In this passage we can find that Mary evidently was a friend or even a relative of those in the wedding party and took a principle part in the preparation of the wedding feast. Jesus and the disciples were invited. Whether the family was poor and had not enough refreshments, or whether there was simply an improper planning for the provisions of the feast, we are not told. Nonetheless, Scripture is clear that all of the wine procured for the feast was used and there was none left for the guests.
It appears obvious by Jesus’ response to His mother, that Mary wanted Him to perform a miracle. When Mary spoke, “They have no wine.” Christ’s response clearly shows that she was speaking it to Him, and His response leaves no doubt that her intentions were for Him to supernaturally produce wine for the guests. For Him to do so would lift the cloud of thirty years of suspicion of infidelity and finally validate her claim that her Son was conceived of the Holy Ghost and that she truly was a virgin at His birth.
The Bible provides evidence that rumors had abounded about Jesus and His mother. In Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm, we are told, “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them. They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkards.” From this we can understand that suspicion existed in His family (His “mother’s children), and He was the laughing stock of many in Nazareth. In Mary’s mind, to perform the miracle of “winemaking” would finally squash all of the lies surrounding His birth.
Although He did perform the miracle, He did not do it to clear His mother’s name. The cross and the resurrection did that. In Romans 1:4, the Apostle Paul states that Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:” So, with the understanding that Jesus did not perform this miracle for personal acquittal, why then did He perform the miracle?
In verse 6, we find six stone waterpots which the Bible contends contained “two or three firkins apiece.” A firkin is simply a measurement for liquids used during that time. The word is translated from the Greek (metretes) meaning “a measurer.” In this case, as Matthew Henry writes, “the quantity is uncertain, but very considerable.” Certainly, the Holy Spirit who moved upon John to write this account knew exactly the volume capacity each could contain, yet He chose to state “two or three.”
These six waterpots were placed there for ceremonial cleansing of the Levitical ritual. Through this, God was teaching that those who come to Him must be clean and cleansed by Him. In the Old Testament, we know that the priests who served were required to first cleanse themselves at the brazen laver before they could serve. We understand as New Testament believers (“And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father…” – Rev. 1:6) that we also must be clean before we are rendered fit for God’s service. Note: We will later refer back to the reference of New Testament believers as priests when speaking of believers and alcohol.
With these waterpots, God was simply teaching that those who come into His presence must have the matter of sin adequately taken care of. This speaks of the cleansing of the heart and life, and this ritual had been handed down in Israel for centuries. This principle was so important that waterpots were even in the homes of the Israelites.
I find it interesting that God chose not to include the mentioning of the bride. There is no mention of what she wore. There is not mention of the ceremony other than to say that there was a marriage. Furthermore, we cannot determine fully from this account whether she attended the feast. What is mentioned are the six waterpots. It is here where Jesus focuses on them, and they appear to be the most important part of the story.
First, we must understand that the waterpots represent humanity. Stone is often representative of humanity or its condition. In Ezekiel, God speaks of exchanging Israel’s “stony heart” and replacing it with a softer one. In the parable of the sower, Jesus informs us that the spiritual conditions of many can be likened to ground that is stony and very inhospitable to seed. By looking at their characteristics, it is easy to see how these waterpots symbolize lost humanity.
First, we see their hardness which as stated above represents the hardness of the sinner’s heart. Secondly, we see their emptiness. Jesus had to command that these waterpots be filled. Although, it is certain that these were used on many occasions for the purpose of containing water, these events were never enough to keep the waterpots from becoming empty again. This is true with humanity. Although humanity searches for purpose, relevance, and fulfillment, no amount of worldly activity will satisfy the heart of man for very long. This was specifically the message that Jesus gave the woman at the well in John 4:13-14, “Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” So it is with salvation. In order for God’s grace to be realized, man must empty himself. As Martin Luther put it, “God creates out of nothing. Therefore, until a man is nothing, God can make nothing out of him.” J. Vernon McGee writes, “Frankly, when any of us come to God, we bring Him nothing – absolutely nothing. That’s what we are. We’re nothing. When the Lord Jesus wanted to bring joy and blessing to that wedding in Cana, He began with empty waterpots, and when He uses you and me, He’ll have to start with empty waterpots.”
At this point, Jesus commands that the waterpots be filled with water. As we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we understand that water is a picture of the Word of God. It was Ezra in Nehemiah 8 who stood at the water gate and read God’s Word to the people, many of whom had never heard it before. It was Solomon who said, “As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country” (Prov. 25:25). In Ephesians 5:26, the Apostle Paul confirms this picture by reminding us that we are sanctified and cleansed “with the washing of water by the word.” Once He empties us, God’s second step is to fill us with His Word.
Notice that the waterpots were filled to the brim indicating that there is no such thing as obtaining too much of God’s Word. It is the Word that God uses to bring a lost humanity to Himself. It is the utmost importance to have our hearts and lives filled to the brim with the Word of God.
The next step that we read is the command given by Jesus to draw out some of the water and “and bear unto the governor of the feast.” The servants did so, and at some point between the moment of drawing and the moment of tasting by the governor, the water had turned to wine. The Scriptural account doesn’t tell us when exactly that this miracle occurs except that it was sometime between the drawing of the servants and the tasting of the governor.
Before, we delve into the issue of whether the wine was intoxicating or not, we must understand what has just occurred. For starters, the Old Testament teaches that wine was used in all the Levitical ceremonies as a drink offering. The priest would pour the drink offering upon the burnt offering. The wine would be vaporized, ascend up, and disappear. This is a type and shadow of what New Testament Christianity should be as our lives should be spent (burnt up) in service to Him (ascending up as a vapor). This is what Paul meant in Philippians 2:17, “…if I be offered (poured out as a drink offering) upon the sacrifice (burnt offering) of your faith…” He wanted his life to be lived as a drink offering poured out upon the sacrifice which was the offering of Christ Himself.
Secondly, wine in the Scriptures typifies joy, not intoxication or the deadening of the senses. This is seen throughout the book of Proverbs. We see wine used as a medicine which also typifies the healing that Christ brings. Paul even typified the filling of the Holy Spirit with the consumption of wine (Eph. 5:18). Understanding this, it is obvious that wine speaks of the joy that can only come through the Spirit of God.
The picture we see here at the wedding feast in Cana is one of an empty waterpot (lost humanity), filled with water (the Word of God), and somewhere between the filling and the recipient, the water becomes the wine of joy typifying that the water of the Word became salvation. It is the Word of God which brings a lost, downtrodden humanity into the joy of salvation.
Finally, we read that after the wine was tasted by the governor, he called the bridegroom and asked why the best wine was saved till the last. This was certainly unusual as the custom was to bring out the best wine first. Then, when most had received their fill, the host would bring out the lesser wine. Why then did Jesus do this? He is simply bringing forth a reversal of the common practice. The Christian life is not about giving our best to God first, but rather it is about the fact that He gave us His best. No matter how hard we try, our greatest acts of righteousness are nothing more than filthy rags (Is. 64:6).
The important statement to notice is found in verse 11, “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” This, in a nutshell, is the reason why Jesus performed the miracle. He did not perform it to vindicate His mother or Himself. It was not for the crowd or for prestige. No, it was not so that we might conclude that the drinking of intoxicating beverages is allowable. He performed it for the edification of His disciples. He was saying to them, “If you’ll realize that you are as these empty waterpots with nothing to bring to Me, I will fill you using the water of my Word. Because of this, through you I will perform miracles, and you will show forth My glory.”
However, it is very difficult in mentioning this miracle without the question that nearly always arises – was this wine intoxicating? The answer is a resounding no! There is nothing in the gospel account that would lead us to believe that Christ was operating some miraculous form of a brewery. To conclude such demonstrates that the entire point of the miracle has been missed.
We understand that wine was a staple in the diet of the Jews of that day. As mentioned earlier, wine was used in every Levitical ceremony. Yet, the Lord condemned drunkenness. This alone would emphatically bar us from believing that Jesus had concocted some form of cocktail hour at this wedding. Furthermore, during the time of Christ, societies did not possess the means of producing distilled whiskies as we have today.
We also understand that the Bible does not provide different terms or words for wine and for the fruit of the vine as we have today. In Proverbs 3:10, we see the wine (in this instance it would be juice) being pressed out of the fruit. According to Scripture, both non-fermented and fermented juice was described with the term wine. Knowing this, there is no reason for us to suppose that the wine that Jesus miraculously produced was fermented. To be frank, Scripture proves that it could not have been.
In Leviticus 10:8-10, God tells Aaron, “Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;” Aaron, as High Priest who entered into the tabernacle, typified Christ in His order as High Priest (Heb. 5:10). It would seem seriously inconsistent that Aaron as High Priest could not consume wine/strong drink, but Jesus, who fulfilled the shadow of Aaron, would produce an intoxicating beverage at the marriage in Cana. Also, if the High Priest could not consume wine/strong drink it would seem further inconceivable that Jesus would drink fermented wine during His last supper just before going to the crucifixion and entering His high priestly work.
Furthermore, not only was Aaron the High Priest not allowed to consume intoxicating beverages when in service to God, but his sons were also prohibited in doing so when rendering their service at the tabernacle. The sons of Aaron also typify the church as John declares, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” (John 1:12). Referring back to what was earlier stated, as believers we are “kings and priests unto God and his Father…” (Rev. 1:6). As priests, we are the sons of the great High Priest. Again, it would seem highly inconsistent that the sons of Aaron, who typified the church, could not consume wine, but as priests the New Testament church could.
Just as Aaron and his sons could not drink wine or strong drink while serving God in the tabernacle, we also as believers in Christ cannot drink alcoholic beverages while we serve God in our tabernacle. The Apostle Paul speaks of our bodies as being tabernacles where we dwell while in this life (II Cor. 5:1-4). Just as the priests were forbidden to consume wine in the tabernacle, we also are admonished by Scripture to refrain from consuming wine while in our tabernacles. Certainly there will be a day when the church will drink again of the fruit of the vine with Christ Himself, but it is not in this life. In Matthew 26:29, Jesus informs His disciples following his final Passover meal, “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Regarding the Lord’s Supper, three reasons can be given quickly why it seems certain that Jesus did not use fermented wine. First, the Bible never uses the word “wine” in describing the Lord’s Supper. In I Corinthians 11:25, Paul states that Jesus “took the cup.” He again mentions the “cup” in verses 26 and 28. In Matthew 26:27, the Bible states that Jesus “took the cup.” The same description is given in Mark 14:23 and Luke 22:17. These passages make it clear that there is no reference to fermented wine. Frankly, there is no reference to wine at all. Jesus referred to the drink as the “fruit of the vine.” The Holy Spirit in inspiring the writing of the Word of God took particular pains not to use any word that could be construed as referring to intoxicating or fermented wine. Furthermore, there is not one reference in the Bible to indicate that fermented wine should be used in the administering of communion.
Second, fermented wine simply cannot represent the blood of Christ. There are three reasons for this: 1) Fermentation purifies. The blood of Jesus needed no purification process applied, and it never needed changing. Juice, in the fermentation process, changes into wine. The blood of Jesus was the same when it came out of His veins as it was when it formed there. 2) For juice to ferment, decay must take place. The Bible makes clear that Christ’s body experienced no decay. In quoting Psalm 16:10, Luke the physician writes in Acts 13:36-37, “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. The word “corruption” is translated from the Greek word diaphthora which means “decay.” The Bible makes it explicitly clear that Christ’s blood experienced no decay even after His crucifixion and while lying in the tomb. 3) Jesus used unleavened bread to initiate the Lord’s Supper. Leaven causes the working of bacteria and fungus which spoils food. Leavened bread was not suitable for representing the body of Christ as it had the potential to spoil. The body of Jesus, represented by the unleavened bread, had no potential to spoil. We are told in I John 3:5, that “in him is no sin.” If these bacteria were not to be in the bread that represented His body, it also seems highly inconsistent that the Lord would use fermented wine in representing His blood when this fermentation is caused by the same bacteria. Not only would this be inconsistent, this would be impossible as Scripture declares that Christ’s blood was pure (Heb. 9:12-14; I Pet. 1:18-19).
Understanding the Scriptures, one can see the wealth of evidence which would render strong drink and intoxicating beverages as inappropriate for use by believers – use for drunkenness or simple social consumption. Even with the massive amount of information presented here, I have not touched on the vow of the Nazarite which typifies the believer today. I have not spoken about Proverbs 31:4-5 which declares that intoxicating beverages are not fit for kings and princes (again, Rev. 1:6 declares believers to be kings and priests). Finally, I have not touched upon the many prohibitive verses concerning strong and intoxicating drinks such as Proverbs 20:1, 23:31-32, Isaiah 28:1-8, and Habakkuk 2:15 to name a few.
No other conclusion can be made other than God prohibits each believer from the consumption of alcoholic and/or intoxicating beverages. As the church, it is imperative that we walk in integrity and not after the pattern of this world.
