It’s a perfect example of circular reasoning, or “assuming the premise.” Making wine is sinful; Jesus couldn’t have sinned, and, therefore, Jesus could not have made wine.My dad had been trying to explain that the Greek word for the stuff Jesus made in John 2 was the same as the word for the stuff Paul tells the church not to get drunk on in Ephesians , and it was all a bit much for the man to take in. If you’ve been raised to regard wine as inherently sinful, the Bible can be disturbing reading.The Gospel is not the story of us being separated by sin from God. The doctrine of original sin has gotten in the way for many of us.It’s the story of God who is for us and intent on being with us that God became human to help us embody the wholeness and fullness of life we’ve been made for. Rather than turning back or getting directions or even deciding that we’d traveled far enough, we just kept going. It took us to a version of the Gospel where sin is the headline and separation is the norm.
Christians often fight over the doctrine of original sin.
(1868) is but one example of the volumes that have been written (and are probably still being written) to correct this perceived flaw.
These writings generally go to great and tedious lengths to demonstrate that wherever the Bible reads “wine,” we are to understand it to mean “grape juice,” or, bizarrely, “raisin paste” (which sounds more like a cookie filling, or a laxative, than a beverage), or else to argue that when the Bible mentions “wine,” it’s referring to something so diluted as to be essentially non-intoxicating.
Because of this, we are in a desperate need of a turnaround.
"Jesus couldn’t have made wine at the wedding at Cana.” The old man was adamant.