Abstract
Background: For many Christians, particularly within African classical Pentecostalism, alcohol consumption is prohibited or discouraged. Consequently, little attention was given to the implications of Jesus’ first miracle involving wine. Those who engage with the sign in John 2 may find it difficult to reconcile its nature with Jesus’ mission. Unlike miracles prompted by suffering or need, this inaugural sign reveals Jesus’ glory and leads his disciples to believe in him (Jn 2:11).
Objectives: This article examines the claim that the Bible prohibits all alcohol use and that biblical wine was merely grape juice. It explores whether this interpretation can be justified, given the narrative of Jesus’ first sign in John’s Gospel.
Method: The authors employ a grammatical-historical exegetical method, drawing on textual criticism, historical context, and literary analysis. They analyse African Pentecostal arguments for alcohol abstinence and reassess John 2’s doctrinal and practical relevance to the Pentecostal view.
Results: The miracle symbolises Jesus’ mission, bringing blessing, reconciliation and a new era of abundance. Through the unexpected gift of wine, the sign conveys a deeper theological meaning with a rich symbolic significance.
Conclusion: John 2 invites readers to embrace God’s grace through faith in Jesus’ transformative power. Biblical arguments for alcohol prohibition are unconvincing when his first sign is properly interpreted.
Contribution: The discussion assists classical Pentecostals in developing an understanding of the miracle by avoiding a superficial interpretation of the text because of the contentious nature of alcohol. It encourages meaningful engagement with the passage by elucidating its theological significance.
Keywords: Pentecostals; alcohol; wine; Jesus’ first miracle; wedding; Cana; water into wine.
Introduction
Most African classical Pentecostals do not use any alcohol, justifying it by appealing to Scripture using their hermeneutical angle of a pre-critical and literalist-fundamentalist reading of the text (Delgado & Rosati 2008:186; Nel 2024a:2; Pr 23:20–21; Eph 5:18; Rm 13:13). With groups such as the Seventh-day Adventists, they maintain an ambivalent relationship with alcohol (Ademiluka 2020a:22, 2020b:2; Nelson 2014:118). Pentecostals’ list of articles and practices they shun initially also included the use of tobacco or other enslaving habits, eating pork and even using medicine (Burger & Nel 2008:249; 375). They obeyed Paul’s injunction not to get drunk on wine because it leads to debauchery (Eph 5:18) and can cause another believer to stumble (Rm 13) and in the process, prohibited any use of alcohol (Ademiluka 2020b:6–7). Consequently, the prevailing practice among Pentecostals is to substitute grape juice for wine in the observance of communion, a custom that is typically maintained without reference to the Johannine account of Jesus transforming water into wine when deliberating upon the appropriateness of wine in the sacramental context (Burger & Nel 2008:242).
Wine played a significant role in ancient times (Klaiman 2024:138–52).1 The Mediterranean triad of grain, wine and oil was the main agricultural product (Borowski 2009:293), and wine was also a major component of Israelites’ diet (Dt 7:13; Jl 2:19, 24, 26) (MacDonald 2008:19–24). The land of Israel suffered from water scarcity; thus, wine was an important alternative beverage. Hence, wine was central to their life, as frequently testified in the Old Testament (Welton 2020:92).
In New Testament times, wine appears to be used daily in Palestine and elsewhere (Burge 2000:98; Cross 1974:241). The Christian community also adopted wine as an integral element in their regular meetings, based on their community meal that ended in the eucharist (1 Cor 11:17–34) (McHugh 2009:192). Jesus instituted it when he presided at the Paschal or Passover meal with his disciples, commemorating Israel’s deliverance from Egypt (Lk 22:7–20; Bosman 2019:2; Clendenen 2020:501). The Jewish meal consisted of a small piece of lamb for everyone, matzos [unleavened bread] with bitter herbs, green herbs, grated apple and cinnamon, beitzah [a hard-boiled egg], a bowl of saltwater, candles and wine, enough for each person to have four modest cups (Freedman 2020:119). Each element contains meaning related to the exodus experience (Maltsberger 2003:1674; Zarzo 2024:2–3). Jesus changed the Paschal meal into the Eucharist, using only bread and wine (Clendenen 2020:501; Nel 2024b:93).
The author of the Gospel of John meticulously compiled this book (Koester 1995:36). Therefore, it is significant and noteworthy that the author of the Gospel of John chooses the term ‘sign’ to describe the transformation of water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:11), the first of seven such signs used by the author. Brodie (1993:173) interprets the water turned into wine as a sign rather than a miracle precisely because it is profoundly connected with the inner experience of the disciples. The other gospel writers refer to miracles or works, but John chooses signs, used to authenticate Jesus’s ministry and reveal his glory and encourage faith in Jesus, consisting of not only intellectual assent but a response of faith that leads to eternal life. A sign may denote any meaningful action and does not necessarily imply a miraculous act.
The Gospel’s portrayal of the Cana episode as a sign thus highlights the primacy of its symbolic and theological significance. Such openness to meaning constitutes a foundational aspect of the narrative; it is a ‘sign’ that points to something distinct from a purely supernatural occurrence (Brodie 1993:172–173; Spong 2013:71). Here, Jesus launched his ministry after calling a group of disciples to follow him (Jn 1:35–51). Newman and Nida (1993:62) suggest that ‘first’ may mean more than the initial one in a series. It designates the sign as fundamental in that it symbolises the creative power of Jesus. It also serves as the head, clue, or key (archē) of the signs of Jesus (Collins 1980:79), emphasising the significance of this sign. This time, Jesus did not address an illness, physical or mental disability, or spiritual problem. His mother consulted him for assistance, clearly expecting him to change the situation when the wine ran out before the feast concluded, even though some guests were already drunk (v. 10).
By placing Jesus’ turning of water into wine at a wedding in Cana of Galilee2 at the beginning as the first ‘sign’, the author develops a narrative that is theologically rich because it reveals critical aspects, including Jesus’ identity, mission, nature and extent of his relationship with humanity and God. Its placement early in the Gospel also introduces some key Johannine themes that structure the Gospel, such as the manifestation of Jesus’ glory, the role of faith and the abundance of divine grace (Webster 2003:51–64). Of significance also is that neither the wedding narrative nor the cleansing of the temple (following the wedding narrative) is recorded in the synoptic Gospels (Fredrikson & Ogilvie 1985:61), making it possible to speculate that the author had a specific goal in mind by mentioning this sign at this specific place.
The study aims to explore the implications of the wine narrative for Pentecostals’ widespread prohibition of wine consumption, an area previously overlooked. Such an inquiry may prompt Pentecostals to reconsider their reading of other texts and their hermeneutical stance that at times ignore the sociohistorical context of such texts. One of their arguments supporting the prohibition is that biblical references to ‘wine’ frequently denote unfermented grape juice; it also deserves attention in this research.
Research methods and design
The authors utilised grammatical-historical exegetical methods and comparative literature research. For the exegetical method, the article relies on Smith (2008:171–177), who introduces exegesis as consisting of five main parts: introduction, context, meaning, significance and conclusion. In the introduction, an explanation for choosing the text is given. The objective is to expose the meaning and significance of the text by summarising the major scholarly perspectives on the text. In discussing the context, information regarding authorship, date and audience is given as the general background of the book, explaining the occasion and purpose of it, providing an overall structure and argument before summarising the themes and motifs. To expose the meaning, notes of textual critical points are considered along with the book’s historical setting and literary context before a literary analysis discusses the genre, structure, composition and rhetoric. In discussing the significance of the exegetical synthesis, the doctrinal and practical significance of the passage is considered. In the conclusion, a summary of the problem, process and findings of the study is given. The process is followed while consulting relevant literature on the Scripture passage.
The methodology that Smith (2008) developed was chosen because of the agreement of the present authors’ view with his set of hermeneutic presuppositions, that Scripture represents the Word of God (Smith 2008:170). The primary goal of biblical interpretation is to discover the author-intended meaning linked to the message the Holy Spirit intended the human author to convey to the original readers, as far as it can be ascertained. Every text has one primary author-intended meaning and can, therefore, only have one accurate interpretation, although one text may have many applications. The Bible should be interpreted as literally as possible, at face value, according to the normal rules of communication and in dependence on the Spirit’s guidance. To find a text’s relevance and application to today’s believers, an exegete must move from interpretation to application, from past to the present, and from the there-and-then to the here and now. In the comparative literature study articles, books and commentaries from different traditions are deliberately used to provide a more balanced view of scholarly debate about the issue.
Classical Pentecostals and the use of alcohol
Traditionally, classical Pentecostals were cautious or negative towards using alcohol (Delgado & Rosati 2005:197). They came from the 19th-century holiness movements, a Christian movement arising from Methodism, which placed particular emphasis on the doctrines of holiness, sanctification, and Christian perfection (Yong 2014:447). Hence, classical Pentecostals emphasised holiness in the conduct of the believer. They viewed the consumption of alcohol as a prelude to moral and spiritual compromise (Royce 1985:53). For instance, the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa, the country’s largest classical Pentecostal grouping, defined the use of any enslaving habit, such as tobacco and alcohol as a taboo. Already in 1922, the Bantu Conference of the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa3 decided that no man or woman might be a preacher or minister of the gospel ‘who had not yet abstained from drinking or selling beer, also from eating pork, using tobacco and medicine, even the use of any other intoxicating drinks’ (Minutes of the Bantu Conference 1922:n.p.; in Author(s) in press). At the same meeting, Brother Wilson, a missionary of Rhodesia (today’s Zimbabwe), referred to the different kinds of Mahau, a beer, and the dangers it posed for believers. The Workers’ Conference resolved that The Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa (AFM of SA) teaching strictly forbids the use of intoxicating drinks as harmful to both individual believers and the community. They based their view on biblical passages that warned against the dangers of drunkenness in attempting to live a life empowered by the Holy Spirit. Sobriety was seen as integral and conditional to a holy lifestyle (Kaskutas et al. 2003:6–8). They also referred to the Nazarites who were forbidden to consume wine (Nm 6:3; Jdg 13:4) and the Rechabites and priests officiating in the Tent of Congregation who willingly refrained from drinking wine while serving (Lv 10:9; Ezk 44:21; Jr 35:2 ff.).
Some classical Pentecostals have changed their stance on the use of wine, but most African Pentecostals still advocate for total abstinence from alcohol. Next, the implications of the first sign described in John’s Gospel are discussed to compare them with African Pentecostals’ arguments for total abstinence from the use of wine based on the Bible.
Exegetical analysis
The event of turning water into wine occurred early in Jesus’ public ministry and inaugurated the first of the Gospel’s seven ‘signs’ (wonders or miracles; Ταύτην ἐποίησε ἀρχὴντῶν σημείων Ἰησοῦς), self-disclosures of Jesus that provoke interpersonal affectionate adherence recorded in the Gospel (Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998:69).4 These signs deliberately reveal Jesus’ divine nature and mission (Sihombing 2022:61). Their purpose, among many other miraculous signs in the presence of disciples that were not recorded, was that readers and/or listeners may believe (or hold the faith, a difficult textual variant) that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing, they may have life in his name (Jn 20:30–31).5
By following the ‘calling of the disciples’ (Jn 1:35–51) and preceding the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13–22), the wedding narrative highlights the theme of physical and spiritual transformation, illustrated by the setting for the ‘sign’ (Zheng & Budiraharjo 2024:245).6 Mentioning that it happened ‘on the third day’ probably does not refer to the start of the wedding feast with Jesus only attending it now, but instead, the third day after revealing himself to Nathanael as the ‘Son of God’ (1:49) (Lange & Schaff 2008:103). The journey from Judea to Galilee required 2 or 3 days, the distance in a direct line being over 20 h (Lange & Schaff 2008:103). The assertion that the reference to the third day can be linked to Jesus’ resurrection and viewed as a part of its symbolic significance to emphasise the resurrection’s importance within salvation history (Fredrikson & Ogilvie 1985:66; Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998:66; Moreau 2011:391) or as a symbolic reference to God’s day of deliverance, as used in Old Testament (Jobes 2021:57) is highly unlikely. Perhaps it can be seen, as Mullins (2003:113–114) suggests, as a symbolical reference, with a wedding being regarded as a prophetic sign where an ordinary event becomes a medium of divine revelation, representing something analogous to but far greater than itself, a parable in action. It may also recall the gift of the Law and manifestation of divine glory, with the covenant as a marriage bond between God and the people (Ex 19:16–20; Hs 2:19; Is 25:6–7; 62:5; Jr 2:2; 3:14).
Challenge
The wedding feast (vv. 1–2) is a symbol with vital significance for Jews. In Jewish culture, the wedding occasion was a communal event that might last up to a week or even 14 days (e.g., Gen 29:27–28; among the poorer people, only three or perhaps 4 days [Gn 29:27; Jdg 14:14; Tob 9:12]). It always symbolises fruitfulness, joy and abundance (Goldberg 2004:43). Abundant wine, especially new wine, was also a sign of the messianic age (Is 55:1–5; Jr 31:12; Jl 2:19, 24; 3:18; Am 9:13) (Jobes 2021, 59). These vital themes align with messianic expectations (Is 62:4–5) (Liew 2014:142).
Cana was Jesus’ home region; hence, it can be presumed that he might have known the bride and groom. In any case, the entire town was invited when a wedding was held, and it was considered an insult to refuse an invitation to a wedding (Barton 1993:30–31). Jesus and his disciples’ participation in the feast integrated divine presence within human celebrations by attending and reflecting on the incarnation’s purpose, that is, of God entering and sanctifying human life.
The challenge when the wine runs out (Καὶ ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου) signifies a catastrophe for Jews (Yee 2007:37), for whom wine represents joy and blessings (Ps 104:15) (Bloch, Rao & Desai 2004:683). Barton (1993:31) remarks that a week-long wedding must have had about the same impact on family budgets as some weddings do today. Given the cheapness of wine in the East, it might be possible to infer that the family was in limited circumstances. The absence of wine could have transformed the feast’s celebration into mourning and ruined the bridegroom’s prestige and reputation (Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998:69; Malina 1983:69). The family was embarrassed and the situation threatened family honour because it broke the strong unwritten laws of hospitality (Barton 1993:31). The bride’s family could sue the bridegroom who was responsible because he (and his family) was responsible for the wedding expense (Osborne 2007:43).
Consuming wine was associated with happiness between friends (Jdg 9:13; Is 24:11; Zch 10:7; Ps 104:15; Ec 9:7; 10:19) (Scheindlin 1999:32). Even in times of suffering or sickness, wine was used to lighten the mind and pain of the sufferer and to care for wounds (Pr 31:6; Mt 27:34, 48; Mk 15:23, 36; Lk 10:34; 23:36; Jn 19:29; 1 Tm 5:23) (Forrest 1982:200; Nikolova et al. 2018:16). However, the practice of abusing wine and accompanying drunkenness was frowned on by ancient Israelites (Pr 20:1; 23:21; Gl 5:21; Eph 5:18; 1 Pt 4:3) (Kelly 2016:‘Wine’), while the blessing of abundant wine was seen as a divine blessing (Gn 27:28; Dt 7:13; 11:14; 32:14; 33:28; Hs 2:8; Hg 2:19; Ps 104:14–15; Pr 3:9–10; Eccl 9:7–9). Its absence was a sign of divine disfavour (Dt 28:39, 51; Is 24:7, 11; Hs 2:9; 9:2; Jl 1:1, 5; Amos 5:11; Zph 1:13; Hg 1:11; 2:15–16) (Levenson 1994:12).
Mary
Barton (1993:30) speculates that Mary could have been the hostess because she was the first to know about the lack of wine, which is not clear from the narrative. John calls her the mother of Jesus; she appears only here and in the scene at the crucifixion (19:26–27), both times without using her name and never in the Gospel does he call her Mary (2:12; 6:42; 19:25). In the same way, he never names himself or his brother James (Lange & Schaff 2008:103).
The wedding was probably a family affair because Jesus’ brothers also attended it (v. 12). The mention in verse 2 that his disciples were also invited presumes that Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael and John attended, making the evangelist (if John wrote the Gospel) an eyewitness of the scene (Lange & Schaff 2008:103).
Mary tells Jesus of the challenge. Why would she consider Jesus to be the solution to the crisis, given that he had not done any miracles before (as v. 11 suggests)? Her involvement in the dilemma illustrates her awareness of who Jesus was and what he could do. She trusted him to address the challenge decisively without fully comprehending Jesus’ mission and intention in being born. However, informing Jesus of the need does not necessarily constitute a request for his assistance. It proves only that the people told Mary, and she mentions it to Jesus, not necessarily expecting him to address the challenge. From Jesus’ answer, it seems that he read her intentions in another way. Without providing any proof, Barton (1993:32) argues that she knew for a long time about her son’s divine commission. What is significant is that his mother completely fades out of the story from this point on in the Gospel (Borchert 1996:156). Initially, Jesus did not want to get involved.
Jesus’ reluctance
Jesus’ response in verse 3 is puzzling: ‘Woman, why are you saying this to me (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί)? My time has not yet come’ (v. 4). His way of addressing his mother (γύναι) may seem disrespectful (as Bruce 1983:69 argues), even abrupt and harsh at first glance to current readers, but it is not derogatory (Cook 2016:44). Within the cultural context of the day, it was a normal and polite way of addressing women (Mt 15:28; Lk 13:12; Jn 4:21; 8:10; 19:26; 20:15). However, in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and Greek, a son would instead normally use a qualifying adjective or title for his mother. Is there any reason for the way Jesus addresses his mother? Does the author intend to indicate that a new relationship has arisen between son and mother once he embarks on public ministry (Osborne 2007:44), that Jesus wants his mother to understand that the former relationship between the two of them (Lk 2:51) was at an end and she should not to interfere in his mission, like Pfeiffer and Falconer (eds. 1962: Jn 2:3) suggest? Has his ministry changed him from the son of a mother into the ‘Son of Man’, indicating a shift in their relationship and emphasising Jesus’ divine mission over familial ties? It may reflect his primary relationship to his heavenly Father rather than his earthly mother (Jobes 2021:58).
On the cross, Jesus addresses ‘the disciple whom he loved’ and charges him with caring for his mother (Jn 19:26–27), addressing Mary with the same term, ‘Woman’ (γύναι; Jn 19:26).
His words to his mother, ‘Why are you saying this to me?’ (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι or literally, ‘what to me and you’) are of Semitic origin (Jdg 11:12; 2 Sm 16:10; 1 Ki 17:18; cf. with 2 Ki 3:13; Hs 14:8; 2 Chr 35:21 in Septuagint). The expression used in the Old Testament suggests two meanings: If one person were unjustly bothering another, the injured party would say, ‘What to me and to you?’, meaning, ‘What have I done to you that you should do this to me?’ (in Jdg 11:12, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Ki 17:18; used by demons in the Synoptics: Mk 1:24; 5:7). Or if someone is challenged to get involved in a matter that they think is none of their business, they would say to the one asking them, ‘What to me and to you?’, meaning, ‘That is your business, how and why am I to get involved?’ (in 2 Ki 3:13, Hs 14:8) (Crossley 2004:140). The first case implies a hostile reaction against unwanted behaviour; in the second case, the speaker wants to remain disengaged. In the case of Jesus, he seems to imply that he wishes to remain disengaged (Crossley 2004:139). However, some of the Greek Fathers saw in the remark a rebuke to Mary for attempting to involve him with something that is none of his business (Crossley 2004:141).
Despite his reluctance to get involved because his hour (ὥρα; time) has not yet come, Mary gives the servants the order to do whatever Jesus tells them (2:5). Clearly, she expects that he will respond in some way. The reference to ‘hour’ probably implies that the ultimate revelation of Jesus’ identity is tied to his crucifixion and resurrection and not this immediate miracle, according to Newman and Nida (1993:57), referring to John 7:30 and 8:20.7 John ties the ‘hour’ so closely to Jesus’ death and resurrection that the reference to the transformation of water into wine on the third day should cause the reader to pause more than briefly at its significance (Borchett 1996:153). The time of his crucifixion and glorification – when he returns to the Father – will be his final self-manifestation as Messiah. Until then, the hour has not yet arrived.
Jesus’ wine
Mary’s request to the servants8 set the table for what follows: Jesus tells them to fill six stone water jars9 used for Jewish purification or the ceremonial washing of hands and vessels before and after meals to ensure one is acceptable to God (Mt 15:2; Mk 7:3). Each holds two or three μετρηταί (about 75 to 115 litres) and equivalent to 2000–3000 modern wine glasses (McFadyen 1998:11). That there were so many jars containing around 6000 L of water probably reflects both the number of the guests and Jewish scrupulous attention to ceremonial purity (Jojko 2020:133). These jars’ water would turn into the wine of the new messianic age and (rather contentiously) the wine of the Lord’s Last Supper, after the fashion of Johannine double meanings (Biblical Studies Press 2005; Jn 2:6). In using these jars holding large quantities of water, Jesus does not touch them or pray, but wills it and transforms the water (Cook 2016:45). It may suggest a transformation from the old order of Jewish ceremonial law to the new covenant of grace and abundance in Christ that would follow his death of atonement. Filling them to the brim may underscore the abundance and completeness of Jesus’ provision, prefiguring the lavishness of God’s grace in salvation (Bere 2024:197).
When the servants are finished, Jesus tells them to draw some water and take it to the head steward or ruler (master) of the feast (τῷἀρχιτρικλίνῳ). He responds to the appearance of the good wine without knowing where it comes from by accusing the bridegroom of keeping the good wine until the guests are already drunk and cannot appreciate it. The sign contains non-understanding, a significant literary feature of John (Kanagaraj 2013:22). The transformation of water into the ‘best wine’ at the end of the wedding contrasts human limitations with divine generosity and signifies the new covenant’s superiority over the old. Osborne (2007:42) argues that the event replaces the water of old Jewish institutions and rituals with the new life of the kingdom, which seems allegorical.
Verse 11 contains the author’s conclusion, that this is the first of Jesus’ miraculous signs and reveals his glory, a visible manifestation of divine honour, majesty and power (Jobes 2021:62). It leads his disciples to believe in him, illustrating the Gospel’s purpose to teach disciples faith (Jn 20:31; Is 62) (Ford 2021:66) and validate Jesus’ claim of a unique relationship with God (Kősterberger 2009:193).
The first sign and African Pentecostals’ arguments for abstinence
How did Pentecostals respond to the sign recorded in John 2? The only argument they used was to speculate that Jesus turned the water into grape juice (Naeh & Weitzman 1994:115). However, the argument does not hold water because biblical references to wine imply fermented wine, not grape juice. The Hebrew word tirosh (תִּירוֹשׁ) is used a few times to refer to freshly pressed grape juice, typically before it has fully fermented. The word is often used in the context of biblical or classical Hebrew to describe a high-quality, fresh beverage made from grapes. However, Hebrew also uses other words. For example, יָיִן (yayin), the most common word, refers to fermented wine; חֶמֶר (chemer) is used for a strong, possibly alcoholic wine; and דְּרוֹר (dror) refers in the book of Leviticus to ‘liberating’ wine, wine that is freely flowing or abundant (Elwell 1997:2146). Fermented wine was usually mixed with water in the classical and Hellenistic world (Elwell and Comfort 2001:1302–1303). However, textual evidence in Old Testament times indicates that wine was drunk undiluted; wine mixed with water was thought to be ruined (Is 1:22).
The question that the passage poses is why Jesus’ first miracle was turning the water into wine and whether the intervention of God was for the sake of the provision in humans’ needs. It is clearly not intended to justify the abuse of alcohol. What can be deduced from the narrative is that the Pentecostal taboo absolutely requiring abstinence from all alcohol cannot be based on biblical grounds and that the use of wine is approved by Jesus’ miracle.
From earliest times, Christians mixed water with the wine in the eucharist, as testified by church fathers such as Justin, Irenaeus and Hippolytus (Daly-Denton 2007:356–370). By the time Cyprian (210–258 CE) lived, the practice had a mystical meaning. Only the Armenian church continued to use only wine. Nonconformists, Puritans, Baptists, and Quakers of the 16th and 17th centuries who did not conform to the teachings and practices of the Church of England abstained from wine for conscientious reasons and used grape juice instead (Cross 1974:1078–1079).
There is ample evidence in the Bible that wine played an important role in the religious rituals of the ancient Near East, including Israel. It was, for instance, used in the daily (Ex 29:40) and monthly (Nm 28:14) sacrifices and holy days (Nm 15:5–12). Abstinence from wine was consistently accompanied by explicit identification of the individuals who refrained from its use. The law of the Nazarites forbade the consumption of wine (Nm 6:3; Jdg 13:4), and the Rechabites willingly refrained from it (Jr 35:2 ff.). The priests officiating in the Tent of Congregation also refrained from drinking wine while serving (Lv 10:9; Ezk 44:21).
The Bible contains numerous warnings against the abuse of alcohol, establishing clear boundaries for its consumption (Pr 21:17, 23:31; Is 5:11, 56:12; I Th 5:7; Eph 5:18; Tt 2:3). This principle extends to other aspects of life as well, such as excessive food consumption and unbalanced sexual relationships. Just as gluttony is cautioned against (Pr 23:2, 20–21; Phlp 3:19), so too is the misuse of sex (1 Cor 6:13, 18) and alcohol. Food consumption and sexual relationships are both permissible and sacred within the limits established by God, but outside these boundaries, they are considered improper and sinful. Hence, Pentecostals’ argument that the Bible clearly prohibits the use of wine or that sobriety is a condition for holiness does not hold water. John’s first sign demonstrates that Jesus approved the use of wine at certain times and that the wine Jesus made was not grape juice.
Conclusion
The first sign that John’s Gospel attributed to Jesus, turning water into wine, implies that Pentecostals’ traditional stance that prohibited the use of wine did not reflect an imperative commanded by Jesus. Hence, they ignored any discussion of the implications of the miracle. Jesus turned water into wine even though some of the guests were already drunk. There is also no evidence for the water to have been grape juice, as some Pentecostals argued.
The miracle at Cana signifies Jesus’ imminent mission, which will inaugurate God’s blessing, reconciliation and forgiveness, heralding a new era of abundance and gratitude. Represented through the unconventional gift of wine, the miracle conveys a deeper and more expansive symbolic significance within Jesus’ mission. It unveils his glory and establishes the trajectory of his mission’s fulfilment. Rather than refraining from interpreting this passage because of the traditional stance on the use of wine, Pentecostal readers are encouraged to engage with it, embracing God’s grace through faith and trust in Jesus’ transformative power. Beyond merely demonstrating power through the turning of water into wine, this passage serves as a source of hope and encouragement, offering a vision of life in God’s kingdom.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors reported that they received funding from National Research Foundation of South Africa (NRF), which may be affected by the research reported in the enclosed publication. The authors have disclosed those interests fully and have implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated university in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.
Authors’ contributions
F.J.d.B. and M.N. contributed equally to the conceptualisation, writing, and editing of the manuscript and share first authorship. All authors contributed to the article, discussed the results, and approved the final version for submission and publication.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the North-West University Theology Research Ethics Committee (reference no: NWU-01334-25-A6).
Funding information
The authors would like to thank the National Research Foundation of South Africa (NRF) for partly funding this study.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Ademiluka, S.O., 2020a, ‘Proverbs 23:29–35 in the light of the role of the church in Nigeria in curbing alcoholism’, Verbum et Ecclesia 41(1), a2060. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v41i1.2060
Ademiluka, S.O., 2020b, ‘Paul’s teaching on the use of alcohol and its implications for the church in Nigeria’, In die Skriflig 54(1), a2571. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v54i1.2571
Barton, B.B., 1993, John, Life Application Bible Commentary, Tyndale House, Wheaton, IL.
Bere, P.H., 2024, ‘Messianic sign in wedding at Cana: Revealed God’s glory and leads Jesus’ disciples to faith narrative reading of John 2,1–12’, Proceedings of The International Conference on Theology, Religion, Culture and Humanities 1(2), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.24071/tic.v1i2.8458
Biblical Studies Press, 2005, The NET Bible First Edition, Biblical Studies Press, Richardson, TX.
Bloch, F., Rao, V. & Desai, S., 2004, ‘Wedding celebrations as conspicuous consumption’, The Journal of Human Resources 34(3), 675–695. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.xxxix.3.675
Borchert, G.L., 1996, John 1–11, vol. 25A: The new American commentary, Broadman & Holman, Nashville, TN.
Borowski, O., 2009, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Bosman, N., 2019, ‘The cup as metaphor and symbol: A cognitive linguistics perspective’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75(3), a5338. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v75i3.5338
Brodie, T.L., 1993, The Gospel According to John, A Literary and Theological Commentary, pp. 172–173, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Bruce, F.F., 1983, The Gospel of John: Introduction, exposition, and notes, Eerdmans Classic Biblical Commentaries, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Burge, G.M., 2000, John, The NIV Application Commentary, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Burger, I. & Nel, M., 2008, The fire falls in Africa: A history of the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa, Christian Art, Vereeniging.
Clendenen, E.R., 2020, ‘Jesus’s blood at the wedding in Cana?’, JETS 63(3), 491–503.
Collins, R., 1974, ‘Cana (Jn. 2:1–12) – The first of his signs or the key to his signs’, Irish Theological Quarterly 47, 79–95.
Cook, W.F., 2016, John: Jesus Christ is God, Christian Focus Publications Ltd., Ross-shire.
Cross, F.L., 1974, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, New York Press, London.
Crossley, J., 2004, ‘The Semitic background to repentance in the teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus,’ Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 2(2), 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/147686900400200203
Daly-Denton, M., 2007, Water in the eucharistic cup: A feature of the eucharist in Johannine trajectories through early Christianity,’ Irish Theological Quarterly 72(4), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021140008088808
Delgado, M. & Rosati, M., 2005, ‘Chapter 11: Pentecostal religion, asset assessment and alcohol and other drug abuse: A case study of a Puerto Rican Community in Massachusetts’, Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 23(2–3), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1300/J020v23n02_11
Elwell, W.A., 1997, ‘Wine’, in W. Elwell (ed.), Baker encyclopedia of the bible, pp. 2145–2148, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI.
Elwell, W.A. & Comfort, P.W., 2001, Tyndale Bible dictionary, pp. 1302–1303, Tyndale House, Wheaton, IL.
Falconer, R., 2021, ‘Johannine magical realism: A trigger for sacramental realism in John 6:26–58’, Neotestamentica 55(2), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1353/neo.2021.0033
Ford, D.F., 2021, The Gospel of John, A Theological Commentary, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI.
Forrest, R.D., 1982, ‘Early history of wound treatment’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 75(3), 198–205.
Fredrikson, R.L. & Ogilvie, L.J., 1985, John, vol. 27; The preacher’s commentary series, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN.
Freedman, P., 2020, ‘Haroset: A taste of Jewish history’, Mediterranean Historical Review 35(1), 118–120.
Goldberg, H.E., 2004, ‘Jewish passages: Cycles of Jewish life’, Choice Reviews Online 41(09), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.41-5248
Harris, M.J., 2015, John, Exegetical guide to the Greek New Testament, B&H Academic, Nashville, TN.
Harutyunyan, M. & Malfeito-Ferreira, M., 2022, ‘The rise of wine among ancient civilizations across the Mediterranean basin’, Heritage 5(2), 788–812. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage5020043.
Jobes, K.H., 2021, John through Old Testament Eyes, Kregel, Grand Rapids, MI.
Jojko, B., 2020, ‘The hour of Jesus and the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1–11)’, Verbum Vitae 38(1), 125–147. https://doi.org/10.31743/vv.11245.
Kanagaraj, J.J., 2013, John, vol. 4: New Covenant commentary series, Cascade, Eugene, OR.
Kaskutas, L.A., Kaskutas, L.A., Bond, J. & Weisner, C., 2003, ‘The role of religion, spirituality and Alcoholics Anonymous in sustained sobriety,’ Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1300/j020v21n01_01
Kelly, J., 2016, ‘Wine’, in J.D. Barry (ed.), The Lexham Bible dictionary, Lexham, Bellingham, WA.
Klaiman, A., 2024, ‘Wine as a symbol in the Old Testament, Roots 12(2), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.24193/roots.2024.2.9
Koester, C.R., 1995, ‘Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, mystery, community’, Choice Reviews Online 33(04), 33–2084. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.33-2084
Kősterberger, A.J., 2009, A theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Lange, J.P. & Schaff, P., 2008, A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: John, Logos Bible Software, Bellingham, WA.
Levenson, J.D., 1994, Creation and the persistence of evil: The Jewish drama of divine omnipotence, vol. 566, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Liew, V.M., 2014, The wedding at Cana: Experiencing the glory and kingdom, Zondervan, WestBow, IN.
MacDonald, N., 2008, What did the ancient Israelites eat? Diet in Biblical Times, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Malina, B.J. & Rohrbaugh, R.L., 1998, Social-science commentary on the Gospel of John, Augsburg, Minneapolis, MN.
Maltsberger, D., 2003, ‘Wine’, in C. Brand and E. Mitchell (eds.), Holman illustrated Bible dictionary, pp. 1674–1675, Holman, Nashville, TN.
McFadyen, P., 1998, Open door on John: A Gospel for our time, Triangle, London.
McHugh, J.F., 2009, ‘John 1-4’, in G.N. Stanton (ed.), A critical and exegetical commentary on John 1-4, T&T Clark International, New York, NY.
Moreau, D., 2011, ‘Clarifying the concept of salvation: A philosophical approach to the power of faith in Christ’s resurrection,’ European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3(2), 387–407.
Mullins, M., 2003, The Gospel of John, Columba, Dublin.
Naeh, S. & Weitzman, M.P., 1994, ‘Tīrōš – Wine or grape? A case of metonymy’, Vetus Testamentum 44(1), 115–120.
Negev, A., 1990, The archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land, Prentice Hall Press, New York, NY.
Nel, M., 2024a, ‘Classical Pentecostals’ literalist reading of the Bible: Challenges and solutions’, HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 80(1), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v80i1.9567.
Nel, M.J., 2024b, ‘The persuasive function of the blood of Jesus in Matthew 26:28’, Acta Theologica, Supp 37, 91–104.
Nelson, E.E., 2014, ‘“To Drink or not to Drink?”: Moral ambiguity of alcohol in the Pentecostal imagination’, African Journal of Drug & Alcohol Studies 13(2), 118–129.
Newman, B.M. & Nida, E.A., 1993, A handbook on the Gospel of John, UBS Handbook Series, United Bible Societies, Swindon.
Nikolova, P., Stoyanov, Z., Doncheva, D. & Trendafilova, S., 2018, ‘Wine as a medicine in ancient times’, Scripta Scientifica Pharmaceutica 5(2), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.14748/ssp.v5i2.5610
Osborne, P.W., 2007, The Gospel of John, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Tyndale, Carol Stream, IL.
Pfeiffer, C.F. & Falconer Harrison, E. (eds.), 1962, The Wycliffe Bible commentary: New Testament, Moody, Chicago, IL.
Royce, J.E., 1985, ‘Sin or solace? Religious views on alcohol and Alcoholism’, Journal of Drug Issues 15(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204268501500106
Scheindlin, R.P., 1999, Wine, women, & death: Medieval Hebrew poems on the good life, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Sihombing, W.F. & Tarigan, I.S., 2022, ‘Sign and its significance in John’s Gospel, Evangelikal: Jurnal Teologi Injili dan Pembinaan Warga Jemaat 6(1), 59–69.
Smith, K.G., 2008, Academic writing and theological research: A guide for students, South African Theological Seminary, Johannesburg.
Spong, J.S., 2013, The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY.
Welton, R., 2020, ‘He is a Glutton and a Drunkard’: Deviant Consumption in the Hebrew Bible, Biblical Interpretation Serious, vol. 183, pp. 92–142, Brill, Leiden.
Yee, G.A., 2007, Jewish feasts and the Gospel of John, Wipf and Stock, Eugene, OR.
Yong, A., 2014, Renewing Christian theology: Systematics for a global Christianity, Baylor University Press, Waco, TX.
Zarzo, M., 2024, ‘Pure or noble materials for jewish ritual vessels: Passover meal and the first eucharistic chalice (Holy Grail)’, Religions 15, 321. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15030321
Zheng, M. & Budiraharjo, M., 2024, ‘The symbolism of water in the Gospel of John’, Paramasastra: Jurnal Ilmiah Bahasa Sastra dan Pembelajarannya 11(2), 242–256.
Footnotes
1. See for instance the remark, ‘…the Mediterranean region witnessed the succession of different civilizations and peoples, but wine was a permanent commodity among the most prized goods. The wine trade was one of the main incentives for the Canaanites, followed by the Phoenicians, Greeks, Etruscans and Romans, to expand their influence in the Mediterranean Sea’ (Harutyunyan & Malfeito-Ferreira 2022:804).
2. See the complexity of the designation of Cana in Galilee, home of Nathanael (21:2; Bruce 1983, 68) to distinguish it from another Cana, seemingly also in Galilee (Lange & Schaff 2008:103–104). The only references to the town of Cana are found in John’s Gospel. The traditional Kefr Kenneh is situated on rising ground 5.5 km north-east of Nazareth, and the remains of a Greek church are still to be seen there.
3. The Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa consisted of four racial groups in line with apartheid practices prevailing in the country before the democratic elections of 1994.
4. While John uses ‘signs’ [sēmeion] to indicate that the miracles point beyond themselves to a deeper reality, the Synoptics prefer ‘power’ or ‘miracle’ [dunamis] to describe such events (Osborne 2007:45). John creatively and ingeniously transmutes the Synoptic concept of ‘miracle’ into the Johannine concept of ‘sign’ (Kősterberger 2008:192). The Gospels record 35 miracles or signs performed by Jesus in total while John’s signs were intended to point people to the truth that Jesus is the divine Son of God come down from heaven (Barton 1993:35).
5. Three terms are employed for the miracles or supernatural works of Christ: σημεῖον, δύναμις and τέρας. σημεῖον (Hebrew [אוֹה] refers to the moral aim of the miracle as intended to exhibit the presence of the divine power and produce faith; τέρας or ‘wonder’ is often combined with σημεῖον and expresses the subjective effect of astonishment and amazement produced by the miracle while δυνάμεις or ‘powers’ or ‘might’ denotes the origin of miracles, as manifestations of divine power (Lange & Schaff 2008:108). For John, a sign is more than a wonder; it is a powerful act for the one who has eyes to see because it points to the reality of who Jesus is (Borchert 1996:157). In this case, it is as if the usual concept of the ordinary simply needs to be enlarged to take account of divine reality, creativity, generosity and freedom (Ford 2021:64–65).
6. Newman and Nida (1993:56) note that Matthew uses ‘disciples’ to refer strictly to the Twelve, while the other Gospel authors use the term in a more wide sense to include other followers, and Acts extends it further to designate all Christian believers (Barton 1993:30).
7. Harris (2015:58) agrees, explaining that in this Gospel, ‘hour’ usually refers to the future time of Jesus’ return to the Father (4:21, 23; 5:25, 28; 12:23, 27; 15:25).
8. The Greek term is ‘slaves’ (δοῦλοi), although the connotation is often of those who have sold themselves into slavery. In the New Testament context, the term is regularly employed in the spiritual sense of becoming a slave of God or Jesus Christ voluntarily. The voluntary notion is not conspicuous here; hence, the better translation would be ‘servants’. The word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. The most accurate translation is ‘bondservant’ (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), indicating one who sells themself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.
9. The jars are made from stone, rather than earthenware, because Jewish law states that earthenware jars had to be broken if contaminated, while contaminated stone jars could simply be washed (Newman & Nida 1993:59). The use of ‘stone jars’ for purification is mentioned in Lev 11:32–38 and the Mishnah (m. Kelim 5:11; m. Beṣah 2:3) (Kanagaraj 2013:22).
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
