Lesson Eight

"The Wedding At Cana" John 2:1-11

This section represents the first miracle Jesus performed, demonstrating His very purpose for coming to earth: to reveal the creative power of God. He had the power to create and produce what was needed to meet man’s need.

Perhaps you will recall that the first miracle Moses performed had to do with the changing of water, but in his miracle water was changed to blood, typical of the law which could produce only death. But the changing of water to wine evidences the message of grace through Christ and His power to produce life. Thus we see the great truth of new life through Jesus in our Lord’s miracle.

This section, which carries through the close of chapter four, has been called "the period of consideration," because it narrates certain events by means of which Jesus was presented to the public for their consideration and acceptance.

These events or appearances of Jesus were selected as representative, in order that His method of appeal to various classes might be plainly seen, and that the reader might be influenced by at least one of them.

We discussed last week the witness of John the Baptist and the presentation of John's disciples to Jesus.

We'll begin today with a four-week study of another "cast of characters" and will see their response to Jesus. Each will be approached differently, but the point will be identical: Jesus is the Christ!

This scene, in a way, leaves us up in the air. There are many unanswered questions: What was Mary’s role? What was Nathanael’s relationship to the couple? Who was this couple? Did Jesus know them previously? How? etc. As an eyewitness, John could have answered all these questions. But he chooses to emphasize Jesus. He is the main character of this wedding feast, the only one that really matters.

Note that Joseph was not mentioned. It is thought by most commentators that he was already dead. In fact, most commentators think he had been dead for years, and that Jesus, being the older child, had stayed home to take care of the family until the other children were old enough to go out on their own.

Thought 1. Note the extreme sufferings of Christ. He had come to bear all the trials of the world for man. He suffered...

· the death of a parent (see note, pt.3—^§ Matthew 13:53-58).

· being the child of a one-parent family.

· having to go to work at an early age to provide for His mother and half-brothers and sisters.

Customs certainly vary with time and location, but weddings have always had a certain pressure about them. For some reason, they seem to put well-meaning people in awkward situations.

Our text, John 2:1-11, tells of Jesus' attendance at a wedding where He, too, experienced the tension. Watching what He did at this event tells us a lot about who the Son of Man (1:51) truly is.

Jesus was a full participant in this celebration. Marriage was a happy time, a time of joy and laughter—a festive occasion. It was one of the largest social events in a community. This tells us two things about Jesus: (1) He was a sociable person...He liked people and people liked Him. He enjoyed the company of people. Do not miss the truth that Jesus chose to attend the wedding! Can you imagine Him there? Can you imagine His relaxed smile as He talked with the other guests? Can you, in short, imagine Jesus having a good time? Does the Jesus you picture in your mind experience joy? Would He be at home at a wedding celebration? The Jesus of this text certainly was!

Thought 1. Man is a social being. Jesus was teaching us to be sociable and not to become too busy to be sociable. However, He expects us to balance our lives, and the truth about our day and time is this: most persons are not alone enough. Most persons are not working, producing, and making their God-called contribution to the world, not as diligently as they should. Most have the problem of socializing too much, whether in recreation, partying, or on the job.

(2) Jesus honored marriage by His presence. He demonstrated His approval and honor in two ways: by attending the marriage feast and by meeting the urgent need of the bridegroom.

C. H. Spurgeon, a nineteenth century English preacher, spoke of godly joy:

by one who bears Tartarus in his looks.'

Thought 2. Jesus graced and blessed the marriage because He was "called...to the marriage."

He has to be genuinely invited into a marriage before He can bless it.

William Barclay commented, "Jesus never counted it a crime to be happy. Why should His followers do so?"

Jesus, The Master of Quality, 2:1-11

The first verse sets the time...it has been seven days since the event of John 1:19: "On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee."

Cana of Galilee was the home of Nathanael (21:2). Historians try to place the date on Wednesday, since that was the traditional day for marriage of virgins.

This is interesting because it gives us a date from which to work back; if the wedding took place on Wednesday, it must have been the Sabbath day when Jesus first met Andrew and John and they stayed the whole day with Him. (For further information, Jewish tradition required that widows be married on Thursday).

A Jewish wedding ceremony included three major events:

1. There was a marriage feast and ceremony, which were held on the same evening
2. There was the escort of the couple through the streets to their home. The procession usually took place at night. Flaming torches were used and the longest route to the home was taken to attract more attention and to allow the community to share in the joyful event
3. There was the open house which lasted for a week.

The wedding festivities lasted far more than one day; they usually lasted seven days. After the ceremony the young couple were conducted to their new home.

By the time it was dark and they were conducted through the village streets by the light of flaming torches and with a canopy over their heads. They wore crowns and dressed in their bridal robes for a week...they didn't go on a honeymoon, but stayed at home, and it was open house for 7 days.

There, speeches were made and expressions of goodwill publicly declared. They were treated like kings and queens, and were actually addressed as king and queen.

In a life where there was much poverty and constant hard work, this week of festivity and joy was one of the supreme occasions. Hospitality was emphasized and the hosts took great care to provide whatever the guests needed.

"Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and His disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, "They have no more wine."

At this wedding, we see Jesus in three different roles: the guest, the Son, and the host. Our Lord was not a recluse, as was John the Baptist (Matt. 11:16-19). He accepted invitations to social events, even though His enemies used this practice to accuse Him (Luke 15:1-2). Our Lord entered into the normal experiences of life and sanctified them by His presence. ("Wise is that couple who invite Jesus to their wedding!")

Historians feel that Joseph, the husband of Mary, is already dead, as he's not mentioned at any point here or later. It's likely that Mary was a relative to the family where the wedding was taking place, but clearly she was an intimate friend. She certainly had something to do with the arrangements, and she had authority enough to order the servants to do whatever Jesus wanted them to do.

The language of the story implies that Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding because of indirect obligation. The word "also" carries a slight connotation that they were extra guests, invited because of their connection with His mother.

It became clear that the wine was running out, which would present quite an embarrassing moment, and the statement in verse 3 seems to be both a statement of fact and a hint of a request.

Mary feels some sort of responsibility (she was likely serving) and exercises some authority here. Mary did not tell Jesus what to do; she simply reported the problem.

Her request to Jesus was at once a testimony to her personal confidence in His powers, of a sense of human glory and pride in her Son, and acknowledgment of the social disaster which threatened the young couple. Had the wine actually failed, the occurrence would have been regarded as an insult to those present, and would have banished the host and hostess to practical isolation.

Why did Mary feel Jesus could do something about it? We need to remember, first, the words of Luke 2:19 and 51: "But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart...Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart."

With a group of disciples, and a knowledge of what John the Baptist had been teaching, she must have felt he was beginning His ministry and knew He could do something.

"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

Jesus obviously does not refuse Mary’s "request." He does, however, scrutinize her motives and expectations. Nonetheless, this is the only command we know that Mary ever gave, "Whatever he says to you, do it." That is not bad advice!

His brief response to Mary has three parts.

• First, he addresses her as "dear woman" rather than "Mom." It was a polite title, like "Ma’am," (cf. Jn 19:26), and yet a definite statement about their relationship. She now must submit to him as Christ rather than leading him as "son."
• Then Jesus says, "Why do you involve me?" [lit. "what to me to you"]. This is a common Hebrew idiom, roughly meaning, "What business is that of mine?" Essentially, Jesus is asking Mary to carefully consider their relationship.
• Finally, he said his hour has not yet come. In other words, "Mary, don’t expect a public proclamation just yet" (cf. Jn 7:6, 9). Jesus’ life was predestined. The events of his incarnation (Gal 4:4) and ministry were meticulously planned AND TIMED so as to lead to Calvary at the right moment. John’s use of the words "hour" and "time" indicate God’s plan for Jesus (cf. Jn 2:4; 7:6, 8, 30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1), especially in his death.

Mary had a social concern but Jesus had a deeper concern: to meet man’s spiritual need for regeneration.

The Greek word for woman (gunai) carries with it no idea of censure from Jesus toward Mary. The same word is used in John 19:26 (when He left her in the care of John) and 20:13. But the use of "gunai" instead of "meter" (Mother) does show Mary that she can no longer exercise maternal authority and not at all in His Messianic work! (It is a difficult but needed lesson for parents to learn when the have to "let go" of their adult children).

His statement literally was: "what is it to me and to thee?" It was as if He asked, "is this the time for a public manifestation of My power and person?"

While we can be certain that Jesus was not being disrespectful or cruel to His mother, I do think that He was expressing frustration over her insistence that He get involved in a situation that could complicate His greater mission.

It is highly significant that we see Jesus having to cope with the strain and stress of belonging to a human family. Part of His being "flesh" was that He experienced life as a son and a brother.

Later, in chapter 7, we even see sibling rivalry, for the brothers of Jesus responded to His spreading fame with jealously and hostility. To watch Jesus working out a problem with His mother and listening to His brothers' bad attitudes allows us to get a much better picture of Him than we could ever get otherwise.

Family, for Jesus and for us, is extremely important. At the same time, family complicates our lives. Family relationships are messy, often confronting us with situations we did not choose. Within our families, we know some of our greatest joys and deepest pains. The relationships are intensely close, constantly changing, and frequently confusing.

We begin life seeing our parents as godlike creatures who know everything, then proceed to the time when we wonder if they know anything, only to return to a time when we are again impressed with their wisdom. For much of our lives we stand between generations, wondering how much control we should exercise over one while debating how much control we should allow the other to have over us!

Jesus, at the wedding, was being pulled in different directions by the confusing currents of a family.

We see Him standing between His love and honor for His mother on one side and His devotion to duty on the other. His was the terribly awkward conflict between "good" and "best." He was forced to balance His mother's wishes and His Father's will.

While we never get an opportunity to see Jesus as a husband or a parent, we do see Him as an adult son, dealing with a complicated situation brought on by being part of a family. For that, all of us who live in a family can be thankful!

We know from the words of John 17:1 that Jesus was aware of the "time" element in His ministry: "After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you."

This is consistent with some earlier words of Jesus, when certain Greeks had come, desiring to see Jesus: John 12:22-24: "Philip came^ and told^ Andrew; Andrew and Philip came^, and they told^ Jesus. {23} And Jesus answered^ them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. {24} "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."

Christ’s hour had to do with His death, burial, and resurrection. It was not time for that yet!

Verse 5 tells us two things:

1. This mother knew her son.

2. She knew He could do something, but it would be independent of her. It also shows she was immediately subservient to Him.

"Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim." (2:6-7).

John explains that these jars were there to provide water for the purifying ceremonies of the Jews. Water was required for two purposes: it was required for cleansing the feet on entry to the house; and it was required for the handwashing. The combined capacity of the waterpots was about 150 gallons. Reckoning a half pint to a glass, these vessels would contain about 2,400 servings of wine--certainly enough to supply a large number of people for days.

Jesus commands that they be filled with water to the brim. This will indicate (1) a great quantity, and (2) nothing else was "slipped into the punch," (3) as purification jars, they contained water, not wine. Therefore, there wouldn’t even be any residue of wine in them. In quality and quantity the new-made wine more than satisfied the needs and taste of those who attended the feast.

(John 2:8-10) "Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, {9} and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside {10} and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.""

These verses explain themselves. This first miracle was not a spectacular event that everybody witnessed. Mary, the disciples, and the servants knew what happened; but nobody else at the feast had any idea that a miracle had taken place.

His first miracle was a quiet event in contrast to His last miracle (cpt. 11), a public event after a funeral. The tablemaster knew nothing of the miracle, and the servants knew the source of the water, but not the power that made the wine.

Notice that Jesus did not touch the pots or the water or pray openly to God for a miracle. He simply willed the change (this feat is nowhere in the Bible duplicated by prophets or apostles).

Some of the "water" was drawn out of the pots and taken to the "headwaiter" who was responsible for three things:

1. Tasting all food and wine to see that it was acceptable
2. keeping order in the party (he would break a glass if someone got unruly)
3. and officiating over the banquet.

This fellow was not privy to Jesus’ assistance. When he drank the water/wine he found it delicious. Its "goodness" was not found in its intoxicating ability but in its taste. In fact, Palestinian wine was significantly watered down. Although a person could become drunk with it, there were far more effective liqueurs. Wine was the normal table drink which accompanied meals.

So good was this wine that the "headwaiter" called the bridegroom and complimented him on his fare. Normally the best is served first, not last.

The verb ("hotan methusthosin") does not mean that these guests are now drunk, but that this was a common custom to put the worse wine last.

The Greek word "oinos" means it is real wine, but not necessarily intoxicating wine (there are 13 different Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible to denote the many different kinds of wines).

Drunkenness was a great disgrace, and they actually drank their wine in a mixture composed of two parts of wine to three parts of water.

The significance of the miracle lay in the result that it produced: "This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples pout their faith in him."

Jesus performed many signs and wonders. This is the first of seven that John chooses to record (v. 11). And it was pretty much a private display for the disciples, as are the other six. John’s seven "signs" are not intended to showcase Jesus’ power but to validate his position as God’s Son.

These signs do more than simply validate Jesus or describe some event in his life. If Blomberg is correct, Jesus’ miracles, like his parables, are metaphors for the kingdom. They are, so to speak, enacted parables.

This is not to say that they are not historically true. Recent scholars have shown that an anti-supernatural bias is scientifically and philosophically indefensible. What it does say is that John chose to describe only certain miracles of Jesus because they pictured what his Messianic ministry was really all about.

Therefore, we must ask, "What does this sign point to?" Toussaint makes a couple of helpful suggestions:

First, the new wine at the wedding feast points to the coming kingdom. In the OT, it was likened to wine (Isa 25:6; 55:1; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13). In the NT, it is pictured as a banquet, especially at a wedding (Mt 8:11; 22:1-14; Lk 13:29; 14:15-24; Rev 19:7-9). It would be new and different from the old kingdom (cf. Mk 2:21-22).

Second, Jesus goes overboard. He provides much more wine than could possibly be needed. This super-abundance is also characteristic of the kingdom of God (Phil 4:7; Rom 5:20; 1 Pet 1:8; cf. Amos 9:13ff.). Thus, at Mary’s prompting, Jesus inaugurates his miracle working ministry, not publicly, but privately to his disciples. In doing so, he pictured what the coming kingdom was going to be like.

It marked the beginning of His public ministry; it manifested His glory; it was used to point His disciples to the Divine Son; and it was used to produce faith in His disciples.

We should also note that this being the first miracle declares as false stories about miracles performed by Jesus as an infant or a young child. They are nothing but superstitious fables and ought to be rejected by anyone who believes the Bible!

This miracle revealed His glory to the disciples and gave them a stronger foundation for their faith. Though miracles alone are insufficient evidence for declaring Jesus to be the Son of God (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10: "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, {10} and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved"), the cumulative effect of miracle after miracle should certainly convince them of His deity.

Without doubt, the belief prompted by the sign was not the fullest that Jesus desired. But it was an advance step beyond the initial belief that was only theoretical. The people had seen the miracle with their own eyes, and were able to draw the conclusion that a superior being was among them who had substantiated His claims by His deed of mercy and power.

J. Allen Blair writes: "Just as Jesus had saved the best to last (the wine), so the Christian can expect the best to be last. It's great to have the presence of Jesus in our lives daily, but we still have sorrows to bear, with much misery and pain. These are the days of the cross. But the crown and the throne are yet to come."

Jesus moves from the hill country of Cana to the shores of the Sea of Galilee, the stomping ground of the six disciples who follow him. Along with the six are Jesus’ four brothers and his mother. The fact that their sisters are not present may indicate that they are married and consequently saddled with domestic responsibilities.

Nine times the brothers of the Lord are mentioned. Six times they are directly connected with Mary (Mt 12:46; 13:55; Mk 3:32; 6:3; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12); three times they are not (Jn 7:3, 5, 10; 1 Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19). This is a good indication that these boys are natural sons of Mary rather than nephews or Joseph’s sons by a previous marriage.

The fact that Jesus entrusts the care of Mary to John from the cross (Jn 19:25-27), may indicate nothing more than his brothers’ rejection of him or the fact that being younger brothers, they were not as committed to her care as John.

As McGarvey notes (p. 120), this brief visit to Capernaum suggests several things:

1. It shows how the nobleman, who sought Jesus at Cana, could have become acquainted with him (Jn 4:46-54).
2. It shows Jesus’ movement away from Nazareth to Capernaum, which would become his "base of operations" (Mt 4:13; 9:1; Mk 2:1). This further suggests a certain dynamic in the relationship between the Nazarene and his Capernaum disciples as well as Jesus’ subsequent visit to Nazareth.
3. And it shows that Jesus did not just cut off his natural family ties, at least not until after the upcoming Passover.

————————————————

A special word study of the word "sign"

The gospel of John, more than the other three gospels, seeks to share the inner meaning--the spiritual significance--of our Lord's works, so that each miracle is a "sermon in action." There are four different words used in the gospels relating to "signs, miracles, etc."

1. Dunemos: translated "power" or "mighty work." This word comes from the word "dynamite;" it means and emphasizes "power" and usually is translated "miracle or mighty work." This Greek word is not used in the gospel of John.

2. Teras: translated "wonders:" Teras simply means a marvelous thing. It is a word with no moral significance at all. This is something that has an extra-ordinary effect on the senses. It "blows your mind" or "boggles the mind." A conjuring trick might be a teras.

The New Testament never uses this word alone of the works of God or of Jesus! It is used in John 4:48 but it is used in a chiding sense: "Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe."

This is a comment on hardness of heart. Jesus is saying that unless He does something that just "blows their mind," they're not going to accept His testimony. This was very often the occasion for Him to refuse to do it!

Jesus does not accept faith just on His ability to feed crowds, walk on water, or "make people's eyes bug out."

3. Ergon: translated "works" or "deeds." This is a generic word which refers to the activities of Jesus. In John the word almost always comes of the lips of Jesus (as in John 3:19-21; 4:34); "to the glory of the Father."

4. Semeion: translated "sign." The word is pronounced "say-me-on." A "sign" is something that points beyond itself to something greater. It was not enough for people to believe in Jesus' works; they had to believe in Him and in the Father who sent Him (John 5:14-24).

In chronological order, this "sign" at Cana of Galilee was the first. It indicates a miracle viewed as a proof of divine authority and majesty...hence, it leads attention of the spectator away from the deed itself to the Divine Doer.

What’s the point? The sign" points away from itself to the One who performed it; it told men something about the person who did it; it revealed something of his character; it was not an end in itself, but points to a reality greater than self. To John, the supreme thing about the miracles of Jesus was that they told men something about the nature and character of God.

Miracles gave the opportunity for faith; they didn't guarantee it. Did all the Israelites in the wilderness believe? No! Only two were saved, though all saw the miracles. Jesus worked miracles, but most rejected Him than ever believed on Him.

————————————————

The following comments are offered as summary, with some additional points, from Holman’s Bible Dictionary:

Events which unmistakably involve an immediate and powerful action of God designed to reveal His character or purposes. Words used in the Scriptures to describe the miraculous include sign, wonder, work, mighty work, portent, power. These point out the inspired authors' sense of God's pervasive activity in nature, history, and people.

Old Testament the two Hebrew words most frequently used for "miracle" are translated "sign" ('oth) and "wonder" (mopheth). They are synonyms and often occur together in the same text (Ex. 7:3; Deut. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 13:1; 26:8; 28:46; 34:11; Neh. 9:10; Ps. 105:27; Isa. 8:18; Jer. 32:20; Dan. 6:27).

"Sign" may be an object or daily activity as well as an unexpected divine action (Gen. 1:14; Ex. 12:13, RSV; Josh. 4:6 Ezek. 24:24. The basic nature of a sign is that it points people to God.

"Wonders" describe God's supernatural activity, a special manifestation of His power (Ex. 7:3), but false prophets can perform actions people perceive as signs and wonders. (Deut. 13:1-3). Wonders can serve as a sign of a future event. Signs seek to bring belief (Ex. 4:5; compare 10:2), but they do not compel a person to believe (Ex. 4:9).

At times God invites people to ask for signs (Isa. 7:11). The signs He has done should make all peoples on earth stand in awe (Ps. 65:8). They should join the Psalmist in confessing that the God of Israel "alone works wonders" (Ps. 72:18 NAS).

New Testament. The phrase "signs and wonders" is often used in the New Testament in the same sense as it is found in the Old Testament and also in Hellenistic literature. (Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22; John 4:48; Acts 2:43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 14:3; 15:12; Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12; 2 Thess. 2:9; Heb. 2:4).

"Sign" (semeion) in the New Testament is used of miracles taken as evidence of divine authority. Sometimes it is translated as "miracle" (Luke 23:8 NIV; Acts 4:16,22 NAS, NIV). John was particularly fond of using "sign" to denote miraculous activity (see 2:11,18,23; 3:2; 4:54; 6:2,14,26; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18; 37; 20:30; Rev. 12:1,3,; 13:13,14; 15:1; 16:14; 19:20)

"Wonders" (teras) translates a Greek word from which the word terror comes. It denotes something unusual that causes the beholder to marvel. Although it usually follows "signs," it sometimes precedes it (Acts 2:22,43; 6:8) or occurs alone (as in Acts 2:19). Whereas a sign appeals to the understanding, a wonder appeals to the imagination. "Wonders" are usually presented as God's activity (Acts 2:19; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 14:3; 15:12), though sometimes they refer to the work of Satan through human instruments (Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:11-13).

New Testament writers also used dunamis, power or inherent ability, to refer to activity of supernatural origin or character (Mark 6:2; Acts 8:13; 19:11; Rom. 15:19; 1 Cor. 12:10,28,29; Gal. 3:5; 2 Thess. 2:9; Heb. 2:4).

"Work" (ergon) is also employed in the New Testament in the sense of "miracle." John the Baptist heard of the "works" of Jesus while he was in prison (Matt. 11:2). The apostle John used the term frequently (5:20,36; 7:3; 10:38; 14:11,12; 15:24).

Worldview Considerations. Contemporary philosophical and theological arguments over the possibility and definition of miracle reflect the altered worldview of the last several centuries--from a theistic to a nontheistic concept of the universe.

The perceived tension between the natural and the miraculous is a by-product of a naturalism that is intent on squeezing out the supernatural realm of reality.

The people of the bible did not face this problem. The biblical perspective on the universe is that it is created, sustained, and providentially governed by God. The Bible makes no clear-cut distinction between the natural and supernatural. In the "natural" event the Bible views God as working providentially; whereas, in the miraculous, God works in striking ways to call attention to Himself or His purposes.

How do miracles relate to the natural order? Christian thinkers have responded in different ways throughout the centuries. Some hold that miracles are not contrary to nature (Augustine and C. S. Lewis, for instance). This harmony view contends that human knowledge with limited perspective does not fully understand or comprehend the higher laws that God employs in working the miraculous. Others (like Thomas Aquinas) have maintained miracles stand outside the laws of nature. This approach is called the intervention view, based on their belief that God intervenes in the natural order to do the miraculous.

One's view of the miraculous is related to one's view of the universe. A mechanistic perspective believes the world is controlled by unalterable natural laws and cannot allow for the possibility of miracles. Christians in every century have refused to have their universe so limited. They have affirmed the continuing miraculous work of God in the universe He created, continues to care for, uses to reveal Himself, and has promised to redeem.

Last modified: April 18, 2006