The Meaning of Water and Wine
The section Andrew highlights:
RD: Okay, do you believe Jesus turned water into wine?
HH: Yes.
RD: You seriously do?
HH: Yes.
RD: You actually think that Jesus got water, and made all those molecules turn into wine?
HH: Yes.
RD: My God.
HH: Yes. My God, actually, not yours. But let me…
RD: I’ve realized the kind of person I’m dealing with now.
–
Notice that both of the men assume the same meaning for the story–namely that the story hinges on whether Jesus actually (i.e. read literally concretely) turned water into wine. Hewitt for, Dawkins against.
It would help of course in these debates if people actually knew what the story itself is trying to say instead of foisting their useless modern conceptions about the real and truth onto the story. The story itself you see has no real relevance in this discussion–it might as well be any story. The story functions just as an opening for them to have their pre-determined ideological fight.
The key there is Dawkins’ notion of the molecules of the water turning into wine. There was no understanding of molecules in the ancient world, nor is the Biblical text’s interest in what we would call science. So the imposition of this modern mode of thinking onto the text does serious violence to the story. It doesn’t help of course that Hugh Hewitt (God help us) is here supposed to represent the religious point of view and ignorantly is just as stupid (nay more so) in his inability to see the text on its own grounds, instead of trying to fundamentalistically make The Bible into the source of all scientific knowledge. HH might in that endeavor want to consult St. Augustine who wrote in the 5th century (i.e. a long fracking time ago) that if science comes up with a different naturalistic account of the world than the Bible offers, then you go with the science (WITH THE SCIENCE) and read The Bible for other arenas of truth (e.g. moral, spiritual, cosmological).
Deep breath.
This isn’t common practice here at the League, but a gentleman (or gentle-lady) may at time find the need to avail himself of some Biblical exegesis, particularly with reference to this story, so here goes.
For those playing along at home, the story in question is found in Ch. 2 of The Gospel of John. If you don’t have a Bible at home, you can go to this site type in the appropriate coordinates and voila the Wedding at Cana (i.e. The Water into Wine story). I believe the translation on this site is from the New Revised Standard Version.
The thing about the Gospel of John (if I can call it that) is that it is built on its densely layered and cross-fibrous symbolic world. It employs the repetition of certain key words to create an inner (“secret” “esoteric”) meaning. None of which has to do with whether or not Jesus actually literally turned water into wine.
Ch. 1 of the Gospel of John starts with a story of The Word pre-existing the creation of the universe coming down from heaven and taking flesh. Jesus in just the first chapter is called the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, the Messiah, and the Son of God. So we aren’t from the get go in the world of normal sense perception and discourse. It’s symbol world.
Ch. 2 then picks up with the first “sign” (or revealing act) of Jesus. Notice Jesus performs signs not miracles in the Gospel of John. There are a number of them–the final and most important one being the ’sign’ of his crucified body paradoxically glorified hanging between heaven and earth. The Gospel of John plays up the double meaning of being “raised up”–i.e. raised up on the cross to be murdered and raised up to the Divine Life. Signs are symbols that become means for a discourse/teaching moment. They are not miracles and therefore not in the classic David Humean cum Richard Dawkins strain of “whether or not miracles transverse the laws of nature” which we see in the quotation above.
Of course you wouldn’t actually know this unless you studied the text in detail. Something I can guarantee you Dawkins and Hewitt have not done.
Anyway so with that background in mind Ch. 2 verse 1: [Read more →]
October 22, 2009 132 Comments
