Changing Water Into Whine

'
Background
There were several dark times in United States history. Ironically, one of the darkest chapters sprang from an attempt at a higher righteousness. On October 28, 1919, the 18th amendment to the US constitution was ratified to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol. Until repealed by the 21st amendment in December 5, 1933, American mafia groups stepped up the illegally fill the demand for alcohol, greatly expanding their power at the cost of government corruption and the loss of many lives.

The Prohibition had been driven mainly by conservative Protestant denominations; especially the Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Scandinavian Lutherans, and Quakers. It seems that they had forgotten that Jesus' first recorded miracle was turning water into wine.

Just prior to this study, Jesus had just picked up at least somewhere between three and six of the disciples whom would become Apostles. So now it's time for Jesus to begin His miraculous ministry. Or is it? Let's find out.

Changing Water Into Whine
In John 2:1-11 is the peculiar story of how Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding. It starts like this: Jesus and his disciples were invited to attend a wedding in Cana. As the wedding party progressed, they ran out of wine. Jesus' mom, Mary, tells Him that they have run out of wine. Jesus' reaction to His mom is a bit of an enigma, as we see in John 2:4:

"Dear woman, why do you involve Me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come." NIV

Essentially, Jesus whined to His mom for getting Him involved. In the verses which follow, Jesus' mom tells the servants to obey Jesus, Jesus has the servants fill six jars with water, and then Jesus instructs them to serve from the jars, as the water had been turned into wine. There are some interesting implications to explore about this story.

Mary never specifically asks Jesus to do anything. Christian commentators often cite how humble Mary was, letting Jesus decide the appropriate action. However, that's not what is implied in the text. From Jesus' reaction, it is clear that Jesus knew what Mary wanted, and it actually speaks of a familiarity with Jesus' power as God, as if Jesus had done similar miracles while living with His parents. Dinners at Jesus' house must have been really good! And with Mary prompting Jesus to take action in the first place, Mary seems less humble than she seems perhaps mentoring or controlling. Given that Jesus is God and therefore wouldn't need to be mentored, it would seem the latter is the case.

Jesus' reaction yields an impression that He did not expect Mary's request and that He did not want to perform this miracle. Yet Jesus does go on and turn water into wine so that everyone could have a good time at the party. It's some creative insight into how awkward it would have been for Joseph and Mary to be Jesus' earthly parents. After all, Jesus would have been bound by His own law to honor, and thereby submit, to His parents (Exodus 20:12).

It's the last part of Jesus' response which is strangest of all; “My time is not yet come.” Whether this means His time to perform miracles or His time to die is not really clear. The former seems strange because only several days later He performed miracles in Jerusalem (John 2:12-13, John 2:23).

The angle that this references Jesus' time to die is odd for many reasons. It's been suggested that everything Jesus did was supposed to be viewed through the cross, and so that's why this make sense, but that falls short of being a good explanation due to the lack of hesitation to perform other non-cross-related miracles. It's also been suggested that Jesus hesitated performing the miracle at that time because it might have set off the crucification events too early, but that fails too because it suggests that God is not in control and could not orchestrate events as He wills.

Any way you look at it, this act was not going according to God's master Plan. That's an interesting revelation which suggests either God does not really know the future or that there are multiple paths to achieve the same goal.

Adding one more layer of confusion, Mark 1:14-15 says that Jesus was walking around Galilee saying that “the time has come.” This was before Jesus picked up disciples, so it was before this wedding and therefore before Jesus proclaimed that His time had not yet come.

In closing out the story in John 2:10-11, we find that the wine Jesus made was top notch (Wine Spectator would have rated it a 100) and that this was the first miracle Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee, an act which strengthened the faith of His disciples.

You never forget your first time. Unless, of course, your first time never happened. According to Mark 1:23-28 and Luke 4:33-37, the first miracle Jesus performed was casting out a demon in Capernaum. According to Matthew 4:23-24, the first miracles Jesus performed is briefly summarized as healing many of the sick and the demon-possessed people in the region of Galilee (which includes Capernaum). Yet John, so diligent to record the first and second (reference John 4:46-54) miracles Jesus performed in Galilee, skips the early mention of casting out demons. In fact, in the entire Gospel of John, Jesus never casts out a single demon! This discord is just more evidence suggesting that the Gospels are man-made myths.

Sugar, Spice, and Twice the Unclean Grime

'
Background
Now that the priesthood has been ceremonially established, God is revealing additional rules and regulations to govern the lives of the Israelites to keep them clean and pure. First, we learned what animals were clean. Next on the agenda: how women can be clean again after childbirth.

Sugar, Spice, and Twice the Unclean Grime
There are a couple of popular children's rhymes which muse about the constituents of little boys and girls. “Snips and snails, and puppy-dogs' tails” make up little boys, while “sugar and spice, and everything nice” constitute little girls. I think poetically this means little boys are rough-and-tumble, gross-nature loving, and full of energy, while little girls are some of the most pleasant things in life. It seems that God has quite a different opinion, at least at their births.

In the short chapter of Leviticus 12, God provides instructions on how a woman is to purify herself after childbirth. You see, according to Leviticus 12:1-5 when a woman has a child, she becomes unclean, just like when she is on her period. (See Leviticus 15:19-28 for laws governing the treatment of periods. By the way, isn't it odd that this passage about childbirth comes before the one on periods when it references the periods?) In an unclean state, you are essentially untouchable and separated from all things holy (Leviticus 12:4). Given that God is holy, it seems that you would be separated from Him as well.

It seems odd that bringing life into the world would be something which separates you from God. The text suggests that this uncleanliness is related to the discharge of blood associated with the birthing process, but clearly there is more to it than that based on the even stranger fact that God differentiates based on the sex of the child.

Leviticus 12:2-4 specify that a woman will be unclean for seven (7) days after the birth of a boy, and will require an additional thirty-three (33) days beyond that for purification. However, Leviticus 12:5 doubles that to be fourteen (14) days of uncleanliness and sixty-six (66) days purification for the birth of a girl!

There is no scientific reason why the birth of a girl takes twice the purification of the birth of a boy, so this seems to come down to God's own distinction of value or relative cleanliness of males versus females. Apparently, God thinks women are twice as unclean and dirty as men.

Closing out this short chapter is another strange regulation. In Leviticus 12:6-8 the mother is to bring a lamb for a burnt offering and a pigeon or dove for a sin offering (a dove or pigeon could be substituted for the lamb if financially necessary). That is right, somehow a sin has been committed by giving birth to a child. That sin appears to be related to the blood discharged during the birth. These offerings will make atonement for her sin!

From this chapter we see that not only does God consider girls twice as unclean as boys, but God also considers an essentially unavoidable, natural process of childbirth to be sinful.

Clean, Unclean, and Dirty Lies

'
Background
Just prior to this study, the Israelite priests were ordained. The priests then performed the atonement sacrifice for all of the Israelites, and there was much rejoicing. Two priests, sons of Aaron, worshiped God the wrong way, and God promptly burned them to death with His fire.

Roasting the two priests seems to have jogged God's memory that the Israelites needed some rules regarding what was acceptable to eat, as we will see below.

Clean, Unclean, and Dirty Lies
For those unfamiliar with the Old Testament, the kosher diets of orthodox and conservative Jews may seem like some sort of foreign religious relic of unknown origin. Despite being a source of some contention to the Apostles in the New Testament, most Christians know little about the particulars of these dietary laws beyond avoidance of pork products. In this study we will learn a little more about them, and unearth a dirty little secret too.

Leviticus 11 defines which animals are clean (and therefore permitted to be food) and which ones are unclean. Leviticus 11:2-8 reveals that land animals which have both split hooves and chew cud are clean. Leviticus 11:9-12 dictates that scaly, finned fish are the only clean aquatic or amphibious animals. Leviticus 11:13-19 lists specific birds which are detestable, including bats. Leviticus 11:20-23 prohibits eating flying insects which “walk on all fours” except for some hopping insects like locusts.

Quickly, I'll point out the standard glitches from these passages which many other skeptics highlight. Rabbits do not chew cud. Bats are not birds. Insects have more than four feet. These issues seem valid, but they may also be explained in the sense that the Hebrew language of that time lacked the appropriate technical terminology for accurate descriptions. (Given that God gave the Israelites their language, that issue would seem to be God's fault, or God's design, depending on your perspective.)

Leviticus 11:27 labels animals with paws as unclean too. Sorry cat and dog lovers.

Of ground dwelling animals, Leviticus 11:29-31 makes weasels, rats and some lizards unclean. Then Leviticus 11:41-42 states that all ground dwelling animals are detestable. Maybe this is another language limitation issue, or maybe the author had second thoughts and decided to expand the scope.

These laws seem arbitrary. While some argue that the prohibitions may have been set for health reasons, such as avoiding trichinosis from undercooked pork or avoiding the toxins collected in shellfish during red tides, other potentially deadly foods are not labeled unclean within the dietary laws.

Perhaps the random nature of these laws is some evidence of divine inspiration. Who else but God would make weird laws like that? However, they may also represent the bias of the author; excluding foods which were not eaten in his family, city, or culture. For example, in the United States, most people shun eating insects of any type, yet there are still several cultures in the world today which consume insects as part of their regular diet.

As the title of this study infers, there appear to be some lies associated with these kosher animals, but we must take a step back in Biblical time to examine them.

Back in the days of Cain and Abel, all men and creatures were on a strictly vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29-30), which made Abel's animal sacrifice stand out like a sore thumb. After The Flood, God tells Noah and his sons that they are now omnivores, with the only restriction being that they could not eat meat with the blood still in it (Genesis 9:2-5). Keep in mind that The Flood was God's reset button, and He had hoped to set the world on the right path by starting with His righteous servant Noah.

Here is the snag: Before The Flood had started (but after God had told Noah to gather two of every animal in Genesis 6:19-20) God directs Noah to gather seven of every “clean” animal and seven of every kind of bird in Genesis 7:2-3. Yet no explanation is given of what a clean animal is until here in Leviticus.

Did Noah, who lived in a world where he was vegetarian and all of the other people in existence were reportedly wicked, have knowledge of clean animals? That sounds rather improbable. Even if that was the case, why would God go on to tell Noah that he could eat any animal as opposed to restricting him to the clean ones? It would make no sense given that God was trying to set the world right, and, clearly from Leviticus 11, God found some animals detestable for food.

Just like Abel's animal sacrifice, the clean animal request for Noah speaks of an author so familiar with these classifications and customs that including them anachronistically in Noah's story did not register as being detrimental to its accuracy. It is akin to writing that Einstein utilized the internet while researching his Theory of Relativity. These glitches in time reveal the stories for what they are: fiction.

The Wrong Way = The Dead Way

'
Background
After providing regulations for mandatory and free will offerings, Moses anointed and ordaining his brother Aaron and Aaron's sons as priests. The priests then performed the atonement sacrifice for all of the Israelites, and there was much rejoicing.

With the initiation out of the way, the daily rituals and oblations began, but things didn't go according to plan...

The Wrong Way = The Dead Way
Jesus, and the God of the New Testament, are often presented figuratively with welcoming and open arms, spliced with a “come as you are” yet “acknowledge your need for forgiveness” attitude. This is perhaps best exemplified in the “Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven” bumper sticker. Also, let us not forget that God is love per 1 John 4:16, and the perfect father per Matthew 5:48.

The God of the Old Testament thought pretty nicely of Himself too. As you may remember from the Biblical Ten Commandments study, Exodus 34:5-7 shows God bragging about how He is slow to anger, abounding in love, and ready to forgive wickedness, rebellion, and sin, among other things.

In contradiction to both of these perspectives comes Leviticus 10. In this charming chapter, the story begins with Nadab and Abihu, who were priests and sons of Aaron, offing incense with “unauthorized fire” to God (Leviticus 10:1). So how does God treat these two men who wanted to give God an offering, but did not do so according to the regulations?

God did what any slow-to-anger, abounding-in-love, ready-to-forgive, perfect father would have done; He slew His wayward sons on the spot, burning them to death with magic fire (Leviticus 10:2)!

Moses goes on to add insult to Aaron's injury in Leviticus 10:3, saying that this is what God meant when He said “Among those who approach Me I will show Myself holy; in the sight of all the people I will be honored.” Reading between the lines, God is saying that you had better worship Him correctly or else He will kill you!

This action speaks of a God who demands perfect adherence to His laws from His imperfect creations with zero tolerance for mistakes. Is that a God who is slow to anger? Is that a God who is ready to forgive? Is that a God of love? No to all three. And God is certainly not a perfect father, for what father would kill his child for not perfectly following newly learned directions or committing a victimless crime?

Christian commentaries on this passage suggest that this punishment was somewhat deserved because they were drunk as well, that God needed to provide a stern example to show seriousness of sin and to ward off future divergence, and that this shows the imperfection of the priesthood from the very beginning and the inherent need for Jesus. Yet all of these commentaries fail to speak on how this action contradicts God's own self-ascribed characteristics noted above.

That Nadab and Abihu were drunk is pure speculation based on the newly made ordinance that priests abstain from alcohol when going into the Tent of Meeting which appears a little later in Leviticus 10:8-11. However, if they were drunk, that would mean that their judgement was impaired, and they may not have even done that under normal circumstances. Does that make it worthy of capitol punishment?

If God had intended for this to be a warning, it seems to have failed in getting the message across. As further study of the Bible reveals, the Israelites would go on to do far worse than offer unauthorized fire.

And finally, if this was to highlight the imperfection of man and the need for Jesus, why bother establishing an imperfect system from the beginning? To which is given the unsatisfactory reply: have faith in the providence of God.

God choses no action of love. He does not use the rod of correction (Proverbs 29:15) to teach Nadab and Abihu, and inherently the rest of the Israelites, a lesson by making them temporarily blind, or burning only the hands that held the illegal incense, or any number of other temporary but effective punishments. Instead, God chooses death.

Apparently to make God's image even meaner, God tells Aaron and his remaining sons (through Moses in Leviticus 10:6-7) that they are forbidden to mourn for the loss of Nadab and Abihu, and even goes on to say that if they do mourn their deaths then God will kill them and be angry with all of the Israelites. God told them to suppress their feelings of love lost under penalty of death for not doing so. That is sick, and certainly not love.

I pray that nobody “loves” me like that!