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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.