J.C. Ryle's closing comments on Jesus turning the water into wine.
"I cannot close the note on this wonderful miracle without saying something about the allegorical and typical meanings assigned to it by the Fathers and many other commentators. Many see in the miracle an allegorical history of the introduction of the Gospel into the world. Like the marriage feast, the Gospel was an occasion of joy. As at the marriage feast, the personal presence of Jesus was the great feature of the Gospel. The times of the Jewish dispensation were times of deficiency and dim light. The coming of Christ supplied all that was lacking. Revealed religion before Christ was like water. Christ coming into the world turned the water of the old dispensation into wine. The good wine was reserved until the time of Christ. The first miracle wrought by Moses was turning water into blood. The first wrought by Christ was turning water into wine.
These are undoubtedly pious thoughts and full of truth. I should be sorry to speak harshly of them, or to pronounce decidedly that they may not be legitimately deduced from the miracle. I only venture the remark that it is far wiser to abstain from allegorical interpretations as a general rule, and to be content with the plain meaning which appears on the surface of Scripture. Once begin allegorizing Scripture, you never know where you are to stop. You may prove anything and find anything in the Bible upon the allegorical system, and at last throw open the floodgate to a torrent of wild fanaticism.
The allegorical lessons drawn from this miracle by Augustine, Bernard, and Alcuin, are striking examples of the extremes into which allegory may run. When such a man as Augustine, for instance, tells us that the two or three firkins mean the two races of men, Jews and Greeks, or the three sons of Noah,--or when he says that the six waterpots in the miracle before us denote six successive prophetical periods in the days between Adam and Christ, one cannot but feel that there is something wrong. These are his words: “The six waterpots, containing two or three firkins apiece, are six ages, containing the prophecy belonging to all nations, whether as referred to two kinds of men, Jews and Gentiles, as the apostle often says, or to three, on account of the three sons of Noah.” The system of interpreting Scripture which can lead a good man into such assertions as this must surely be a dangerous two-edged weapon, and likely to do more harm than good.
That all our Lord’s miracles were deeply significant, I do not deny. That all were intended to convey deep spiritual lessons, beside supplying proofs of His divinity, I make no question. All I maintain is that they require reverent and delicate handling, and that to rush hastily into allegorical interpretations of them and invest every minute portion of them with a figurative meaning, is an unwise mode of handling Scripture, and eminently calculated to bring the Bible into contempt."Allegorical interpretations can be like potato chips, once you start, you can't stop. Were there 6 water pots at the wedding in John 2 because 6 is the number of man, the mark of the beast, and represented the emptiness of Judaism and will worship? Where the pots made of stone because the deadness of their religion and the hardness of their hearts? Or, because there were a lot of people at the marriage feast and they needed a lot of pots, and what else will you make a large pot out of? Did John make a point to tell us the number for a spiritual application or to give us the historical details, showing us this miracle couldn't have been a hoax?
This is something all Christians need to wrestle with. We should all be meditating on the Scriptures, and feeding our souls on Christ and His Word. I don't want to misinterpret the Scripture or have the Bible to be a text book. I quoted Ryle at length because I appreciate his spirit when he said, "I should be sorry to speak harshly of them, or to pronounce decidedly that they may not be legitimately deduced from the miracle." Certainly there are applications and good thoughts that can be drawn from the life of our Lord. For example, the main point of the passage in John 2 was not to show us how to obey by the servants example of hearing and obeying, but no doubt, there is a lesson there we can meditate on and drawn application from that text, and there is much truth to their example. It is neither untrue, nor out of place to draw out that application from the text. The disciples themselves may have thought through these very issues while the servants obeyed. Yet, I highly doubt they considered the mark of the beast. After it was all said and done, we read Jesus, "manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him," which I think is the main point. Who else but the Son of God could change the chemical compound of water into wine by the sheer power of His sovereign will?
Some think God can only do one thing at a time with His Word and have gotten the idea that a passage of Scripture can only mean one thing. It cannot have contrary meanings, but is most certainly may teach us and show us many more things than just the main point. A quick survey of the apostles use of drawing application out of the text shows this to be a valid form of interpretation. Was Moses thinking about pastors in a church that was a few millennia from its existence when he said not to muzzle the ox when he treadeth out corn? I doubt it (Deuteronomy 25:4, 1 Timothy 5:18). But does that text have spiritual application? Paul thought so. So did Peter, when he said Christ is our example in living in a wicked world (1 Peter 2:21). Christ is most assuredly more than an example, but he is our example. There is a difference between allegorical interpretation and drawing spiritual application. Yet, there is danger going too far with both.
What's the difference between application and allegory? The both are relying on truth (hopefully) from other places in Scripture. But application says, "Just as ..." and allegory says, "This means..." The application draws inferences from the text while the allegory tries to explain the meaning. So while the main point was not about marriage, we can see many inferences about marriage from this text, based on other passages. But to say the water pots represent, assigns a meaning to the passage and puts words in John's mouth, that probably were not there.
But, while some allegorical interpreters may teach truth from this passage, I don't think they are teaching the truth of the passage. A.W. Pink, for a time, was well anchored in his systematic theology and his fanciful interpretations were well moored. But, as he isolated himself from believers and stopped serving Christ in his church, his allegorical views outstripped his systematics and he became an amillennialist. He wasn't grounded by what the Scripture said, but what he saw in the Scriptures, even though his ministry was primarily verse by verse exposition. I highly recommend his biography, if nothing else, to track the trajectory of his spiritual life with his writings. No doubt, this is a very fine line and there are needed distinctions to draw. Even those who take a strict, one-meaning policy concerning the Scripture are guided by their systematic theology. If I know what I believe, I can probably see more things in the Scripture that confirm what I believe. Which can be looking at things backwards.
We need to use every tool in our disposal, pray as we study, be humble as we read and interpret, be rooted in serving in the local church, and worshiping with the local church, and read with firm reliance on the Holy Spirit. And be thankful for God's grace and patience as we come to His word to feed our souls, that He is long-suffering with us as we attempt to rightly divide the Scriptures.
No comments:
Post a Comment