion, brought on by Demetrius and other 
            silversmiths - Ac 19:23-28
         b. In which a mob takes two of Paul's companions, Gaius and
            Aristarchus - Ac 19:29
         c. Paul was restrained by officials from Asia from addressing 
            the mob - Ac 19:30-31
         d. The Jews put forth Alexander, which further enraged the mob
            - Ac 19:32-34
         e. The riot was barely controlled by the city clerk, who 
            exonerated Paul's companions - Ac 19:35-41

[Paul soon left Ephesus and went on to Macedonia as planned (Ac 20:1). 
Luke's account of Paul's ministry in Ephesus records great success (Ac
19:10,20).  But we can glean even more about his time in Ephesus from
other New Testament sources...]

II. PAUL'S MINISTRY AS INDICATED ELSEWHERE

   A. A QUICK TRIP TO CORINTH...
      1. Paul made a short visit to Corinth, his second - cf. 2Co 12:14;
         13:1
      2. His first visit was during the second journey - Ac 18:1
      3. His third visit was later on the third journey - Ac 20:1-3
      4. The book of Acts is silent about this second visit, but most
         place it sometime during his stay at Ephesus

   B. EPISTLES TO CORINTH...
      1. A letter to the Corinthians (now lost), only alluded to - 1Co 5:9
      2. Another letter what we now know as First Corinthians - 1Co 16:5-8,19

   C. EMISSARIES TO CORINTH...
      1. Timothy
         a. Sent from Ephesus to Macedonia - Ac 19:22
         b. Who would arrive after First Corinthians - 1Co 4:17; 16:10-11
      2. Titus and "a brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout 
         all the churches" (Luke?)
         a. To encourage the Corinthians concerning the collection - 2Co 8:6,16-19
         b. To bring Paul word as to how the Corinthians received the
            first letter? - 2Co 12:17-18
         c. Whose delayed return would later give Paul concern - 2Co 2:12-13
         d. But who would eventually bring Paul good news - 2Co 7:5-7,
            13-16

   D. ADDITIONAL DETAILS ABOUT PAUL'S STAY IN EPHESUS...
      1. Sosthenes was there, joining Paul in writing to the Corinthians
         - 1Co 1:1
      2. Paul had been visited by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus
         - 1Co 16:17
      3. Aquila and Priscilla hosted the church in their house - 1Co 16:19
      4. Paul's sufferings while at Ephesus - Ac 20:17-19; 1Co 15:30-32;
         2Co 1:8-11
      5. Paul's preaching while at Ephesus - Ac 20:21-21,25-27,31
      6. Paul's manual labor while at Ephesus - Ac 20:33-35; 1Co 4:11,12

CONCLUSION

1. Harmonizing Luke's account with what is written elsewhere, we learn 
   that...
   a. The gospel spread throughout Asia (SW Turkey) - Ac 19:10,20
   b. Paul's three years in Ephesus was very productive - Ac 20:17-21,31
   c. His influence spread even further through epistles and emissaries

2. Reflecting on Paul's ministry in Ephesus, we glean many things,
   including...
   a. The importance of scriptural baptism - Ac 19:1-7
   b. The power of the gospel to transform lives - Ac 19:18-20
   c. The resistance of many who put money and tradition above the will
      of God - Ac 19:23-34

May Paul's example of faithful ministry in Ephesus encourage and inspire
us to be faithful in our own service to the Lord...!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2013

From Gary... Let the fun BEGIN!!!


Somehow, when I saw this picture, I thought of that old "Little House on the Prairie" episode where "half pint" is so despondent over her wish that her baby brother would die, that she goes to a high mountain in search of God. Seeking God in high elevations is also found in the Scriptures; in fact, in one of my favorite passages...

1 Kings, Chapter 19 (NASB)
1Ki 19:1  Now Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword.
1Ki 19:2  Then Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah, saying, "So may the gods do to me and even more, if I do not make your life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time."
1Ki 19:3  And he was afraid and arose and ran for his life and came to Beersheba, which belongs to Judah, and left his servant there.
1Ki 19:4  But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree; and he requested for himself that he might die, and said, "It is enough; now, O LORD, take my life, for I am not better than my fathers."
1Ki 19:5  He lay down and slept under a juniper tree; and behold, there was an angel touching him, and he said to him, "Arise, eat."
1Ki 19:6  Then he looked and behold, there was at his head a bread cake baked on hot stones, and a jar of water. So he ate and drank and lay down again.
1Ki 19:7  The angel of the LORD came again a second time and touched him and said, "Arise, eat, because the journey is too great for you."
1Ki 19:8  So he arose and ate and drank, and went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb, the mountain of God.
1Ki 19:9  Then he came there to a cave and lodged there; and behold, the word of the LORD came to him, and He said to him, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
1Ki 19:10  He said, "I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars and killed Your prophets with the sword. And I alone am left; and they seek my life, to take it away."
1Ki 19:11  So He said, "Go forth and stand on the mountain before the LORD." And behold, the LORD was passing by! And a great and strong wind was rending the mountains and breaking in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake.
1Ki 19:12  After the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of a gentle blowing.

1Ki 19:13  When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave. And behold, a voice came to him and said, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
1Ki 19:14  Then he said, "I have been very zealous for the LORD, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars and killed Your prophets with the sword. And I alone am left; and they seek my life, to take it away."
1Ki 19:15  The LORD said to him, "Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus, and when you have arrived, you shall anoint Hazael king over Aram;
1Ki 19:16  and Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place.
1Ki 19:17  "It shall come about, the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall put to death, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha shall put to death.
1Ki 19:18  "Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him."

Even the best of us have our weaknesses! God worked greatly through Elijah, but the prophet was afraid of Jezebel. So God guided him to a place where he could directed further. It is interesting to me that God was not in the magnificent manifestations, but rather in the "gentle blowing". Both "half-pint" and Elijah encountered God in high places and both received guidance.  But, to me the truly important thing is that if you genuinely seek God- HE WILL FIND YOU. Then the fun begins...