Woman, What Have I to Do with Thee? By Robert Phillips, B.Sc., Sydney, May 2006. Updated: September 2007.

The title of this paper is taken from the AV translation of John 2:4. These words were spoken by Jesus to His mother and form a most peculiar question to pose to one's mother. They occur in the account of turning water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana which, on the surface, is a peculiar event in itself. We know from personal experience that we ourselves have not been able to understand this miracle and that is reason enough to study it in detail. As we shall see during this investigation, this miracle is not simply the account of an action by Jesus out the kindness of His heart. On the contrary, it conveys an explicit message to all Israelites. Commentators such as Alford (A), Nicoll (B), Ellicott (C), Robertson (D) and others were mystified by these words. They concluded Mary was central the event. In their opinions, Mary had a position of authority at the feast or was on intimate terms with the hosts of the feast. Hence, they claim, when she knew the wine was running out, she told Jesus, expecting Him to do something about it. These commentators claim that the words Jesus used in response to His mother's statement were intended to point out to her that He was no longer under maternal authority and that it was not yet His hour to perform any miracle. (They seem to think that the interval between His statement and when the water was actually turned into wine somehow made all the difference with respect to the coming of his hour!) Nicoll is the only commentator of those reviewed to address the closing statement of the account: and his disciples believed on him (verse 11). He states: What is there to elicit the faith and reverence of the disciples? He appears as King in physical nature (what does this mean?) . He can use it for the furtherance of His purposes and man's good. A hint is given of the ends for which this creative power is to be used. It is, that human joy may be full. These disciples of the Baptist perceive a new kind of power in their new Master, whose goodness irradiates the natural joys and domestic incidents of human life. When John recorded this miracle he saw how fitly it stood as the first, rehearsing as it did the entire work of Christ, who came that human happiness might not untimely close in shame. Wine had become the symbol of that blood which brought reconciliation and renewal. The undertone of this assessment is that because it is an event involving a wedding and wine, it is all about Gentle Jesus' meek and mild desire for everyone to be happy! However, Nicoll also tried to look for a deeper significance in the whole event and he cited another commentators assessment: Holtzman finds here an artistic Lehrdichtung, an allegory rich in suggestion. Water represents all that is mere symbol contrasted with spirit and reality. The period of symbolism is represented by the water of baptism of John: this was to find its realisation in Jesus. The jars which had served for the outward washings of Judaism were by Jesus filled with heartstrengthening wine. The OT gift of water from the rock is superseded by the

gift of wine. Wine becomes the symbol of the spiritual life and joy of the new kingdom. With this central idea the details of the incident agree: the helplessness of the old economy, "they have no wine" ; the mother of the Messiah is the OT community; and so forth. These paragraphs are typical examples of religiously driven interpretations of Scripture with no proper consideration of the underlying text. Nicoll, through Holtzman, is the only one to comment on the relevance of the wine, Mary's possible role and to make any attempt to connect the Old and New Covenants. If we want to understand this miracle any better than the commentators, then as with most passages in the Bible, we must examine the context in which the passage occurs and the meaning of at least some of the key words in the passage. We can determine the context of any passage by answering the questions. Defining the Context For the spoken words: To Whom? By Whom? Where? When? Why (intent)? What was actually said? For the environment in which something occurs: What had happened before this moment? What happens after this moment? What are the national circumstances affecting Israel? What are the circumstances affecting the people present? It will be helpful if we start by examining the environment in which the feast took place: What happened before this moment? In the two days prior to the event, Jesus had acquired His first five disciples John 1:37 records John and Andrew turning to Jesus 1, verse 42 records the arrival of Simon Peter and verses 4349 record the arrival of Philip and Nathaniel. As the disciples had only been selected during these two days, it was not possible for anyone to have included them in a formal wedding invitation, because formal invitations are usually sent well in advance of the event. This indicates that Jesus and His disciples were called only when it became known that they were in the district at the time of the marriage feast. All the commentators are of the opinion that this miracle took place on the third day after Jesus's baptism, but this is not so. Mat 4:1, Mark 1:12 and Luke 4:1 state that following His baptism, Jesus went into the wilderness and was tempted. Mark states He departed immediately after His baptism. Therefore, the subsequent visit to John the Baptist, selection of disciples and

the wedding feast were taking place during the first three days after Jesus returned from the Wilderness 2. What happens after this moment? At the end of the recorded miracle we are told in the AV that His disciples believed on Him. The Greek text uses the preposition eis, which fundamentally means into, not on, with respect to moving into the interior of an object. With respect to motion it can mean towards, which agrees with Gesenius' definition of eis, (in his discussion of the Hebrew preposition, le), which states eis means: into used of something passing into another condition, as though changed, transformed into something) (E). Hence, when eis is used in association with the thinking process it shows a shift in thinking from one viewpoint into another. In the context of this account, it indicates a complete change of disposition or attitude from the expectation of the Messiah which these men had held as disciples of John, to the conviction that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, as a result of all that had happened on this day and the previous two days. What are the national circumstances affecting Israel? At the time Jesus was born, the Judean nation was the only official nation of Israel present in the whole world. The history of the region was that the Southern Kingdom had been taken ________________________
1 Bullinger states that the un-named disciple is John, because he never mentions himself in his own Gospel. 2 Johns gospel starts with a brief summary of the manifestation of Jesus from the beginning until His appearance on Earth and of His purpose on Earth. Johns detailed account of Jesus life on Earth starts from His first public appearance after He overcame Satans temptation, because from that time forwards, Jesus has the authority to manifest Himself as Israels God, which is the theme of Johns gospel.

captive and other people, Edomites in particular, had moved in and occupied the former Israelite land. In due course, a group of Israelites (Judahites and Benjamenites) returned to this land under Cyrus authority, took up residence alongside the Edomites and re-built the Temple. Ezra and Nehemiah tell us that the returning people included those who could not trace their Israelite ancestry and a number of foreign wives (Ezr 2:62, Ezr 9 and 10). These non-Israelite people, together with the corrupted version of the law they were following, were ejected from the Israelite community after the Law of Deuteronomy was re-discovered and re-established. The rejected people naturally turned to the Edomite population for places to live and work. During the course of the subsequent 450 years, the Edomites lived so closely with the Israelites, especially in Judea, as distinct from Galilee, that they blended into the Israelite population, (as we can infer from the historical records and what we know of the society in Jesus day). Early in the history of the official Israelite nation, the Edomites adopted the corrupted version of the Law that had evolved in Babylon and was brought back to Judea by the returnees (F). By Jesus' day, the Judean nation had an Edomite king, an Edomite dominated priesthood and the corrupted law, which was known as the Tradition of the Elders, had re-emerged to displace the Law of Deuteronomy as the basis of national day-to-day life. What are the circumstances affecting the people present?

Nationally, their belief had become a non-belief, as opposed to disbelief, because just like the religious leaders of today, the Edomite priests had watered down and distorted the Old Covenant teachings to the point where the priests could not inspire or motivate the people. The priests of todays religions face the same problem (and even more so with dwindling attendance at church induced by their uninspired sermons). Given the above contextual information, we now need to consider the content with respect to the spoken words. But before we do, we should keep the following points in mind: As the miracle is presented only in John's gospel, it immediately tells us the miracle is concerned with Jesus presenting Himself as Israels God which we see Him do in performing this first miracle. Furthermore, it occurs on the third day, which tells us that it has something to do with perfection (because 3, used on its own, is always indicative of perfection (G)) and this suggests there may be a symbolic meaning associated with the miracle. The fact that there were five disciples involved should also catch our attention, because when five is used on its own in parables and other such narratives, it always indicates the presence of the Spirit of God (G). Notice also that these five disciples were knowledgeable in the Scriptures at least two of them, were active disciples of John. Those two followed Jesus immediately after John told them that Jesus was the Lamb of God. This association of five with spirit is the first clear indication that this miracle certainly has symbolic meaning and therefore we should look for further such indicators in the narrative. The fact that the event is a marriage should prompt us to remember that there was a marriage between God and Israel in the past and there will be another between Jesus and Israel in the future. As Israel is presented as the woman in both of the marriage relationships between God and Israel, when Jesus addresses His mother as Woman, it implies He was addressing her as the embodiment of the Israelite nation. This is clearer when we consider the description of Israel in Revelation a woman giving birth to a man child and then fleeing into the wilderness (Rev 12:1-6). On the national level, this is the history of Israel and on a personal level, it is also the history of Mary's life given that she went to England after Jesus resurrection (H). This explains why the bride is not mentioned in the account of this marriage feast, because Israel is not yet in the role of the bride to the resurrected Jesus. However, symbols aside, the reason no commentators have arrived at even a basic understanding of this miracle in the past is wholly and solely due to their failure to use the correct meaning of one of the key Greek words in this account: diakonos. The traditional lexicons agree that diakonos means devoted follower in 27 of its 29 occurrences (or "minister" or "deacon" if we include its attributed religious meanings). However, they also equally claim it means drink waiter in the two remaining instances both of which are in this account of the marriage feast (Appendix A discusses diakonos in more detail). Having decided the miracle is dealing with drink waiters, the various commentators interpretations inevitably head off in wrong directions to the confusion of all who follow.

At this point, we should ask the question: of all the groups of people present at the marriage feast (bridal party, relatives, friends, the five disciples, catering staff), which group could be characterised as devoted followers? The friends could possibly be described as loyal followers of at least the bride and/or groom. However, the logical choice is the five disciples devoted followers of God, as proven by their history of following John and seeking the Messiah. This is supported by the final comment concerning the miracle: that the mental disposition or attitude of the disciples changed into one of firm belief that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. As these five devoted followers were so involved in the execution of the miracle, we can start to perceive that this miracle was specifically intended to involve the disciples and was as much for their benefit as for the rest of Israel. Given the information we learnt earlier, plus these initial observations, it behoves us to look at the account in the next level of detail to see who said what to whom and with what intent. We are told in verse 1 that Jesus' mother was already at the feast. The Greek word translated there is ekei, which means there, in that place. The second word of the next verse is the Greek particle de (which, for euphonic reasons, is never the first word in the sentence, although that is where it must be placed in an English translation). De is used to connect bits of information in a sequence, but always with the idea of highlighting something different, in an opposing sense, to what has already been presented. In this case, it is drawing our attention to a difference concerning Jesus and the disciples they were not at the feast at its commencement. Consequently, the Greek word, de, in the second verse, should be translated but or on the other hand in this context, because although He had not been formerly or formally invited, as soon as the people hosting the wedding knew Jesus was in the district, Jesus and His disciples were called to the marriage . (The AV correctly translates kaleo as called, whereas the RSV has invited). The importance of the order and timing is that irrespective of His mother's role in calling Jesus to the feast, His attendance fulfilled the call of the people that was made in Psa 80: 1 Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. 2 Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh stir up thy strength, and come and save us. 3 Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved. 4 O LORD God of hosts, how long wilt thou be angry against the prayer of thy people? 5 Thou feedest them with the bread of tears; and givest them tears to drink in great measure. 6 Thou makest us a strife unto our neighbours: and our enemies laugh among themselves. 7 Turn us again, O God of hosts, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.

8 Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. 9 Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. 10 The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. 11 She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river. 12 Why hast thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? 13 The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it. 14 Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts [Elohim: Creator of hosts] : look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; 15 And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself. 16 It is burned with fire, it is cut down: they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance. 17 Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself. 18 So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name.19 Turn us again, O LORD God of hosts, cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved. Verse 1 is addressed to the Shepherd of Israel, a title Jesus claimed in John 10:11-14. The use of the names, Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh in verse 2, identifies a specific period in history. Ephraim and Manasseh are the names applied to Israel since their eviction from the Promised Land and are no longer in covenant relationship with God (I). The name, Benjamin, points to a time when, following the eviction, there is a discrete group of the tribe of Benjamin clearly identifiable in history. As Benjamin dwelt with Judah in the Southern Kingdom, the remnant that returned to re-build the temple would naturally consist of people of both tribes (which is confirmed by Ezra and Nehemiah). This remnant formed the only population entitled to use the name, Israel, at that time. This is why Jesus could make the statement not in all (official) Israel, Mat 8:10, because He was referring to this small official population in contrast with the much larger population of the Dispersion. Verses 4-7 describe the state of Ephraim and Manasseh, particularly as they saw themselves, in the 500 or so years following their eviction from the Promised Land. Verses 8-13 are a summary of Israel's history, including the consequences of her ejection from the Promised Land. Notice that Israel is referred to as a woman in verses 11 and 12. But verse 4 also shows an appeal to God and in verse 14, the appeal is a call to Israel's Creator to visit this vinewhich was occupying the land of verse 9. The four verbs in this verse are in the Imperative mood, meaning they are issued in the sense of commands or requests that are not expected to be rejected and as such they carry the tone of imploring or urging God to take the relevant action.

The Hebrew word translated, visit, in verse 14 of the AV, has a much more significant meaning than merely to visit. The basic meaning is to exercise oversight of a subordinate, either in the form of inspecting or of taking action to cause a considerable change in the circumstances of the subordinate, either for better or for worse. The "worse" option was foreshadowed in Mal 4:5-6: Behold, I will send you an Elijah the prophet (type) before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite The earth (formed by Jehovah Elohim in Gen 2:4) with a curse. Consequently, the first thing that Israel's Lord and Saviour did when He began His official "visit" in His role as the Lamb of God, was to respond to an official call to visit some of the people of the land. At the feast He could inspect the people and subsequently take appropriate action that would cause a considerable change in their circumstances in this case, for the better. Note also the completeness it was a call to visit the vine, and to underscore this connection to the psalm, we see the miracle involved wine, the final product of the vine. On the basis of what we have learnt to this point, it is giving the distinct impression that it is an allegory which means that every aspect of the miracle has symbolical meaning (see Appendix B for a summary of Allegory and several related Figures of Speech). Consequently, as part of looking at the context of the words, we also have to determine the symbolical meanings of the various terms and expressions. However, the fact that this miracle has not been properly explained for the last 2000 years indicates we need to look beyond the superficial layer reviewed by the commentators. The rules for symbol research are quite straightforward: 1. In each context, determine precisely how the word is used stand-alone, in combination with other words or in an expression (which may also be a title). For example, water, water and spirit, water of purification, living water. 2. Usage of expressions/titles is always consistent. For example, beasts of the earth, beasts of the field, and beasts are unique expressions that have specific meanings that are used consistently throughout Scripture. 3. Determine if the word/expression/title is being used in a figure of speech or in plain narrative. For example as rivers of water flowing as and like indicate the presence of a Simile. 4. Determine the context in which the word/expression/title is used. Is it part of a wider symbolic discourse or part of a simple narrative? For example, the water in the pool at the Bethesda Gate is literal (G), but the water Jesus offers (John 4:14) is symbolic. The first candidate for a symbolic meaning is wine, because the guests were running out of it and wine is what Jesus gave to them. A detailed search shows there is no clear one-to-one symbol relationship or symbolic meaning to be found in Scripture for wine 3. What we do find is that there are numerous places where wine is used on its own, numerous places where it is associated with bread and several instances where it is used in a title: wine of astonishment, wine of violence, wine of the wrath of God, wine of the fierceness of His wrath, wine of the wrath of her fornication. We also find a related figure of speech where the word cup or bowl is put for its contents: cup of trembling, cup of his indignation. When we apply the symbol rules to

expressions such as wine of astonishment, wine of violence and wine of the wrath of God it is apparent from their context that these expressions refer to the consequences of the events that lead to a state of astonishment, or to a state of violence that has arisen, or to a state where the wrath of God has been invoked and so on. In other words, the wine symbolises the outcome of a set of circumstances or, from a different angle, it symbolises the product of a process. Therefore, when we examine the wedding feast, we should be able to identify a set of circumstances or a process that is central to what is taking place. What we find is the wine was not produced until the devoted followers had taken water out of the pots and carried it in a container(s) to the governor. In other words, it was not produced until the devoted followers had obediently carried out a set of instructions, without question. Therefore, the full description or title of the wine produced at the wedding feast is Wine of Belief and Obedience. However, this title, together with the ones we identified earlier, only label the process that produces the actual outcome symbolised by the wine. If we look a little further, we find that bread is used in a similar manner. For example: bread of tears (Psa 80:5) and bread of wickedness (Pro 4:17). The latter is particularly interesting because it also speaks of the wine of violence. The verse reads: They eat the bread of wickedness and (so they) drink the wine of violence (Hebrew: chamas; Greek: para-nomos, meaning from under law). In this verse, and is used in its consecutive sense to show that one action follows to the other. We know that if we obey the Law and believe God that we can live peaceful, long, physical lives. In contrast, Pro 4:17 is telling us that Israelites who live a wicked life, will have lives complicated by violence of one kind or another. Harris et al(J) state chamas does not refer to the violence of natural catastrophes or to the violence of a police chase on TV. Vine states chamas connotes disruption of the divinely established order of things (not obeying the law). It is associated with sinful acts, that is, contrary to the Law and it embraces wrongdoing of a community, such as widespread miscegenation, Gen 6:11. These days, we see it as broken homes, strife and rebellion between family members, upheaval due to alcohol and/or drug abuse, social unrest, crime, blatant opposition to the things of God etc, etc. (All of which is common in our national life, which is itself directly attributable to the sum of our individual obedience / disobedience, knowingly or unknowingly.) ______________________________
3 Jesus' words at the Last Supper, This is My blood, are addressed in Appendix B.

The state of affairs portrayed by Pro 4:17 is the opposite of eating The bread of The life and consequently, through obedience, drinking the wine of belief and obedience, which is eternal life. It follows, therefore, that the title, Wine of Belief and Obedience, also applies to the wine that the guests were lacking (Greek: ustereo) at the feast. The people at the wedding were representative of national Israel: the nation that was the vine brought out of Egypt (Psa 80), married to God in Sinai, and then cast out of the Promised Land because of their disbelief and disobedience, which placed them under the penalty of eternal death that is, no eternal life. Hence, when Jesus came to visit thisvine, as per the call in Psa 80 and the call to attend the

feast itself, that is precisely the state in which He found them. Cast out and through lack of belief and obedience, following the Tradition of the Elders, instead of the Word of God. And this is the point at which the heart of the allegory begins 4. Notice that Mary is not referred to by name she is called the mother of Jesus, or his mother. This indicates that we are not to focus on the individual, but on the role that she was filling. Today we have the same manner of speaking as in Psa 80:11-12 when we refer to countries, such as Great Britain, as she and mother country (referring to the origins of colonial people). We mentioned earlier that the vine brought out of Egypt was married to God in Sinai which means Israel is presented symbolically as a woman and we see this carried through the Bible in the Song of Solomon, Revelation and in Psa 80:11-12, above. Hence, as the only female mentioned in the miracle, the mother of Jesus is speaking as the voice of the nation of Israel in saying they (the people) have nowine (of belief and obedience) they have no eternal life. In reply, Jesus makes the only logical statement He can at that point, using words that catch the attention of all who hear or read them, (even though they do not understand them): Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. Jesus uses the word translated, woman, for at least three reasons. Firstly, it was a form of address to a Queen or a female of distinction (Mary was a Princess of David's line in her own right). Secondly, He was addressing her in the role of the woman, Israel. Thirdly, it is consistent with referring to Israel as a woman in Psa 80. The more literal translation of His words is what is it to me and to thee or more loosely what have we in common. This reply makes perfect sense when we realise, that Israel was in its cast off state of punishment, under the sentence of eternal death, and Jesus could do nothing until His hour came the time after His death and resurrection by which means He could redeem Israel 5. _______________________________
4 It is important to note that wine itself is not a symbol of eternal life. The wine is the product of a process. In the context we are studying, the wine, (the product) is eternal life. However, Rev 14:8 reads: Babylon, The great, of whom out of The wine of The excitement (Bullinger (V)) / poison (Bullinger (L)) / fury (Nicoll) of The fornication (idolatry or anti-God behaviour, directed against Israel) of her has made all The nations drink. In this verse, the wine, the product, is the religion of material gain and humanism. (The whole expression in verse 8 is itself the outcome of the process initiated by the final rejection of Edom in Acts 28:17-28.) In Rev 14:10, the wine, the product, of the wrath of God (poured out without mixture, meaning undiluted), is retribution for what was done against Israel in verse 8, above. Hence in each case, the identification of the wine depends on the context. Nor is this type of usage unique to wine. Leaven is used in precisely the same way. Leaven represents doctrine or a set of principles and values, which can be correctly or incorrectly applied. In the case of the leaven of the Pharisees (Mat 16:6) the principles and values are corrupted, but in the case of The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto leaven (Mat 13:33), the principles are pure and produce a completely different change or outcome. 5 The importance of the timing of these events is underscored in the interchange between Jesus and the Syro-phoenician woman in Mark 7:25-29 and Mat 15:22-28 (N). The woman, knowing she was an Israelite and believing God, considered she could appeal to Jesus for help. However, as Jesus had not yet redeemed the lost sheep of the House of Israel, the way was not open for this woman of the Dispersion to be entitled to approach Jesus in such an open or direct manner. When she recognised and acknowledged her status, as stated in

Mark 7:28, Jesus granted her request. Note that in this case, and in the case of the Centurion of Mat 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10, Jesus indicated the requests were granted because of the strength of the belief of the individuals concerned.

The commentators interpret Jesus' words to His mother as Jesus distancing Himself from her maternal authority and as reproof of her expecting Him to perform a miracle. But if that was the case, where is the evidence of such an expectation in the text and why did He immediately perform the miracle? Like Caiaphas in John 11:49-52, Alford makes a most significant statement, but has no idea of its relevance: There certainly seems beneath this narrative to lie some incident which is not told us. For not only is Mary not repelled by the answer just given, but she is convinced that the miracle will be wrought What Alford and the others fail to appreciate is that Mary had been involved with Jesus all His life told Him everything associated with His birth, which means that from the time Jesus could read and comprehend Isa 7:14, He knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt, who He was and from Gabriels words, relayed by Mary, He knew His mission. From that point, Mary had seen Him grow and learn the Scriptures; saw Him debate with the priests in the temple when He was 12 and so on. He would also have told her and taught her of the things He was learning as He grew up. With Jesus as her son and John the Baptist as her cousin (Luke 1:36), it is reasonable to assume that Mary had an accurate and detailed understanding of the Scriptures and she would have known a great deal about Jesus' general plans and the role He had to play. Consequently, when Jesus returned from the wilderness and was accompanied by disciples, Mary would have realised that He was now embarked on His primary mission. Therefore, with all that background knowledge and experience, when Jesus spoke those words to her, she would have instantly recognised the symbolism in His words (and perhaps the symbolism in her own words, spoken without forethought). This is why she was not offended by Jesus reply. (She may also have realised the connection to the Psalm). It was for any or all of these reasons that she immediately spoke to the devoted followers 6. Consider the disciples' state of mind at this particular moment, and perhaps the looks on their faces. Within the last three days John the Baptist himself had identified this man as the expected Messiah (the first witness) and two of them had left John forthwith. The next day, three more joined them and Jesus demonstrated His all-knowing vision (John 1:48-51) and in response, Nathaniel immediately proclaimed Jesus was the Son of God and the King of Israel (the second witness). On the third day they were called unexpectedly (from the disciples point of view Jesus would have known it was going to happen) to a wedding where they found themselves in the middle of a very curious exchange of words between the woman who had been prophesied to be the virgin mother of the Messiah (the ________________________
6 Scripture presents other examples of this narrative style in which it is obvious that the audience has fully understood what had just been said and/or the action that took place at the same time as the words were spoken. The most notable is Jesus' words from the stake

My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me? (Mat 27:46). The religious pundits generally assume this cry reflects something to do with Jesus' misery at this lowest point of His life and death struggle. What they fail to appreciate is that Jesus was quoting the opening words of Psa 22. As soon as the priests observing crucifixion made the connection to the Psalm, they realised they had just fulfilled the incidents written in the Psalm. And they quickly melted away from the scene as if they could somehow deny their personal responsibility for the event. Another example occurred in John 8:1-11, when the Scribes and the Pharisees brought the woman taken in adultery. As they accused her, Jesus wrote in the dust on the ground. When they pressed Him further, He spoke to them and then He wrote on the ground again. This means they could see the writing and hear His words, but we are not told what Jesus wrote or said. However, the Greek text says that when they heard, (Greek: akouo which means they heard, understood and thereby acted), they left, one by one, starting with the eldest. So, what did Jesus write? It clearly was not a shopping list or the directions to Jerusalem. It was something to do with the case being presented to Him. The first time He almost certainly wrote something to do with the Law of Adultery (which required the man and the woman to be brought to judgement). When He spoke, it was probably very brief, such as are you sure? and then He probably wrote something to do with the Law of False Witness (that false accusers were to suffer the same punishment as the accused). The oldest ones, being that bit more experienced, understood it first that they themselves were guilty of perverting the course of justice and they deserved to die accordingly as each one grasped the drift of what was unfolding, he promptly left the scene.

third witness) and the Messiah Himself. Do you think all five of them might have been feeling just a little stunned and/or out of place? Mary immediately recognised the men with Jesus as His disciples, because He had had no such followers prior to this time. Consequently, seeing the somewhat blank or slightly bewildered looks on the faces of these devoted followers, she spoke reassuringly to them. Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. We cannot tell from the words themselves, or from the context, whether Mary was making a general statement or a specific one focused on an expectation that something would happen. Either way, her words would have given the disciples the confidence to do whatever Jesus commanded, without question or doubt. They had been reassured by this woman of prophecy who was the mother of this man, that they could do His bidding with confidence and all would be well. Nicolls comments about what happened next are one of those "truly insightful" statements that only religious commentators can make: It is difficult to assign any reason for giving the number and capacity of these jars, except that the writer wished to convey the idea that their entire contents were changed into wine. This should settle any doubts about Johns account being an allegory. We are told there were six stone jars. Six is the number of man (G), so this tells us that allegorically, the jars represent people. The only people represented by stone up to this point in Scripture are the people of Daniel's Kingdom (Dan 2:34,35) that was cut out of stone and expanded to fill the whole earth (that Jehovah Elohim made in Gen 2). This point is confirmed by the volume of fluid each jar contained two or three firkins. When used together, two and three are the numbers associated with witness (G). This should take our mind to Zec 4:11-14, where we find the only group of men on the earth that are inherently witnesses of God. The association is confirmed in Rev 11:1-4. This means the allegory is addressed to the former Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel. The continued existence of the Israelites, without even saying a word, makes them living witnesses of God's continued existence. The water that was put into the jars is the essential element of life. Hence, allegorically, the devoted followers correspond to the prophets of Scripture.

The prophets of old acting in accordance with God's instructions, laid before the people the word of God the essential element of eternal life. We also know that such everlasting life is attained only by those who believe God and do the Will of My Father. Hence the work of the prophets was to provide Israelites with as much of the essential element of life as they could possibly provide ( filled to the brim) to enable Israelites to gain everlasting life, if they hear Moses and the prophets (Greek: akouo: to hear, understand and act). In summary, we see five devoted followers, the five disciples, being commanded to fill with water, six stone jars with a capacity of two or three firkins. We can "read" and "translate" this sequence of numbers into a working English expression quite easily (G, K). The "translation" of the numbers also needs to take into account the roles of the entities associated with the numbers. In this case, the disciples are active agents (providing the essential element of life the water), and the stone jars are passive elements. Therefore, we can "translate" the number sequence as follows: The Spirit of God (5) nurturing (providing the essentials of life to) men (6) who are Israelites (stone) and witnesses (2, 3) of God. These particular devoted followers were told to draw water and take it to the Governor of the Feast. At this point the water was still water. It was only during the carriage to the Governor of the Feast that the transformation took place. It took place only because of the belief and the obedience of the five disciples in following the commands of Jesus. The product or consequence of their actions of belief and obedience was beautiful wine in bountiful supply allegorically, Eternal Life, Abundant Life (Greek: zoe). We see exactly the same process of belief and obedience leading to a miracle in the account of the healing of the ten lepers in Luke 17:14: Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, (believing they would somehow be healed if they obeyed Jesus words) they were cleansed (from sin) and later, while still en route to the priests, they realised their leprosy was gone. To underscore the message, the stone jars are described as being used to hold water in the manner of purifying of the Jews. That expression was used to show that despite the Tradition of the Elders presenting the need to follow certain purification rituals, the Israelites were still under the sentence of eternal death. That is, the Tradition of the Elders was of absolutely no value for teaching Israelites what they needed to know about God, belief and obedience7. The Governor of the Feast was a ceremonial role. His task was to organise the order of the sustenance the food and drink. This is similar to the role of the High Priest he was responsible for the sustenance of the souls/spirits of the people of Israel. When the Governor of the Feast discovered there was better wine available late in the feast, rather than at the beginning, he went to the bridegroom and his words indicated that the bridegroom had superseded the Governor's task. The Governor's words attributed the supply of the better wine to the bridegroom, which, allegorically, is quite correct, because Jesus, as the future Bridegroom of Israel, ended the role of the Aaronic Priesthood, and introduced a "new wine" (in the sense of a different flavour) which was better than any of the old wine. This is confirmed in Jesus sayings concerning new wine in old skins and men preferring old wine (the comfort zone of their beliefs under the Tradition of the Elders) to new wine (the new teachings of Jesus under the New Covenant 8).

The Bridegroom's words in response to the Governor's comments are not recorded because they are not part of the allegory. The allegorical bridegroom's role of providing the food and wine for the guests was filled by Jesus Himself who provided the wine of belief and obedience, which is eternal life, to Israelites who want to drink it. In verse 11, the disciples believed in Jesus because they had just partaken in the process themselves and had seen first hand that it was because of their own belief and obedience in following Jesus' instructions that the wine appeared. To underscore the point, John inserts the expression (in verse 9) but the devoted followers who drew the water knew. This form of sentence construction is called Interposito(L) it consists of adding a sentence, not at the end, but in the midst of another sentence, which has no grammatical connection with what precedes or follows. It has a close connection with it, but it may or may not be necessary to the sense. There are several categories of Interposito and the one used here is called Epitrechon or Running Along, which refers to a sentence, more or less short, that is thrown in as a quick explanatory remark. John inserts it to show that it was at the same moment that the Governor expressed surprise or delight in tasting the wine that John and the other disciples __________________________
7 By way of completeness, Holtzman refers to the water being used for ablutions, which raises questions of whether the wine refers to an equivalent role for the marred souls of sinful Israelites (K). However, wine does not appear to be connected with washing anything, except in Gen 49:11. On the other hand, wine is prominent in the descriptions of the sacrifices where it is poured out at the base of the altar. This use, together with its other uses with bread, point to the use of bread and wine together as part of a celebratory meal, which is discussed in detail elsewhere (M). As the Levitical sacrifices could not achieve the absolute setting aside of sin, there were no grounds for participating in a celebratory meal after sacrifices associated with wrong doing, hence the wine was poured out. This is why the bread and wine together became so significant at the Last Supper Jesus' body was in the process of being broken and His blood being given, as He spoke (because the event was taking place during His three days and three nights in The heart of The earth). The mechanism for absolutely setting aside Israels sin was being enacted before their eyes and therefore the bread and wine could finally be consumed. When the Dispersion encountered this same bread and wine ceremony, they knew from their knowledge of the sacrifices that this was a celebratory meal. When that meal was associated with the life and death of the Lamb of God, they realised that the Messiah had come and that their sins could be finally set aside. (Appendix B provides more discussion on this topic.) However, the account of the marriage feast involved only wine by itself (see also Appendix C). 8 Jesus did not change the Law in any way. He simply re-enforced and re-directed people to the Law, as it was given, and He raised living by the Law to a higher level, by making it far more personal than had hitherto been the case.

knew (Greek: oida: perceived, know perfectly, especially as revealed by God) how, when and why the wine had been produced. The disciples knew it had not come out of the stone jars, because they had poured water into the vessel(s) they took to the Governor. They perceived from the Governor's comments that the water had turned into wine as it was taken to the Governor, after the devoted followers had demonstrated their own belief and obedience. In contrast, the Governor did not perceive (Greek: oida) anything about how, when or why the wine came to be available (which is also true of the lack of understanding of the Edomite High Priest of Jesus day).

Conclusion There are no metaphors or similes in the account of the Marriage at Cana, but as we have seen, the expressions used in describing the events are loaded with significance that teach us far more than what is actually recorded. This makes the account allegorical and that means it is based on the figure of speech called continued Hypocatastasis (representation by implication). The implication itself is brought to our attention by the question, Woman, what have I do to with thee? , and the numbers used in the account. At the next level down, it is highlighted by the word that should be translated devoted followers and the stone jars. Having figured out that much from the information already given in Scripture, we are expected to be able to work out the remainder for ourselves. It is clear from this investigation that the miracle at the marriage feast in Cana has nothing to do with Jesus telling His mother she no longer had any control over Him, as the commentators reviewed here would have us believe. Instead we find that the whole event presented as an allegory that summarised perfectly (the third day): Israel's current state of non-belief What Israelites must do to gain their eternal life believe and obey That Israel's bridegroom is the means by which we achieve the desired outcome. The message was pertinent to the dispersed Israelites of Jesus day because their dispersion was bought about through their national disbelief and disobedience. And it is just as important today because of the quality of our individual and national belief and obedience is less than it should be. The miracle took place for the benefit of, and specifically involved, the newly selected disciples so that they knew without a shadow of a doubt who Jesus was and that they had indeed found the Messiah. This is why Peter, who had also been a participant in the event, did not hesitate to say that Jesus was the Son of God (Mat 16:16). We can also glean from the information given in the text that these five particular men were knowledgeable of Scripture and were actively seeking the Messiah. That is why they understood so quickly what had taken place. The miracle not only convinced these five disciples, but enabled them to assure each of the 7 other disciples that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. We noted at the start of this paper that nobody has previously understood this miracle. Having discovered its message, it is not unusual to wonder why it should be hidden in the first place and why it should take so long for it to be revealed. The fundamental message, that we must believe and obey God, has been clearly delivered by the Bible in general, because even the minor monotheistic-based sects comprehend that principle. And therein lies the distinction. People who read this paper are confronted with brand new, absolute evidence (versus interpretation) of the very limited scope of the message. The message beneath this miracle was delivered to people of the stone kingdom who are witnesses of God only. Whether or not we individually accept that evidence is a matter of our own personal interpretation and belief. The point being that such divergence, where it

exits, rest with us, not with God. More importantly, putting the revelation of this particular message along side, say, the correct explanation of Peters sheet let down out of heaven (Acts 10 (N), the correct translations of John 3:16 (N), Gal 3:16 (N), the correct meaning of words such as gentiles (meaning nations not heathen) and christos (meaning anointed not a surname of Jesus) etc, etc, should provide sufficient evidence to challenge the broader-than-Israel view of the scope of the Bible that is based on the same verses, without the same thorough analysis. The truth of the exclusiveness of Israel had to be hidden from all and sundry because nationally Israel was to be blind to its identity and that was necessary for it to survive for 2500+ years in the wilderness, out of covenant relationship with God. If the exclusiveness of Israel was widely known across the planet, Israel would have had no peace as the rest of the world sought to pull her down just as Korah and his followers sought to pull down Moses and Aaron (Num 16:1). Far more importantly, however, by hiding the exclusiveness of Israel down through the ages, it also means that even from the days of Moses and Aaron, people have had to make the effort to actively decide what they believe as opposed to passively following the herd. I was born in the Church of England and I will die in the Church of England. That is good enough for me., so said a work colleague one day. The Church of England and all other religions are built on the grounds of insufficient analysis of the basis of their beliefs. Messages such those hidden in the miracles of the feeding of the 5,000 and 4,000 (O) make one pair of witnesses 9, and the miracles of the lame man at pool at Bethesda (G) and turning the water into wine at Cana (another pair of witnesses), together with the volume of evidence in the Exclusiveness of Israel book (P) etc, etc, are coming to the fore in these latter days to force us to decide whether we are hot, cold or lukewarm (Rev 3:16). Those who are only lukewarm also suffer an undesirable fate. The value of these newly revealed messages of the four miracles is their very newness. One could say that the bulk of the discussion over the last 50 years has been about the same old verses, over and over, from different angles. Now we have four sets (2 x 2: compounded witnesses) of new verses that show when every recorded element is correctly taken into account, they present clear, comprehensive, unambiguous messages. It is now merely a matter of what each of us want to do with that information. It is also equally clear, for the first time, that the ultimate message of the Kingdom parables (M) is that it is not how much we know that matters or how clever we are, but whether or not we have applied ourselves to the full extent of our God-given abilities. Everyone who believes and obeys to 100% of their ability is on precisely the same footing as everyone else who does the same, no matter how much they actually know individually, or how individually clever they are. The only question is what do we individually believe and obey? Gods perfect word or something else? ________________________
9 Jesus fed the crowds on two separate occasions (5000 Matt 14, Mark 6, Luke 9 and John 6; 4000 Matt 15 and Mark 8). The clue to understanding these events is in Mat 16:9-12 (where the loaves are seen to refer to the doctrine of Jesus , that is the word of God) and John 6:12 (where He tells the Disciples to gather all the broken off pieces so that not anything (worth account) is lost).

The 5000 men represent the people of God (5 being the number of the Spirit of God). The two fishes are also the people of God, which had been divided into two parts, official Israel in Judea and the cast-off Israel of the Dispersion. The 5 loaves are the words of God being fed to the spirits of these people. And they (the Disciples) lift up 12 baskets full of the abounding broken off pieces that is, as a result of hearing the words of God and responding to them, the 12 tribes are lifted or raised up into covenant relationship with God once again. The 4000 men represent the peoples of the nations of the earth. The few diminutive fishes (a different word from that used in the feeding of the 5000) represent Israel as the scattered few amongst all the peoples of the Earth. The 7 loaves are the words of God that have been separated for His people (that is, delivered only by Israels prophets and contained in Israels Law) that the Disciples spread through the nations where Israel has been scattered. And they (the Disciples) lift up 7 baskets full of the abounding broken off pieces that is, despite the whole earth hearing Gods word, only the separated people of God respond and are lifted up out of the nations like fishes from the sea. Jesus told the Apostles in Matt 16:9-11 that if they did not recognise the significance of the numbers, they would have trouble comprehending the whole purpose of His coming. It was only after the incident of Peter and Cornelius (Acts 10) that the Disciples finally realised the full import of these miracles.

The final proof: In long form, taking into account the figures of speech, Jesus words to Mary are: Woman, who is Israel, what have we in common, because you are under sentence of eternal death and I can live forever? The un-stated answer is: we are kinsmen, which is why Jesus went ahead and immediately provided the wine of belief and obedience so that His kinsmen, represented by the woman, could also live forever.
References A. Alford, H., The New Testament for English Readers, Rivingtons, London, 1868. B. Nicoll, W.R., The Expositor's Greek Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, circa 1900. C. Ellicott, C.J., Editor, A Bible Commentary for English Readers, Cassell and Company, London, circa 1900. D. Robertson, A.T., Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 volumes, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1930. E. Cowley, A.E., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Second Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1970. F.* Phillips, R.K., The Times of the Gentiles Nations!, Sydney, January, 1995 G.* Phillips, R.N., The 38 Years, Sydney, July, 2005. H.* Jowett, G.F., The Drama of the Lost Disciples, Covenant Publishing, London, 1980. I.* Phillips, R.K. and Phillips, R.N., America-Manasseh Fact or Fallacy? , Sydney, October, 2000. J. Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 Volumes, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980. K.* Phillips, I.R. and Phillips, R.N., Sin it is not for everybody, Sydney, May, 2004. L. Bullinger, E.W, Figures of Speech used in the Bible, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Ninth printing, 1982. M.* Phillips, R.K. and Phillips, R.N., Who are My Brethren? , Sydney, October, 2001 N.* Phillips, R.K., It is Written, Canberra, Reprinted, 1989. O.* Phillips, R.K. and Phillips, R.N., The Book of Revelation (Part 2 - The Seven Assemblies), Sydney, April, 1992.

P.* Kennedy, A., The Exclusiveness of Israel, New Zealand, 1998. Q. Cremer, H., Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1977. R. Arndt, W.F. and Gingrich, F.W A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Second Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1979. S. Dunbar, G., A Greek-English Lexicon, 4th Edition, Maclachlan & Stewart, Edinburgh, 1844 T. The Analytical Greek Lexicon, Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, London, 1971. U. Vine, W.E., Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Oliphants, London, 1969. V. Bullinger, E.W., The Apocalypse of The Day of The Lord, Third Edition, Eyrie and Spottiswoode, London. 1935. W. Berry, G.R., Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Seventh Printing, 1984.

Appendix A. Servants The contention of the standard lexicons is that the Greek word, diakonos, in the account of the marriage feast at Cana means servant or drink waiter on these two occasions only and that everywhere else it means devoted follower. This appendix summarises that evidence and draws a different conclusion. Cremer (Q) states that: In doulos, the relation of dependence upon a master is prominent, and a state of servitude is the main thought In diakonos, the main reference is to the service or advantage rendered to another Diakonos represents the servant in his activity for the work, not in his relation, either servile, as that of doulos or more voluntary, as in the case of therapon, to a person. It is clear in the Pauline writings, diakonos always denotes one employed in God's service. It is remotely possible to extend Cremers comment on diakonos to the work of drink waiters, but it is certainly drawing a long bow to do so. Arndt and Gingrich (R) state diakonos refers to a servant of someone, such as a king or of the Gospel, as applied to the Apostles and other prominent Christians. More generally, it is used of a helper. As with the other lexicons, it includes the deacon role within the church, which is inappropriate, because Jesus did not found any church. The only scriptural references given to support a meaning of diakonos as a waiter on tables are the two verses in Johns account of the marriage feast, which puts the servile nature of a servants or waiters work in direct opposition with the otherwise accepted meaning of the word. Dunbar (S) states diakonos refers to a minister (Latin) or an agent, an attendant or a servant, (but not a slave), employed in public or private affairs or those of the church. Again this is clearly at odds with the accepted understanding of the servile nature of a servants or waiters work. Bagster's lexicon (T) states a diakonos is one who renders service to another; an

attendant, servant; one who executes a commission, a deputy; devoted follower John 12:26 If any man serve (diakoneo) me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant (diakonos) be: if any man serve (diakoneo) me, him will my Father honour. These are not words one readily associates with everyday servants or drink waiters. Vine (U) gives a long commentary of diakonos under the heading of deacon rather than of servant which is consistent with his religious background. He states it primarily denotes a servant, whether as doing servile work or as an attendant rendering free service, without particular reference to its character. His only reference to its use as domestic servants is John 2:5 and 9. He says diakonos applies to: Jesus The civil ruler The followers of Jesus in relation to one another The "servants of Christ in teaching and preaching" and those who serve in the "churches" (Greek: ekklesia which means called-out assembly, which is different from a religious church). He goes on to say that diakonos is, generally speaking, to be distinguished from doulos, a bondservant, slave; diakonos views a servant in relationship to his work; doulos views him in relationship to his master. This view is certainly consistent with the accepted view of a church deacon, but not of a drink waiter. Vine gives the example of Mat 22:2-14 where those who bring in the guests (verses 3, 4, 6, 8, 10) are douloi and those who carry out the king's sentence (verse 13) are diakonoi. However, this completely misses the fact that in that account, the douloi and diakonoi are different classes of beings. It will be the Elect people of Israel who are in attendance at the Marriage Supper where this event takes place and they are the ones who do the binding (M). The only evidence given by the lexicons, and the commentators, to suggest diakonos means drinkwaiters is its use in the verses we are studying in John. Their conclusion is based solely on their interpretation of the event that it is focused on Jesus telling Mary she no longer has maternal authority over Him. So, while it could be argued that a marriage feast is a different context from all the other places where diakonos is used, translating it as drink waiter and trying to comprehend the account at face value, leaves too many loose ends, such as why five disciples, why six stone jars and why 2 or 3 firkins capacity. On the other hand, using the accepted meaning of devoted follower immediately unlocks the meaning of the account and quickly points to it as an allegory and then there are no loose ends. Therefore, to give diakonos the meaning drink waiter in the context of the marriage feast at Cana is a religious contrivance invented to try to explain what is written in the absence of sufficient knowledge about the recorded details of the marriage feast. Appendix B. This is My blood One of the important components of Scriptural language is the rich use of Figures of Speech. We use many such figures in everyday English without

even realising it: as mad as a hatter; I told you tentimes; a bad case of Mondayitis and so on. To understand the Marriage at Cana and Jesus' words at the Last Supper, This is My blood, we have to understand two specific Figures of Speech, Allegories and Metaphors 10. Allegories and Metaphors belong to the broad classification of figures that affect the application of words (rather than their meaning or their order) and to the sub-classification of those affecting the sense of what we hear or read. Bullinger states (L)these figures have to do with change ; not that there is any real or absolute change, but because there is a deviation or change from the literal , or from the more ordinary and usual application of words. This change is brought about and prompted by some internal action of the mind, which seeks to impress its intensity of feeling upon others. The meaning of the words themselves continues to be literal: the figure lies in the application of the words. This application arises from some actual resemblance between the words, or between two or more mental things which are before the mind. When the literal application of the words is contrary to ordinary plain human experience, or to the nature of the things themselves, then we are compelled to regard the application as figurative though the words themselves still retain their literal meaning ; otherwise, the application would lose all its force and all its point. A number of the figures in this classification (affecting the application of words) are closely related because they involve making comparisons: Resemblance or Simile: a declaration that one thing is like (or resembles) another. Comparison is made by resemblance and the two sides of the comparison are stated. You are like a beast! Representation or Metaphor: a declaration that one thing is, or represents, another. Comparison is made by representation. It is made by substituting one thing for the other. It boldly declares one things is another. You are a beast! Implication or Hypocatastasis: a declaration that implies resemblance or representation. Comparison is made by implication. It is a declaration that implies the Resemblance or Representation or comparison by Application. Only one noun or one side of the comparison is given and the other is implied. Beast! (The implication is that it is you.) The example of Hypocatastasis presented here is similar to the way the word Woman was used by Jesus: Woman, what have I to do with thee? Bullinger states that symbols are created in two steps: first through Metonymy or Metaphor, by which something is said to be something else and secondly by Hypocatastasis, by which something is implied to be something else. Israel had already been identified metaphorically as a woman in verses such as Isa 62:5, Eze 36:17, Amo 5:2 and by hypocatastasis in verses such as Psa 80:1112, Eze 16:28 and Jer 18:13, so there are plenty of grounds for Jesus to use the term woman in an allegorical sense in addressing His mother. In long form, taking into account the figures of speech, Jesus words to ____________________________
10 Bullinger states: A Figure is simply a word or a sentence thrown into a peculiar form, different from its original or simplest meaning. It may be asked, "How are we to know, then, when words are to be taken in their simple, original form (i.e., literally), and when they

are to be taken in some other and peculiar form (i.e., a Figure)? " The answer is that, whenever and wherever it is possible, the words of Scripture are to be understood literally, but when a statement appears to be contrary to our experience, or to known fact, or revealed truth; or seems to be at variance with the general teaching of the Scriptures, then we may reasonably expect that some figure is employed. And as it is employed only to call our attention to some specially designed emphasis, we are at once bound to diligently examine the figure for the purpose of discovering and learning the truth that is thus emphasised.

Mary are: Woman, who is Israel, what have we in common, because you are under sentence of eternal death and I can live forever? The un-stated answer is: we are kinsmen, which is why Jesus went ahead and immediately provided the wine of belief and obedience so that His kinsmen, represented by the woman, could also live forever. Continued Metaphor and Hypocatastasis or Allegory: continued representation and implication. Bullinger states: that the modern and common usage of the word allegoria is quite different from the Scriptural definition given Gal 4:22,24: "It is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh : but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which things are an Allegory: or, which things teach or tell us something beyond what is said. According to the modern sense it (an allegory) is taken to mean a fictitious narrative which has another and deeper meaning than that which is expressed. An allegory may sometimes be fictitious, but Gal 4 shows us that a true history may be allegorised (i.e., be shown to have further teaching in that which actually took place) without detracting from the truth of the history. Here note this important fact: that, in either case, Allegory is always stated in the past tense, and never in the future. Allegory is thus distinguished from Prophecy. The Allegory brings other teaching out of past events, while the prophecy tells us events that are yet to come, and means exactly what is said. The marriage at Cana is clearly showing there is further teaching over and above the description of the event and hence it should be treated as an allegory. The statement that an Allegory is always stated in the Past and never in the future does not seem to match the examples that Bullinger cites, in which Aorist, Present and Future tenses are used. The statement that an allegory is something to " teach or tell us something beyond what is said" seems to be the more appropriate definition when we consider, for example the unusual wording , "Woman, what have I do with thee?" in the context in which Jesus spoke to His mother. The combination of curious words and scripturally significant numbers in the description of the Marriage at Cana shows that the comparisons are implied (Hypocatastasis). As the commentators reviewed in this paper do not know the Scriptural significance of any of the key expressions in the description, it explains why the meaning of this account has not come to light previously. But interestingly, the significance of these same expressions would have been clear to the Disciples, because they grew up with such symbolism (Mat 16:9-11) where as we have to learn it, bit by bit, and slowly, laboriously, stitch it together.

 Parable (Continued Simile) or Parabola: comparison by continued resemblance. It is a continuation of a Simile. The Kingdom of Heaven is like . Bullinger states: in the New Testament instances of the word, it is used of a story with a hidden meaning, without pressing, in every detail, the idea of a comparison.As the name of a Figure of Speech, it is limited to what we may describe as repeated or continued Simile an illustration by which one set of circumstances is likened to another. It consists in likeness, not in representation, and therefore is not a continued Metaphor, as some have said; but a repeated Simile. This likeness is generally only in some special point. One person may be like another in appearance, but not in character, and vice versa; so that when resemblance or likeness is affirmed it is not to be concluded that the likeness may be pressed in all points, or extended to all particulars. For example, a lion is used as a resemblance of Christ, on account of his strength and prowess. The Devil is likened to "a lion" because of his violence and cruelty. Christ is compared to a thief, on account of his coming, being unexpected; not on account of dishonesty. The resemblance is to be sought for in the scope of the context, and in the one great truth which is presented, and the one important lesson which is taught: and not in all the minute details with which these happen to be associated. The interpretation of the parable must be further distinguished from any application which may be made ofit. For example: in the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt. XXV. 1-12), the interpretation belongs to some special point of time immediately preceding the return of the Lord to the earth. This is indicated by the word Then, with which it commences, and by its place in relation to the context. Any lesson for ourselves, as to watchfulness on our part, must come asan application of it to present circumstances. Parables are used from the resemblance of one thing to another. The thing, or history, or story may be true or imaginary: but the events must be possible, or likely to have happened: at any rate those who hear must believe that they are possible events, though it is not necessary that the speaker should believe them. One word of caution, however, we must give: and that is concerning the object of parables. The common idea is that they are intended to make things clear and plain. Hence every young minister and Sunday-school teacher turns to the parables as though they were the simplest things in the world. Whereas they were spoken that the truth might be veiled from those who ''seeing, see not : and hearing, hear not." See Mat 13:10-17. Hence they are among the most difficult portions of God's Word. Repeated Simile or Syncrisis: repetition of a number of resemblances. By way of completeness, it is worth noting the difference of the Comparison figures from other figures in the same general classification of figures affecting the sense of what we hear or read:

 Fable or Apologue: fictitious narrative used for illustration. The narrative involves impossibilities, such as trees or animals speaking and reasoning. If the Fable is explained, the explanation becomes an Allegory. Proverb or Paroemia: a wayside saying in common use. Type: a figure or example of something future called the antitype. Symbol: a material subject substituted for a moral or spiritual truth. Enigma or Aenigma (Dark Saying): a truth expressed in obscure language. Bullinger gives some additional illustrations of these various figures and a further comment: If we compare 1Pe 1:24 all flesh is as grass (Simile), with Isa 40:6, all flesh is grass (Metaphor), we can see that the metaphor is not as true to fact as the simile, but is much truer in feeling. A good example of a metaphor is identifying a photograph with the words this is my mother. The verb, is, when used in a metaphor means represents and no other verb can be used. In the example of the photograph, it does not necessarily resemble the mother. It must be clearly understood that a metaphor is confined to a distinct affirmation that one things is another, because of some association or connection in the uses or effects of anything expressed or understood. In a metaphor, the two nouns must be mentioned and are always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense or else no-one can tell what they mean. The figure lies wholly in the verb or copula, which in English must always be expressed and never understood by Ellipsis. The representation made in a metaphor may not lie on the surface and may not be at all apparent in the language itself. It may be in the uses of the thing represented, or in the effects which it produces. I am the bread of life this is a metaphor; what bread does in supporting natural life, Jesus does with respect to spirit life. But remember that the metaphor itself is a statement of something that is true tofeeling , not true to fact . If it is a fact, it is absolutely not a figure. For example, what is flesh is flesh is a statement of fact. When we read the statements at the Last Supper, we find the expression, this is My body, which is a metaphor, but it has another interesting attribute. If Jesus had said the bread is my body, bread is masculine whereas body is neuter which is perfectly acceptable in a metaphor. However, when a pronoun ( this) is used instead of a noun, it is not put in the gender of the noun to which it refers, but the gender of the second noun. (This is why the formation of the figure lies in the verb, rather than in the noun.) Now consider the following two verses: John 6:33: For The bread of The God is The one coming down out of The heaven and giving Abundant Life to The order (of Israel). John 6:51: I am The bread, The living one, The one having come down out of The heaven; if anyone eats of this, The bread, he will live to The age, but even so, The bread which I will give is The flesh of Me (Myself) , for The Abundant Life of The order (of Israel).

(Four of the seven Critical Editors delete which I will give(W).) In these two verses, Jesus is stating that He will give His body for the Abundant Life of the Order of Israel. This is the price that the Kinsman-Redeemer has to pay to redeem Israel. It is only by Jesus laying down His perfect physical life, His flesh, that we can meet the fundamental requirement for being entitled to live eternally. Then this thought is combined with the blood in John 6:53,54: 53. Unless ye eat of The flesh of The Son, The one of man, and drink of him The blood, ye have not Abundant Life in yourselves. 54. The one eating The flesh of me and drinking The blood of me has Abundant Life eternal and I will raise him in The last day. The presence of the verb in the Greek distinguishes the metaphor from two nouns that are in Apposition. For example, the Greek text of Mat 26:28 and Mark 14:24 contain the verb to be, estin, but it is not present in Luke 22:20, which reads This The cup The new covenant. In Apposition, the first noun, or its equivalent, The cup, is explained by the second noun, or its equivalent, The newcovenant, it is not adding a new idea. The second noun identifies the same thing as the first noun, but under a different name. Consequently, the most meaningful way to translate the Apposition is to insert an expression, in parenthesis, such as The cup (which is) The new covenant, which helps the reader comprehend the relationship. In our language today, we often use one noun in place of another. For example, we use the word sandwich in place of Lord Sandwich, who invented that form of food and we often say I need a sandwich as a substitute for I need some lunch. These are examples of the Figure of Speech called Metonymy: using one name or noun instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation. In the sentence, This The cup (which is) The new covenant in The blood of Me, The one being shed for you. , The cup is used by Metonymy for its contents, the wine. Given what we have seen in this study about the use of the word, wine, we can see that the expression, in long form, is saying, This the wine of belief and obedience (which is) the new covenant in The blood of Me. The expression in The blood of Me, Luke 22:20, deserves closer attention because, on the surface, its meaning is not clear. The Greek preposition translated, in, is en, which refers to a place (particularly to the limits of the space in which something is situated); of state, occupation, habit; of the thing by which an oath is made; of the instrument: means, efficient cause; of time: during, in the course of. This preposition always takes the Dative case (which identifies the indirect object of the action) and hence, in this context, it is pointing to the instrument: the means, or efficient cause, by which the new covenant is established. The means or law in or according to which something is done with or through The blood of Me. That is, with, by or through the belief and obedience of Jesus, which in turn is according to the Law of God. As the Kinsman-Redeemer, Jesus had to give His physical life His body for the redemption of Israel. He did it as an act of belief and obedience. When He said This is my body which is being given for you, this do in remembrance of me, it is a direct reference to His Kinsman-Redeemer role. Hence, eating the bread is in memorial of His physical life, given in our stead, because with His perfect life, death had no hold over him. When He said For this is the blood (metaphor) of me of The covenant concerning many, being poured

out for setting aside of missing marks it is a direct reference to His act of belief and obedience in the Father in doing this thing. By drinking of the wine, we testify to our own belief that Jesus can set aside our wrong doing. The bread and wine ceremony of the Last Supper is distinct from and came after the Passover Meal, (both which could be eaten only by Israelites, Exo 12:3 Heberw: qahal, the called out assembly, versus edah, the whole camp). The ceremony was instituted as a memorial of the Kinsman Redeemers act of laying down His life in our stead and as an affirmation of our belief and obedience that He is the Son of God and that He will resurrect us. To eat of His body is to follow Jesus statement man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding out of a mouth of God. (The expression a mouth refers to any of the manifestations of God, such as Jehovah and Jesus, and any of the Scriptures, such as the prophets, Great Pyramid and the Zodiac). To drink of His blood is to follow His directive to believe and obey. When we eat the bread, we ceremonially affirm that we live by the Word of God and when we drink the wine, we ceremonially affirm we believe and obey the Word of God. Appendix C. Wine and Strong Drink Wine (Hebrew: yayin) is made from grapes by fermentation. The process begins as soon as the skins of the grapes are cracked during the crushing process in the vat. In the fermentation process, newwine refers to the first wine that is taken from the crushing process. It is a cloudy liquid that is white in colour (all grape juice is white the colour comes from allowing the skins to be in contact with the wine during processing). From that point onwards, the wine is aging and it will either age rapidly or slowly, depending on how much air (oxygen) is allowed to come in contact with the wine (oxidation) the more air, the more rapid the aging. Vinegar is the end result of complete oxidation. The alcohol is produced by the action of yeast converting sugar into carbon dioxide (which bubbles off) and alcohol. It is a self limiting process the yeast die when either all the sugar is gone or the alcohol level reaches the tolerance limit of the yeast, which is between 5 and 21%, depending on the strain. Brewers yeast can tolerate 5% alcohol, whereas the average wine yeast can tolerate 10-15% alcohol. Hence the wine output could vary as much as 300% depending on the predominant strain of yeast in the vat. Sugar can also limit the fermentation process, depending on the process and the yeast strain. Some strains can tolerate high sugar levels, others will produce more alcohol if sugar (or more sugar rich juice) is added during the fermentation process to maintain the energy source for the yeast until the alcohol kills the yeast. Typically, the fermentation process occurs in two stages an oxygendependent stage (typically 2448 hours, when the yeast are rapidly increasing their cell count in the mixture), and a reduced or no oxygen phase (when the yeast are merely converting the sugar, rather than increasing their population). The no-oxygen (anaerobic) phase can last up to several weeks. The winemakers of Biblical days obviously knew about these two phases

that is why they put the wine in skins or stone jars the carbon dioxide replaced the oxygen in the air above the wine. As the fermentation continued, the amount of carbon dioxide increased which caused the skins to expand (hence the need for new skins for new wine) or leaked out around the cap of the stone jars. Presumably, fermentation was continued until is was stopped by the alcohol content and left in the skins or jars, under the layer of carbon dioxide until it was decanted (with or without straining, depending how long it had been standing) for consumption. Strong drink (Hebrew: shekar) is usually thought to be an alcoholic drink made from other fruits or grains, typically barley, or honey or dates. By definition, it had a high alcohol content. If honey or dates were fermented to make the drink, it may have had more alcohol due to the high sugar content, but it would depend on the type of yeast used in the fermentation. Consequently, it is more likely that the classification of wine versus strong drink was based on the potency of the product how much affect one or two glasses would have on a person. Either way, strong drink had more alcohol per cup than the drink designated as wine.