In the Name of the One who Turned Water into Wine

In preparing for Easter, I’ve been thinking on what John says about Jesus:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1-5, ESV)

Jesus, who came and lived and died for the sins of His people, is the One through Whom all things were made. Scripture tells many ways in which He demonstrated His authority over the world He created. One of my favorite of those accounts is from the wedding at Cana, His first miracle. I love that it was at a wedding feast. What a beautiful foreshadowing of the coming Wedding Feast! And what an appropriate focus for us as we celebrate His victory over sin, death, and Hell. He is risen, and He will come again!

Here some thoughts on the miracle at Cana:

One of the fruits of the Reformation is the hermeneutic of using Scripture to interpret Scripture. How does that apply to the discussions of Genesis and origins? Well, we have many examples of miracles that Jesus performed. Since Jesus is the Word through whom and by whom everything was made, it seems reasonable to compare His work at Cana with His work at creation. Here is something I read recently on the authority of Scripture versus the authority of science:

As for determining what science says versus Scripture, how does one decide what is miraculous and what’s not?

For example, suppose there was an expert wine maker at the wedding feast at Cana, and let’s suppose that he was hired to make the wine selections for the father of the bride. Being an expert wine maker he would know the age of the wines and the vineyards they came from and could speak of their relative merits and taste.

Suppose that when Jesus turned water into wine the wine maker tested this wine for its age, maturity, bouquet and such, based on his knowledge of wine he would declare that this wine was years old and came from a wonderfully cared for vineyard. Using the best science of assessing wine, he would be forced to draw this conclusion.

So what would his response be when the servants told him that this exquisite wine wasn’t years old but just a few minutes old, that a few minutes before there was only water in the pots and that this man Jesus turned the water into wine.

Which authority would we believe? The science that has the corner on wine making or in Jesus who is able to act supernaturally? Why is it so hard to believe that the one who changed water into wine instantly and supernaturally could not also create the universe, visible and invisible, by the word of his power?

In the Name of the One who turned water into wine,

4 thoughts on “In the Name of the One who Turned Water into Wine

  1. sedgegrass says:

    I heard a local PCA pastor state there were problems with the idea that God would create a new Earth to look old, since it would imply that God was about the job of ‘tricking’ us and that did not fit with God’s character because He does not ‘lie’. I wondered why we might not look at it as God working beautifully to reflect the parameters of the natural laws which He established, only (as in the water to wine example), it was done in as short a time frame as He chose to do it in. In other words, the geological ‘record’ reflected what the natural processes would continue to be as time continued on.

    Weren’t His miracles approached in this manner? Lame legs, blind eyes, dead bodies- weren’t they restored to be biologically and age appropriate? How about the loaves and fish- weren’t these actual foods which the crowds consumed? If so, how was the birth and growth of a fish or the leavening and baking of the bread accomplished instantaneously to provide a finished product? Were these mere tricks to deceive the crowds or was it God creating something supernaturally that reflected the natural order of the world He had made? Refusing to admit that possibility and campaigning against it, as if it were heresy, (as Biologos indicated in your previous posts), is disingenuous to open minded dialogue.


  2. Rachel Miller says:

    Sedgegrass~ good points. Of course, when you add the flood and what that did to the geological record, it gets even harder to point out what must have been done by purely natural processes.

    As for the deceit argument, wouldn’t it be a greater deceit for the One who created to tell us He created one way, when He actually did it in a completely different way? I don’t understand how the evolutionist can use this argument without causing problems for themselves.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s