[3] You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of Yahweh,
and a royal diadem in the hand of elohayik.
[4] You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate;
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for Yahweh delights in you,
and your land shall be married.
[5] For as a young man marries a young woman,
so shall your builder marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall elohayik rejoice over you.
——————–
This is the Old Testament selection to be read aloud on the second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year C, according to the lectionary for the Episcopal Church. This will precede a singing of a portion of Psalm 36, which includes the verse: “How priceless is your love, elohim! your people take refuge under the shadow of your wings.” That song will be followed by a reading from Paul’s first letter to the true Christians of Corinth, where he wrote: “You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.” All readings will accompany the Gospel selection from John, where we are told: “On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.”
Verses 1-3 of this selection were part of the first Sunday after Christmas reading, Year C, read just three Sundays prior to this one’s presentation. Those three verses can be found interpreted by clicking on this link, but I will repost what I wrote then. Now, I will say that then – when parts of two chapters were linked together for one reading – the point was to show a focus on divine marriage, followed by focus on acceptance of a divine name from that marriage. The three verses from this reading (the first three) are then relative to a divine birth. Now that the Epiphany has passed, we read those three, plus two more verses, which all are themed on having received a divine name; and, the after the Epiphany period is when one, as Jesus resurrected and in that name also, should see the responsibility that comes with that.
This that follows is what I posted in my commentary for the first Sunday after Christmas reading selection of Isaiah 61:10-62:3.
With the grand conclusion of chapter sixty-one’s song being a divine marriage, the new song sung in chapter sixty-two is relative to a wife assuming the “name” of her Husband. The title given to this song by the BibleHub Interlinear translation is “Zion’s Salvation and New Name.” The NRSV gives the song the title “The Vindication and Salvation of Zion,” while the NIV says: “Zion’s New Name.” This comes from the second word of verse one being “ṣî·yō·wn” (from “צִיּוֹן֙”), which is translated as a name, not a word of meaning. The word “zion” means, “Dry Place, Sign Post, Tradition; or, Fortress.” Each should be given some thought as to what this means, rather than think a reader today in Omaha, Nebraska is asked to understand where Zion was then.
When verse one is translated to say, “For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest,” the meaning of “zion” must be seen as Isaiah singing about his old name, where his ‘single’ soul was “a dry place.” He sacrificed that for the flood of emotions that was outpoured upon him by Yahweh’s Spirit. It says Isaiah would no longer be a “sign post” that pointed the way to sin, as he would only point the way to the salvation of other souls. It says Isaiah would no longer adhere to meaningless “traditions,” as an Israelite without understanding what that meant; as he would begin the new “tradition” that would be Christianity (before that word was commonly used). This then leads one to look up the meaning behind the word “Jerusalem.”
The word “yə·rū·šā·lim” (from “יְרוּשָׁלִַ֖ם”) means, “In Awe Of Peace, Teaching Peace.” This then means Isaiah (a prophet attempting to return captives from Babylon) was more inclined to be in awe of the peace of Yahweh and teach that peace to others, than he was concerned with returning Israelites to Judah, where they could become Jews. The places Zion and Jerusalem were no longer the future, just as a brides name was no longer that of her father. Having been given away in marriage, she would take on the name of her Husband. And, for Isaiah that meant not resting his soul when there were others who needed to be found and saved.
That is then sung in the words: “until her vindication shines out like the dawn, and her salvation like a burning torch.” The “vindication” is not revenge for having been overthrown and forced into captivity, but to vindicate that by learning to accept divine marriage as a wonderful marriage desired. That desire is then the beacon of Yahweh’s light that shines forth as truth. The “dawn” is an awareness of why a soul is chosen to be Yahweh’s. It is to save that soul through divine union, based on a love that is a “burning torch,” which will then lead the way for others to see.
When Isaiah then sang in verse two: “The nations shall see your vindication, and all the kings your glory,” this says a marriage to Yahweh cannot come by decree. It was the nations of Israel and Judah that kept the truth from the people, causing them to be led to ruin. The “kings” of “nations” become reflective of the soul seeing itself as all-important, as the ruler [remember “adonay”?] of its body of flesh. When one has retained self-importance, one cannot see the light that leads one’s soul to salvation. The “vindication” such souls find is forced captivity and slavery. When one cannot escape slavery in the physical realm (ever), one should seek to find a form of slavery one loves. That is marriage to Yahweh and taking on His name.
This is then why Isaiah then sang, “and you shall be called by a new name that the mouth of Yahweh will give.” This is the same name that was told to Jacob, after he wrestled with himself all night long. When he was pronounced to be “Israel,” he had submitted his soul in marriage to Yahweh. That name means “Who Retains Yahweh as His elohim.” Of course, now that we know the name Jesus – which means “Yah[weh] Will Save” – all true Christians will take on that name in divine marriage. When Isaiah sang “the mouth of Yahweh will give,” that does not mean a booming voice will come from heaven, nor an angel will appear and say, “You are now Jesus.” It means oneself will then become “the mouth of Yahweh,” which is then the “name” one will be given – Jesus – when one enters ministry, having been born anew.
When Isaiah then sang in verse three: “You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of Yahweh,” this is a way of saying one will be a “Christ” or a “Messiah,” where the “crown of beauty” becomes the halo that comes from the divine presence of Yahweh and His newborn Son. It says one’s soul will no longer project the ugliness of a sinner, as one will behold the “beauty” of a saint. None of this will be store-bought cosmetics. Instead it will all come from the presence of Yahweh – His inner presence and glow shining outward – because one will have become His “hand” on the face of the earth.
The final segment of verse three then sings, “and a royal diadem in the hand elohayik,” where once again a word meaning “hand” is used [“bə·yaḏ” first, followed by “bə·ḵap̄”]. After becoming “a hand of Yahweh,” one then incorporates oneself as “a hand” that welcomes others to the altar of marriage with Yahweh. This is where the plural presentation of “elohim” is written as saying, “of your elohim” [“elohayik”]. This expresses one’s soul having become the possession of Yahweh [“your”], where that possession leads one to be His servant in ministry [an “elohim”]. This is then relative to one’s soul being a “lord” that wears the “royal diadem” in service, as one with the necessary experience to offer a “hand” to guide others likewise.
These three verses then point to the separation that comes after divine union with Yahweh, as His brides becoming His wives, where one is then a resurrection of the Son, which makes Yahweh both Husband and Father. This is the delivery of baby Jesus, which turns a wife into a mother. Thus, the two themes sung by Isaiah are connective because one naturally leads to the other. It is the only reason for marriage: to bear a child.
With that assessment of verses one through three kept intact, I will now add an interpretation of verses four and five, with these two being the primary intent of this repeating of this coming from Isaiah 62, just a short while after being presented to consider.
Verse four shows to begin by stating, “You shall no more be termed Forsaken.” I do not know why they felt the need to capitalize “forsaken,” but what is stated by Isaiah is, “never again shall you speak of abandonment.” This becomes a statement of the eternal marriage of divinity [the “royal diadem” is a “halo” of righteousness] that can never be broken. Divorce was an issue the Pharisees and Sadducees tried to trick Jesus with, knowing some arranged marriages (especially those when a wife proved unable to have children) should be terminated. However, once a soul has given birth to the Son of Yahweh, becoming a mother and wife, there is no justification for divorce (divorce is then motivated by adulterous desires).
This is confirmed in the next set of words, which the NRSV shows as saying: “and your land shall no more be termed Desolate.” While the word “ū·lə·’ar·ṣêḵ” is a transliteration of “eretz,” which means “land, earth,” Yahweh was not speaking through Isaiah about his property holdings. When “your earth” is seen as that surrounding “your soul” (which is what Yahweh marries and in which Jesus is reborn), “your earth” becomes metaphor for “your flesh.” Since no one can ever say “your flesh is desolate,” that refers to the only legitimate excuse for divorce, which is barrenness (other than adultery). This says one’s body is fertile, which is capable of producing new growth.
When verse four then turns to what appears to be two names: Hephzibah and Beulah, this is why the NRSV capitalizes “My Delight Is in Her” [the meaning of “Hephzibah”] and “Married [the meaning for “Beulah”]. Again, the use of “eretz” becomes the confusion that says, “your land (shall be called) Married.” This says that Yahweh has not taken on any barren wife-souls, so nobody can say His wives are abandoned or desolate. Instead, they will be called Yahweh’s Delight, where “delight” must be seen as “pleasing.” This becomes a statement about Yahweh being quite attracted to a soul He marries, because that soul has done everything necessary to make Him happy with the sincerity of love and devotion a soul has shown. It is then from that ‘match made in heaven’ that the wife of Yahweh will most definitely be known as “Married” to Him.
When the remainder of verse four says, “for Yahweh delights in you, and your land shall be married,” this is restating the reality of “Hephzibah” and “Beulah.” It reaffirms that “Yahweh” likes what He sees in one’s soul; and, Yahweh is All-Knowing, so there is no chance He is wrong about what is in a soul’s heart. This means the soul and Yahweh’s Spirit will certainly be merged together; but that demands one realize why two become married in the first place. It is not to have sex without producing a child, as that is fornication. Marriage is the union of a man, into a woman, for the purpose of making a child. So, the certainty of “married” is saying the soul will produce His Son, Jesus.
When the NRSV translates verse five to begin stating, “For as a young man marries a young woman,” the Hebrew words denote “young man” [from “bachur”] but not “young woman.” The Hebrew written – “bə·ṯū·lāh,” transliterated from “bethulah” means one thing: “virgin” [although “maiden” can be used, meaning the same thing]. This can imply youthfulness, as a “virgin” is a female who has reached puberty, having never been penetrated by a man. It is not a female of promiscuity, or one on some form of birth control, who has been around the block quite a few times and knows well the feel of a penis inside her vagina. Again, one must realize that Yahweh is not looking to have sex with a soul, as neither have reproductive organs that tingle when touched physically. Yahweh is planning on penetrating the soul spiritually; and, that spiritual penetration will have never been experienced by a soul marrying Yahweh before. That means the Spirit of Yahweh comes on like a “vigorous young man,” entering the soul of one made pure by redemption, therefore a “virgin” spirit.
In the following words, Isaiah wrote “shall rule over your sons” [from “yiḇ·‘ā·lūḵ bā·na·yiḵ”], making the NRSV translation that says “so shall your builder marry you.” The word “baal” is capable of translating as “marry,” but also “rule over.” When “marriage” is seen as the penetration demanding offspring, “your sons” [from “bā·na·yiḵ”] now points to the joy that comes from a “bride” joining with the “bridegroom.” This “rejoicing” [from “ū·mə·śō·wś“] is not about the penetration of marriage, but the “rule” of the Father over the Sons. Here, the plural number must be recognized, which says one child is not enough, and only “sons” are produced by Yahweh. This needs to be seen Spiritually, where Yahweh is both the Husband and the Father, while the soul [those in male and female bodies of flesh – all “sons”] is both the wife and mother of “sons.” All Sons are Jesus, which means “Yahweh Saves,” so being in the name of Yahweh means Yahweh has “rule over” all souls reborn as Jesus.
The plural number of “your sons” is also what is the truth of a “church,” where all wives are Anointed by Yahweh (the penetration), thus all are Christs. When all are then the “sons” in the name of Jesus, then that which becomes “rejoice”-worthy is that known as Christianity. In the days of Isaiah, when nations were falling into ruin because very few were “sons” of Yahweh, the wish (prophecy) was for Christianity to come. Thus, “ the bridegroom [Yahweh] rejoices over the bride [souls of the wayward, who have repented and been cleansed].”
The final word of verse five is “elohayik,” which commonly translates as “your gods” [a plural number word]. Here, I regularly preach the plural number Hebrew word “elohim” means “the angels of God in human flesh.” Those who are reborn as Jesus are Yahweh elohim.” The possessive case that adds “your” to this state of being needs to be turned around, so it is Yahweh who possesses His elohim, with each elohim [an el] being His possession. One “el” becomes one of many elohim, which becomes “your family of angels in the flesh.” Again, this specific word was used in verse three; and, it was interpreted exactly the same, which is copied and pasted from the first Sunday after Christmas commentary, shown above.
As a reading purposefully chosen to repeat [partially] on this second Sunday after the Epiphany, the point should be to see the marriage relationship that is established after the Son of Yahweh has been born. The marriage of a soul to the Spirit of Yahweh [His penetrating powers coming into one’s “earth”] brings about the “sons of you,” who are the collective of His wife-souls. There is then an extension of a family relationship, which includes Father and Son. By seeing Yahweh will “rule over the sons,” this becomes a statement about ministry. While the purpose of marriage is to produce a male heir, the purpose of parenthood is to raise that Son to be worthy of an inheritance. When this is all known to be on the Spiritual level, then all you mothers of Jesus need to be out of the pews and spreading the truth for other to realize.
6 Your righteousness is like the strong mountains,
your justice like the great deep; *
you save both man and beast, Yahweh.
7 How priceless is your love, elohim! *
your people take refuge under the shadow of your wings.
8 They feast upon the abundance of your house; *
you give them drink from the river of your delights.
9 For with you is the well of life, *
and in your light we see light.
10 Continue your loving-kindness to those who know you, *
and your favor to those who are true of heart.
——————–
This is the Psalm that will be read aloud in unison or sung by a cantor on the second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year C, according to the lectionary for the Episcopal Church. This song will follow a reading from Isaiah, where the prophet wrote: “for Yahweh delights in you, and your land shall be married. For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your builder marry you.” That pair will precede a reading from Paul’s first letter to the true Christians of Corinth, telling them: “There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone.” All will accompany the Gospel reading from John, where Jesus performed his first miracle, as we read from this: “Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.”’
These six verses chosen from this song of praise will only be sung on this Sunday in Year C [verse eleven will be added for a presentation on Monday of Holy Week each year]. The other verses will never be sung in an Episcopal church, with reason. The NRSV gives this Psalm 36 the title: “Human Wickedness and Divine Goodness.” My BibleHub Interlinear reference for the Hebrew text calls it, “There is No Fear of God Before His Eyes.” From those differences in title, “human wickedness” and “fear” leading one’s soul-flesh are linked. That focus is found in the omitted verses; so, that omission – focusing only on “divine goodness” – is the intent of these selected verses being sung during this “after the Epiphany” time period.
You will take note that I have restored the specific proper name, “Yahweh,” and placed each in bold type, to highlight the error that must be recognized to come when one calls Yahweh “the Lord.” Such a translation into English is a dangerous aspect of semantics, where a generic term like “the Lord” leans the sheeple to keep a distance from the God they say they worship. True worship of Yahweh means to love Him intently, so one’s soul is asked to wholly sacrifice itself to His Spirit, at the sacrificial altar of divine marriage. To come into a deeply spiritual relationship with one’s Husband means no marriage can be consummated when the wife feels forced into submission, thereby calling her dominator her “Lord” and “Master.” These selected verses are heavily seeped in words of “love” and affection, meaning David’s soul was a wife to Yahweh; and, a wife in true love of her Husband knows His name … because marriage means a wife takes on that name forevermore. The name “Jesus” – the child born of divine marriage – means “Yahweh Saves” (not “the Lord Saves”).
When one sees this state of “love” being equated to “divine goodness” [NRSV title], then the “human wickedness” must be seen as reflecting the traits of people who refuse to marry Yahweh [preferring to call Him some forceful over-“Lord”]. In reality, all human beings [souls occupying bodies of dead flesh for a period of linear time] are born pure, only to be turned away from Yahweh as worldly existence grows. This means the reason David began with the filthy and fearful, before changing the tune to love and roses, is because that is the path all humans follow. Unless you are Jesus, John the Baptist, young Mary and young David, you begin life leaning towards waywardness, not salvation. Thus, the omitted verses are the dirty little secrets we all know from our pasts; and, now [the second Sunday after the Epiphany, when everyone is supposed to have given all that up for good] is not the time to air dirty laundry.
When the NRSV translates verse five to sing, “Your love, O Lord, reaches to the heavens, and your faithfulness to the clouds,” that is not a good presentation through paraphrase. Perhaps their seeing “Yahweh” being clearly written and their “fear” of that being a name only Jews use made their perception be clouded? The literal translation of the Hebrew text written is this: “Yahweh in the heavens your goodness ; your fidelity , even to the dust .” There is great meaning here, which is not seen in the nebulosity of “heavens” and “clouds.” Let me explain.
When Old Testament writers speak of “heaven” or “the heavens,” this is not to be understood as them imagining the depths of outer space or the endlessness of the atmosphere surrounding the earth. That imagery becomes metaphor for the all encompassing spiritual presence that reflects a soul married to Yahweh [the specific name written]. Next, the possessive personal pronoun “your” must not be read as oneself having any ability to project upon Yahweh, as “your goodness” to give, or “your” expectations that Yahweh will maintain “fidelity.” The possession is one’s soul being totally that of Yahweh’s possession, so David was singing about his “goodness” that had been given to him by Yahweh, through His presence within that was leading David. Likewise, it was David displaying commitment to Yahweh, such that “your fidelity” is not Yahweh being faithful, but Yahweh’s presence brings true faith to David, which he never wanted to lose. David was faithful to Yahweh out of love, so David’s return gift to Yahweh was his “fidelity.”
When the translation of “šə·ḥā·qîm” [from “shachaq”] is most often translated as “clouds,” this misses the viability of the word to fully mean “a powder (as beaten small): by analogy, a thin vapor; by extension, the firmament — cloud, small dust, heaven, sky.” [Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance] When “fine dust” is seen as the minute cells of one’s body of flesh, all of which came from dust and to dust they will return, the commitment being expressed by David (his “fidelity” to Yahweh) is then stated to last forever – “even to the dust”. When one reads the prior verses that speak of wickedness, a soul in human flesh can now be seen as an invisible shape that has been covered with a fine powder that gives it appearance in the material realm. Seeing this, David was singing about the wickedness being powder that would be blown away by the winds of divine love [like “the clouds” shift and dissipate], with the “fine dust” having no ability to blind one from the “goodness” beheld of Yahweh, leading to absolute trust in Him.
When verse six then begins by stating “your righteousness” [“ṣiḏ·qā·ṯə·ḵā,” form of “tsedaqah”], here again it is impossible for any human being to ever think he or she has any right or ability to determine Yahweh to be “righteous.” Yahweh IS. When one’s soul-flesh becomes the possession of Yahweh [the intent of “your”], then that previously “wicked” soul-flesh suddenly knows what “righteousness” is [an Epiphany]. The actions of the soul in the flesh cannot be equated to the totality that is unfathomably Yahweh.
By seeing that, the following comparison that mere human beings make is the great heights and impossible strength and inner depths that are the manifestations of “mountains.” This is then a statement that it would be easier for a soul-flesh entity to become as great as “a mountain,” than to ever begin to compare one’s tiny soul-flesh to His magnitude. Still, when one has been given the ability to become upright and righteous, through the presence of Yahweh, one becomes “like the mountains” because one has become an extension of Yahweh on the physical plane; and, here, unrecognized by the NRSV translation, one’s soul-flesh is said to be an “el,” which means one has become one of the many angels in the flesh that are Yahweh’s elohim. A soul married to Yahweh is transformed into an “el” that carries with it (invisibly) the “righteousness” possible in Yahweh’s elohim.
This then leads to David singing about “your judgments,” where (again) these are the “judgements” of Yahweh made possible for one of His elohim to understand. When this is then said to be “the great deep,” which is both “the abyss” and a “sea” of knowledge that the subconscious mind has access to, the word translating as “great” is better realized as “many.” This becomes reminiscent of David singing about the Leviathan and the “sea” of souls it swims among. The Leviathan is both a “sea monster” that devours those trying to maintain self-identity amid turbulent storms; but it also is the Spirit that overtakes a soul and leads it, making it synonymous with Spiritual possession. To then combine “judgment” with the “sea” or “deep” is then David singing that marriage to Yahweh offers the promise of eternal life, among the sea of souls He has released into the physical realm.
It is in this remembrance of the Leviathan that one can see the combined words – “’ā·ḏām- ū·ḇə·hê·māh” – which have been translated separately by the NRSV, as “man and beast.” Here, it is first important to see the use of “adam” and realize verse seven will again repeat that word, where it must be seen that “adam” is a double-edged word that cuts one way as “man,” but the other way as “Adam” – the Son of Yahweh. When one realizes “adam” is the soul of the Son, when it is then combined into one word, as “Adam within the beast,” this is the “goodness” meaning to the Leviathan in a “sea” of souls. The union of “Adam-and-beast” is the truth of an “el,” which is one soul married to Yahweh, who has received His Son to give them a “mountain” of strength, able to live “righteously.” This then leads to the words “ṯō·wō·šî·a‘ Yah weh,” which the NRSV translates as “you save … O Lord.” That is David singing the name of “Jesus,” which says “you save Yahweh” [“Yahweh Saves”]. The soul of “Adam” is the same soul in Jesus.
In verse seven, David then sang about “your loving kindness,” where the Hebrew word “checed” is repeated from verse five” [translated there as “your love” (NRSV) or “your goodness” (literal)]. The word still means the same: goodness, kindness. The aspect of the possessive state [“your”] again needs to be seen as that received by David, known only through the presence of Yahweh in a human body. There is no way for David to know Yahweh, thus know what is His. He does, however, know the goodness that overcomes his soul-flesh after marriage to Yahweh.
In this verse, that knowledge of “goodness” in himself is then separated by a comma mark, leading him next to explain how he knows “goodness.” The NRSV has paraphrased this to say, “How priceless is your love, O God!.” The reality of that written literally translates as this: “how splendid your goodness , elohim sons of Adam”. This explains how David knew the “goodness” of Yahweh, as Yahweh’s presence is a gift to him, because David knew his soul-flesh was one of Yahweh’s “elohim” – “angels in the flesh” – who were all “the sons adam” – the Sons of Yahweh reborn in different human flesh. The plural number (“sons”) were all of the same one (“adam“).
This means when the NRSV translates the remainder of verse seven to sing, “take refuge under the shadow of your wings,” these words show the “angel” metaphor as those human forms with “wings.” The use of “shadow” [from “tsel”] must be seen as one reads “heavens” and “clouds,” as the word reflects that which becomes hidden from clear view. A “shadow” is a ‘twin’ that is non-material, like a “cloud” within projecting outwardly. In this metaphor, the “wings” can be seen as the clothes of “righteousness,” which drape over one’s body of flesh, keeping one from sinning. Those “wings” can then also be relative to “yasha Yah-weh,” as the “sons of Adam” bears the name “Yeshua.” When one is in the name of Yahweh, then one has divine (unseen) protection, which is less concerned with the flesh and more concerned with the soul.
When the NRSV translates verse eight to say, “They feast upon the abundance of your house; you give them drink from the river of your delights,” this once again projects “your house” as if Yahweh has provided some place to live. Now the possessive is a reference to one’s body of flesh, in which a soul has been given a “house” to animate. An eternal soul is placed by Yahweh, at birth, in dirt, dust, or clay [human cells constantly changing to grow and adapt]. One’s body of flesh is possessed by its soul; but souls have a tendency to invite unwelcome guests, who move in and take over [demonic spirits]. When one has reached the depths of despair and begged Yahweh for His help, He will cast out the demons and take up residence in “your body,” which gives one the impression ‘self’ is a new “house” of God.
As far as the translation that places focus on “feasting,” which sounds to me like plenty of food to eat, the reality of the Hebrew word “ravah” [the root of “yir·wə·yun”] is it means “to be saturated, to drink one’s fill.” This then implies that “to feast upon the abundance of your house” means to get drunk on free drinks. Instead, it says a soul can never contain all the Spiritually that Yahweh pours outward, upon a soul. This is Yahweh’s Spirit overflowing upon one’s soul [as in “my cup runneth over”]. There is so much more than one little soul in a body of flesh can imagine.
The implication of a feast comes from the word “deshen” meaning “fatness.” This should not be seen as a statement of gluttony, but instead as a well-nourished sacrificial animal, where the essence of altar sacrifice is the burning of the carcass. The smoke created represents the soul’s release to Yahweh, while the fat makes for tasty drippings on the charred meat that will be served to those coming to the ceremony [seekers]. This makes the “house” be the Tabernacle, wherein is the Ark of the Covenant [the marriage vows] – the Law written upon one’s heart [soul] by Yahweh. So, the presence of the Son of Yahweh becomes the High Priest handing out the tasty morsels to the devoted.
When verse eight then concludes with the NRSV singing, “you give them drink from the river of your delights,” this speaks of the ministry of a servant-wife-soul of Yahweh. The purpose of divine marriage is not to make anyone special [higher than thou], but to provide a receptacle from which others can freely become intoxicated on the proposal to marry Yahweh. This should be seen in terms of Jesus telling the Samaritan woman of a presence that would be the well that provided living waters, which never needed to be replenished. When Jesus is the Son of Adam in one’s soul, then one’s body becomes his house, with his words and deeds being the food and drink that saves the souls of others [oneself having been saved].
This is then confirmed in verse nine, where the NRSV translates it to sing: “For with you is the well of life, and in your light we see light.” When David wrote “mə·qō·wr ḥay·yîm,” this literally sings of “the fountain of life” or “the spring alive.” To call this a “well” is to be reminded of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. Here. It is vital to see this verse in the light of today’s Gospel reading from John, where the belief is that Jesus changed water into wine. To think that means this verse of David is implying that Yahweh makes His apostles be the source of the finest wine in town. That is not the intent (in either reading), as living water is more intoxicating than any earthly wine containing the highest alcohol content. Jesus did not change water into wine. He changed water placed into purification jugs [those used for cleaning dirty bodies] into living waters of salvation. In that, “life” must be seen as eternal salvation, because without marriage of a soul to Yahweh, one’s soul is destined to repeat life in a dead body of dirt [reincarnation]. Getting drunk on wine merely allows sinners to forget their sins … until the hangover comes.
When verse nine then says, “in your light we see light,” once more the possessive is applied. Now it is “your light.” This gives the impression that Yahweh is reaching down from heaven with a flashlight, pointing the way for His ministers to see and go. The reality is it is the apostles who are each a “light,” possessed by Yahweh. His “light” is found in the ones who speak the truth so others can see. To “see the light” is to understand the truth. The key words involved there are combined as one – “nir·’eh-’ō·wr,” meaning “to see light.” Until one’s soul is married to Yahweh, it is like Jesus said, “You have eyes [physical flesh things], but you cannot see [understand spiritual matters].” Thus, “to see light” means to understand the truth. The truth will set you free; so, an apostle shines the light of truth so brightly that the blind are made to see.
When these elements of verse nine are seen clearly, verse ten can then be understood as connecting “the fountain of life” and “the light of truth” to the two themes set in verses five and six: “goodness” and “righteousness.” When the NRSV translates verse ten as singing, “Continue your loving-kindness to those who know you, and your favor to those who are true of heart,” this is again misleading. Simply by reading-singing “continue your loving-kindness” … and “your favor,” sheeple think David is singing like a Socialist Liberal Democrat politician. That translation makes is seem David was singing, “Everybody get in the free God stuff line. You deserve it! Just because He has it, then He can afford to give it to you. Therefore, you deserve it for doing nothing!!!” That is a bad message to send.
The truth of what David wrote literally translates to sing, “continue your goodness to those who you know ; and your righteousness to the upright in heart .” This takes the ministry of apostles shown in verse nine and then sings about them “continuing” the spread of the promise of salvation, through the light of truth. Those who know Yahweh are the souls married to His Spirit; and thus, are those reborn as the ‘sons of Adam.” They have been entrusted with the “goodness” of Yahweh expressed in their soul-bodies, so they take the message of divine marriage to the blind and let them see. Those who hear the truth being told will take a stand and take the steps of “upright” living, to attract Yahweh to propose marriage to them. When the word “heart” is found in Scripture [“leb”], it should be read as “soul.” An “upright soul” is one who will repeat verses five through nine. They will sing songs of praise to Yahweh, just as did David.
As a song of praise specifically chosen to be sung on the second Sunday after the Epiphany, the reason should be to understand the deeper message that hides from those who cannot see. The clouds of dust and them looking up into the sky to find an external God has been the result of bad translations and false shepherds. One needs to learn to have faith that one can be reborn as Jesus and then enter ministry with him doing as he did in the Gospels, in your body of flesh. The Epiphany is realizing one can be Jesus reborn. The after period is learning the value of why Yahweh chose your soul-body to be His house.
Now concerning (the) spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Shun JESUS Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Lord JESUS Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit Sacred.
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.
——————–
This is the Epistle selection to be read aloud on the second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year C, according to the lectionary for the Episcopal Church. This reading will follow one from Isaiah, where the prophet wrote: “You shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be termed Desolate.” That will precede a singing of Psalm 36, where David wrote: “Continue your loving-kindness to those who know you, and your favor to those who are true of heart.” All will accompany a reading from John’s Gospel, where we find: “On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding” … and “the wine gave out.”
Let me first state that the vast majority of the English translations of the Epistles – by all divine authors – are little more than bad paraphrases of the meaning behind the words. People calling themselves “Christian” (those who put forth some efforts to live up to that name) memorize these English paraphrases as ‘Gospel,’ when translations like the one above are misleading and dangerous. Divine language demands divine insight for understanding, because Scripture is not written so just anyone can understand. Paraphrases shine just enough truth to lead true seekers to question, “Is there more to this story?” There is always more; and, this translation of Paul’s letter is embarrassing to see, when compared to that written.
Any reading taken from one of Paul’s letters (especially) that is more than five verses can generate around six thousand words of my explanation. Sheeple do not have the time to spend ‘grazing’ on my explanations. I get tired of writing after three thousand words; and, every word I write is a loving experience for me, hearing the divine voice within lead me to understanding. Still, with all that personal enjoyment, there is only so much my body can easily accommodate in one day. That means an eleven verse ‘mega-reading,’ like this one, is more than I am willing to fully explain. Therefore, I will only get the true seeker started; and, then I will leave it up to them to finish what I start [Tag! You’re it!].
In the first three verses above, you can see how I have stricken through way too much paraphrase, just to show the truth of what should translate into English. I gave up adjusting the NRSV ‘Scripture’ at that point. I will explain the truth of what the first three verses are saying, with a couple of summary additions after that. That is as far as I am willing to go, as far as in-depth discernment of this reading is concerned.
To begin with, the first word of verse 1 is capitalized. More than being some syntactical rule of English, which says the first word of all sentences should be capitalized, so capitalization is procedural and not denoting significance, does not divine language make. All capitalized word in divine Scripture must be seen as possessing elevated meaning, necessitating that signal to the reader. To further confuse this divine tool of prophets following Yahweh’s Will, the panderers of English translations run amok capitalizing non-capitalized words, as if God tapped them on the shoulders and said, “You speak for me.” Capitalization is a sign for seekers to follow; and capitalization will become more important later in this interpretation.
The first word of verse one is “Peri,” which the NRSV translates acceptably as “Concerning,” but that translation implies something prior stated, which now needs to be further explained. This takes on the meaning, “concerning that stated, let me state further.” That does not work here, as the first word of a new chapter. Because a word following “Peri” is translated as “spiritual,” one knows “Spirit” is the topic in chapter twelve [it is written twelve times in these eleven verses, in one way or another]. Had Paul spent a lot of time writing about the “Spirit” in chapter eleven, then one could assume Paul is now going to give further details about that, “concerning” his having written about “Spirit” prior. However, absolutely nothing is stated in chapter eleven that says “Spirit.”
This leads to two indicator signs, the first of which is the lower-case spelling of “pneumatikōn,” which means “spiritual.” The second indicator sign is the divinely elevated meaning of “Peri” fully complies with the meaning of the word, which is said to be this: “perí (a preposition) – properly, all-around (on every side); encompassing, used of full (comprehensive) consideration where “all the bases are covered” (inclusively). 4012 (perí) is often translated “concerning” (“all about”)”. [HELPS Word-studies] This says the word becomes elevated in meaning beyond a simple reference that is “concerning” something, to a divine statement about the “All-around, Encompassing” presence that is the unseen – the “spiritual.”
The first segment of words in verse one are these in Greek: “Peri de tōn pneumatikōn,” which literally translate to say, “All about now of these spiritual”. The NRSV (and BibleHub interlinear) makes the assumption that “spiritual” implies “gifts,” when the word “pneumatikōn” is simply the plural form of “pneumatikos,” meaning “spiritual,” with HELPS Word-studies adding: “(an adjective, derived from 4151 /pneúma, “spirit”) – spiritual; relating to the realm of spirit, i.e. the invisible sphere in which the Holy Spirit imparts faith, reveals Christ, etc.” Nothing whatsoever implies “gifts.” That is an assumption brought forward, from a later use of the word “charismatōn” [“of gifts”], found used in verse four. Thus, the beginning of verse one becomes a theme of Paul’s, which is relative to the “All-Encompassing” nature of the “spiritual,” as opposed to the ever-present (in human life) physical and material.
After that first segment’s introduction to the theme topic, Paul then addressed his audience in his letter, writing “adelphoi,” which clearly says, “brothers.” Now all the gutter-dwelling scum that have paid good money (via student loans or church endowments) to seminaries, in order to graduate with a sheet of paper that says “Officially Qualified Hired Hand” – having never once ever entertained the possibility of being filled with Yahweh’s Spirit and made a Saint, thereby never having been ‘ordained’ by the Highest Power – their employers have realized the lady-folk are the ones who pay the most into their businesses. With the power of lady-folk, ever since they first began seeking self-power as voters and then burning their bras in protest over not being able to legally kill their babies in the womb [babies infringe so much on the freedom for lady-folk to run the world], the religious organizations [employers of hired hands] pander to the lady-folk by changing “adelphoi” from “brothers” to “brothers and sisters.” Paul did not write “and sisters,” so I have stricken that out above.
If a reader of Scripture understood the tongues of divine prophets … Saints … they would know the “All-Encompassing now of these spiritual” are then said to be “brothers.” Certainly, you can bet your bottom dollar [meaning go ‘all-in’] that true Christians in Corinth included lady-folk, as well as men-folk. Paul was not writing to the miserable likes that swell [I use that word in COVID jest] the pews of Episcopal churches and the altars of said, as if Paul were a male dominated bigot. It is the “All-Encompassing” that “now” makes the topic come up that is “of these spiritual,” who are now all recognized as “brothers” [Spiritually].
First of all, the word “brothers” is a statement of relationship. It says “of these spiritual” is a clear-cut relationship (use of commas to separate “adelphoi” from that before and after) that says all are “now of these spiritual” related to the same Father (not a physical daddy). Because this is a “spiritual” relationship to Yahweh, all “of these spiritual” are reborn as His Son, with none of them reborn as His daughters [a daughter is a human: a soul in a body of feminine essence flesh]. Thus, it must be understood that “of these spiritual” is when physical sex organ become meaningless, because SOULS have no need for or capability of reproduction. Thus, the are all divinely married souls-in-flesh are deemed masculine, even the divinely married souls found in lady-folk.
After Paul made that distinction clear – “of these spiritual” they are “brothers” – he then completed verse one by writing, “outhelō hymas agnoein,” which literally translates to say, “not I care to be your souls to be unaware of”. In that, the pronoun “hymas” is “you” written in the second-person, which can translate as “yourselves.”Because a “self” should be seen as a “soul,” which is a “spiritual” presence in a body of flesh, Paul is then saying the purpose of his topic is the “All-Encompassing” change that has “now” come upon the true Christians of Corinth, so “of these” Corinthians having become “spiritual” relatives – a togetherness that is “All-around” and beyond blood relations or religious affiliations or racial distinctions, making all [males and females alike] be “brothers” in a “spiritual” way – this is “not” a “spiritual” presence like before, when one’s soul led one’s everything, when everything before was about “I want to be” or “I care to be” about this and that, but not that or this [from “thelō”]. Relative to the new state of being that is from Yahweh and “Encompassing” you, “your souls” [from “hymas”] need to now become something “you are unaware of” or you are ‘to be ignorant of.” In this new “spiritual” circumstance, your souls have fully submitted unto Yahweh and no longer have “ego-presence.” In short, this segment of words says, “not you shall care about the “I” that led your souls around prior, ignorant of Yahweh.”
With that theme topic stated, verse two is then more than the NRSV simply states as, “You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak.” To begin with, the first word of this verse is also capitalized, with that being “Oidate,” shown simply as “You know. This form is stating the second-person plural form of “eidó,” meaning “be aware, behold, consider, perceive,” makes this be stating a similar state that was “Peri,” or “Concerning” [NRSV translation]. As such, following the end of verse one saying “to be unaware of” or “to be ignorant of” self-ego, verse two is now making a divinely elevated statement about what “your Awareness” must come from, spiritually.
The Greek of verse two then is written as such: “Oidate hoti hote ethne ēte , pros ta eidōla to aphōna , hōs an ēgesthe , apagomenoi .” This is four segments that literally state: “Aware are you that when heathens you existed , advantageous for these images of worship these without voice , like as if you were led , you being led astray .” In the first of these segments, this divine “Awareness” that each of the true Christians of Corinth had realized spiritually was relative to what “they had been” before. It is then that prior “existence” that Yahweh’s Spirit has let them know that old you must no longer have control over your bodies of flesh. This is because the old you, for all of them, was as “heathens,” which needs further understanding.
The Greek word written – “ethne” – is the plural number of “ethnos,” meaning “a race, a nation, the nations (as distinct from Israel); while in use implying “a race, people, nation; the nations, heathen world, Gentiles.” In this word, the implication is all the Corinthians who were saved by Paul’s presence – their souls married to Yahweh, with each being reborn as Jesus, each a Saint – were Gentiles or non-Jews. The opinion of Paul is that he ministered to Gentiles only, when that must be realized as shear stupidity. As Saul, Paul traveled to where Jews (exiled Israelites) lived, with the luxury of Roman citizenship allowing him access to just about wherever the Roman Empire had power and control. Most likely, the diaspora knew of Saul, so few Christians had blossomed from spores in the wind landing on Jews that lived in places like Corinth. Paul would have gone into the Jewish neighborhoods, in the places his ministry took him; but he certainly would not forbid Gentiles from listening to what he had to teach as an Apostle of Yahweh, reborn as Jesus. Because Saul was a reflection of just how far from Yahweh the Jews had wandered, ALL JEWS were “heathens,” having turned themselves away from Yahweh so far that they had become those they disdained. They were the epitome of ‘the pot calling the kettle black.’ Thus, Jews and Gentiles alike would have understood [“Aware are you”] this old way of existence was the same for both classes of “people,” before their “spiritual” transformation.
In the second segment of words, following this recognition of the old ways “Known” by the true Christians of Corinth, Paul said, “advantageous for these images of worship these without voice.” In that, the first word, “pros,” means “motion towards to “interface with” (literally, moving toward a goal or destination).” [HELPS Word-studies] The Strong’s translation is “advantageous for,” as “towards” a goal, where “ta eidōla” can mean “these images of worship” or “these idols.” There, the word denotes “false gods.” This must be seen as Paul reminding the Corinthians that they all had prior lives, Jews and Gentiles alike, that included a misunderstanding of God [or the gods], which led their reasoning for living what amounted to being sinful lives. They felt justified because they used “false” concepts of God or the gods as their god-given right to cheat others, so they got more in return than they gave [“advantageous for” them].
When the second segment adds “to aphōna,” which then says, “these without voice” or “these speechless, soundless, voiceless, mute or dumb,” the impression is some temple with a statue in it, where people came and left food sacrifices or prayer notes and left, with nothing possible to be spoken by statues. While that would perfectly fit a Greek, who Paul said had a statue to every god known to man, even the “unknown god,” the Jews also worshiped Yahweh similarly. They would parade into synagogues and make offerings before “false shepherds” that were just as “voiceless” as were Greek statues in Greek temples. In that sense, the scrolls of the Torah, Psalms and Prophets were their idols, but before their “spiritual” transformation, none of them could repeat what any of those written words really said or meant. In today’s word of false Christianity, the same can be said of the copies of the Holy Bible in multiple English translations, which are silent in speaking the truth, so true Christians are transformed “spiritually.”
In the third segment of words, Paul then wrote, “hōs an ēgesthe,” which say that silence was “even as” or “like as” the same inability each of them had to speak the truth to others. None of them “had been led” to speak anything of value, based on them having heard nothing of value coming from those serving as hired hands, in any of the houses of the holy. None of the temple priests had taught them to speak the truth, so they “had been led” to an equal state of “speechlessness.”
Paul then ended verse two with one separated word – “apagomenoi” – which means “you being carried away” or “you being led astray.” As a concluding word in this remembrance of the past lives of all the “now” true Christians, who were all “brothers spiritually,” Paul reminded them that before their “spiritual” awakening, as “brothers,” they had become like lost sheep. Their shepherds did not care to keep up with them, because they themselves did not know keeping up with anyone other than oneself was beneficial to their souls. That led to a miserable state where all seekers of “spiritual” truth were lost in an ‘every man [and woman] for himself [or her soul]’ life circumstance.
Verse three then is presented in the Greek text as stating, “dio gnōrizō hymin hoti oudeis en Pneumati Theou lalōn , legei Anathema IĒSOUS , kai oudeis dynatai eipein , Kryios IĒSOUS , ei mē en Pneumati Hagiō .” This is a five-segment series of statements; and, in these it is vital to see there are not only eight capitalized words [first letter capital], but there are two words written in all-caps [which the NRSV decided not to reproduce. Let me say now that a capitalized word has a divine elevation that must be realized in that word. That can then be seen as magnified the all-caps presentations [twice] of “IĒSOUS,” so that spelling must each be realized as reflecting a need for extremely elevated divine meaning.
The first segment of words states: “on which account I make known of yourself that no one within Spirit of God speaking”. In that, the first word “dio” needs to be seen as a connection between sinners “having been misled” (and happily having gone “astray”), where it is their newfound understanding that the first-person “I” of each, including the sinner Saul, has had “made known” the greatness of their salvations. This divine “knowledge” is “of yourselves,” where each soul knew it had been divinely changed. In that “knowledge,” all realized themselves had nothing to do with some personal achievement that made any of them special. Saul was so embarrassed about his past “existence” that he changed his name to Paul, purposely known to mean “Small.” Their collective understanding, all known individually, was “none” of them [from “oudeis”] said or did anything [“oudeis” meaning “nothing”] of value that was not “in the Spirit.” The “Spirit” [“Pneumati” is a capitalized word] is greater than that ordinarily “spiritual,” as is a “soul,; but, all that is “spiritual” can only come from “God” [“Theou,” another capitalized word]. Thus everything “known” to Paul and the true Christians of Corinth was “God speaking” through them. Without that presence of “God speaking” through them, they had “nothing” of value to say.
This element of “speaking” must now be linked to “these images of worship” that were “these without voice.” The link here of “God speaking” has to be understood that “God” does not holler down from heaven, telling human beings what to do. “God speaks” through His priests, all of whom have married their souls to His “Spirit,” so they open their mouths and “Yahweh speaks.” This is supposed to have been how any priest of any god (especially Yahweh) tells the faithful how to act, so the gods are pleased. Nobody ever expects a statue to speak to them; so, the truth of the silence that “led them astray” came from bad priests. This is Paul saying that all the Jews who said Yahweh was their God were lying … and Saul knew about that firsthand, having himself been “led astray” by the priests of Jerusalem’s Temple, who told Paul to go persecute Christians.
This must be seen in the second segment of words, where Paul wrote in all-caps “JESUS.” He said, “calls a Curse JESUS,” where the Greek word “legei” is the third-person singular form of “legó,” meaning “he, she, it said, spoke, mentioned, meant, or told,” with the usage implying “commanded.” This command is then to “Curse,” where the capitalized “Anathema” must be seen in the vein of thought that is Temple related, where the usage means “concluding a process, which intensifies,” also as a “oath-curse,” and “referring to something pledged (given up) to destruction.” [HELPS Word-studies] This must be read with the insight that Saul had sworn such an “Oath-Curse,” which set him out so he acted harshly against anyone using the name “JESUS” as their Lord and Savior, saying he had been resurrected within their souls. In this example of what a true Christian has “God say” through him or her, this is not “Him speaking.”
In the all-caps presentation of “JESUS,” one needs to see the divine elevation going well beyond a simple capitalized “Jesus.” Besides knowing “Jesus” is the Son of Yahweh made flesh, the name behind the name – the reason Gabriel told Mary what her miracle baby would be named – is it means “Yahweh Will Save.” When that divine elevation is seen, then the all-caps speaks as all those souls who “Yahweh Has Saved,” through being reborn in the name of “JESUS.” The all-caps is then speaking of Paul, all the Apostles, and all the true Christians of Corinth. ALL OF THEM were individually “Jesus” reincarnated. The all-caps then means a much greater existence, more than someone saying simply, “I believe in Jesus being the Son of God.” Saul was not seeking them, because his torturous acts were known to have a way of forcing pretenders into confessing the truth [and the Romans would use similar tactics in the arenas that pitted ferocious wild animals and human beings saying they were Christian – meaning those who said, “I am JESUS reborn.”]
This then leads to the third segment of words in verse three, which is introduced by the word “kai,” a marker word that indicates importance to follow. By seeing all souls who have been “spiritually” elevated by Yahweh as the meaning of “JESUS,” so none of them can ever swear an oath of destroying the Son of Yahweh, as those who claim to be “JESUS” resurrected, “none” of them “have the power to command.” Here, following the use of the word “legei” as the “call” or “order” to “seek the destruction” of Christians [the truth of “JESUS”], that usage is matched by the word “eipein,” which means to speak in “answer” to a “command.” No one has the “capability” to speak anything [“oudeis” as “nothing”] other than what Yahweh “commands.” Apostles and Saints “answer” when called.
When the word “eipein” leads to a comma, followed by the capitalized word “Kyrios,” meaning “Lord” or “Master,” the standard divine elevation of this word makes it be a statement of Yahweh having married a soul and from that union was raised His Son within that wife-soul. This is the equivalent of a divine possession, where the soul of Jesus is merged with the host soul of a body of flesh, with Jesus being given full control over that body [loving and willing self-sacrifice]. With the body becoming the tabernacle of Jesus, the soul of Jesus is thereby that body’s “Lord.” However, this usage is followed by the all-caps “JESUS,” saying the thing that cannot be “said” is, “I am Lord as Jesus incarnate.” This is precisely what Roman Catholic popes have done for centuries; and, Paul was saying “no one can answer” (himself or herself) to be the “Lord” that all followers must follow, because that one is saying, “I am JESUS.” That is forbidden by Yahweh, as “no one” will make that claim, when his or her soul has Jesus as its “Lord.” [The caveat of this becomes the word “Christian,” where the truth behind that identification says, “I am JESUS” indirectly; but still, the point made here by Paul is: Deeds speak louder than words.] Even if a wife-soul of Yahweh knows he or she has Jesus’ soul within their souls, none have the right to proclaim, “I am Lord JESUS.”
The fifth segment of words appears to give such claims made by popes and false messiahs the right, “if” one’s soul is “in the Spirit Holy,” but that “if” is misread. The word “if” is a statement about when anyone would be so bold as to claim to be a “Lord” over Christians, as “JESUS” incarnate, that is “not” the truth. It is “not” a claim by any soul who is “in” the name of Jesus, as one married to Yahweh and “in” His name. Paul made it clear that the “Spirit” will “not” utter such words “among” Christians. This is “not” the use of divine Word by a “Saint.”
These three verses have now taken me close to four thousand words to explain. I explain them based on a system that allows me to read what is written in a divine syntax, rather than a normal syntax that translates Greek to English. The fact that few other people understand this divine syntax is not for me to discard and pretend the truth is not meant to be known [divine mysteries forever?]. I will now venture a short distance into verse four, using the same systems and talk about the “gifts” that Paul wrote of [“charismatōn”].
In the after the Epiphany time period recognized by these reading selections of the Episcopal Church, this is when Christmas gifts are still new and fun to play with or use. We tend to read of Paul’s “gifts” as if it is something we own, because someone gave us a “gift.” This is very similar thinking to one declaring, “I am JESUS,” as such claims can only be backed up by demonstrations of the “gifts” one possesses. In reality, no one possesses any “gifts” made available only by Yahweh, to be incorporated only by Jesus, who will have been resurrected within a soul’s body of flesh. This says ALL “gifts” are “spiritual,” and no soul [a “spiritual” entity given to flesh by Yahweh] possesses the powers of Yahweh. Only the soul of Jesus is “given” [from “nathan”] the ability to do what Paul says Saints can do.
When this is realized, the remaining verses of this reading explain this ownership of “spiritual gifts.” Still, when verse four begins with the capitalized Greek word “Diaireseis,” meaning “a division,” implying “distribution, difference, distinction,” the divine elevation of that word means Yahweh “Divides” His powers in “Different” ways. This means that Saints will not be able to claim any powers of Yahweh, as Yahweh will allow His Son Jesus to pick and choose when and where a specific “gift” of Yahweh can be exercised. It is not like a Saint has some handbag of “gifts,” from which he or she can pull out a “Different gift” to use, depending on what the brain of a Saint thinks would be best. Again, returning back to the aspect of a true Saint [a true Christian] never claiming to be “Lord” over others, such as Saint Peter could never claim to be pope because he possessed seven “gifts,” which he could use whenever he wanted.
In this example, not long ago the reading from Acts [8] told of Samaritans needing to be baptized with the Spirit, so Peter and John were sent. That chapter tells of Simon the magician, who saw Peter and John “laying hands” on Samaritans, so all were filled with the Spirit and made Saints. Simon asked Peter and John to sell him the trick of giving the Spirit that made people Holy … by laying on hands; and, he was told, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money!” Peter then added, “You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness.” (Acts 8:20-23)
This says that Yahweh gives His “gifts” to souls in human flesh; and, those “gifts” are His “Spirit” and the presence of His Son’s soul to be one’s “Lord.” Receipt of those “gifts” are the true measure of Christmas. However, the abilities of Yahweh’s “Spirit” are many, “Divided” as needed, only utilized by the presence of Jesus. All “Saints” just say, “Yes sir” and let Jesus tell them what to do. No “Saint” would ever try to make Jesus do what they want; because that could bring about their greatest (on only) fear: losing the presence of Yahweh and the promise of eternal life beyond the flesh.
As a reading chosen purposefully for public announcement on the second Sunday after the Epiphany, the Epiphany now is complete servitude to Yahweh, with no self-ego maintained whatsoever. The true gifts of Christmas are the “Spirit” of Yahweh (through a soul being divinely married to Him) – the Advent season – and then giving birth to Yahweh’s Son, as a Virgin soul having a miracle delivery – the Christmas season. The after the Epiphany period of time – after the rebirth of Jesus has made one Anointed – the truth of being a Christian – is to delight in how Jesus leads one’s life. Nothing is about you anymore. You have died (the death imagery of a crucifix is you on a cross) and been resurrected. A soul saved only does as commanded, willingly and out of pure love.
On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.” So they took it. When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.” Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
——————–
This is the Gospel reading to be read aloud by a priest on the second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year C, according to the lectionary for the Episcopal Church. It will follow an Old Testament reading from Isaiah, where the prophet wrote: “but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her, and your land Married; for Yahweh delights in you, and your land shall be married.” That will precede a singing from Psalm 36, where David wrote: “Your love, Yahweh, reaches to the heavens, and your faithfulness to the clouds.” Those will be followed by the Epistle reading from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where the Saint wrote: “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.”
In 2016, I wrote a sermon entitled “The Miracle of New Wine in Cana.” That can be searched on this site under “John 2:1-11.” It was less specific than an in-depth commentary of mine; but it was derived from having ‘done my homework.’ The homework I did (I found out) was never published on my website. For that reason, I am now posting this that was written in late January 2016. I saved the file as “Turning water into wine.” Enjoy!
Regardless what you think you know about this miracle of “Jesus changing water into wine,” look at it with a fresh set of eyes. See what is really written once you slow down and realize that reading Scripture is not a speed-reading contest.
1. On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there,
“Kai te hemera te trite gamos egeneto en Kana tes Galilaias kai en he meter tou Iesou ekei .”
“And on the day third a wedding took place in Cana of Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there.”
The third day of the week is our Tuesday. Interestingly, the website “Interfaith Family,” under an article posted: “Timing and Location of a Jewish Wedding” says, “In traditional Jewish communities, Tuesday is considered an auspicious day to hold a wedding because it is a day that a portion of the Torah is not chanted in the synagogue.”[1] An article posted on the website “My Jewish Learning” adds to this thought the explanation, saying, “This was so because, concerning the account of the third day of creation, the phrase “… and God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:10,12) appears twice. Therefore, Tuesday is a doubly good day for a wedding.”[2]
The day that is third could be the third day of a month. Because this wedding is followed by verse 12 stating, “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days,” with verse 13 telling of Jesus overturning the vendor tables at the Temple, during the Passover week, one could assume the third day was 3 Nissan or 10 Nissan, since the Passover begins on 15 Nissan. According to the website “Chabad.org,” the second best time to schedule a wedding is in the first 15 days of a month, due to Jewish months being based on the moon’s phases. The article, “Approved Dates for a Wedding,” states that Rosh Chodesh is a good choice. They state, “First fifteen days of the Jewish (lunar) month: The moon is a metaphor for the Jewish nation, and the days of the month when the moon is waxing are auspicious days for a Jewish couple to be married.”
Because I have calculated Jesus was born in the Hebrew year 3652, with him beginning his ministry when he was 33, about to turn 34, so that would make the year 3686 important. The Hebrew year 3686 has 3 Nissan occur on a Tuesday (the third day of the week). Jewish tradition forbids any weddings during the week of Passover (8 days), the Counting of the Omer (49 days) and Shavuot (2 days) … as well as during the feast days of Sukkot (2 days), any Shabbat, and other days considered holy.
You should note that verse one tells that the mother of Jesus was in Cana of Galilee, set aside from the next verse that tells about Jesus and his disciples also being invited. This is an indication that Mary and Jesus came separately, as Jesus was living in Capernaum and Mary was presumably living in Nazareth. The separation also indicates Mary was at the wedding prior to Jesus, as an invitee but also assisting in the arrangements. She probably was not the coordinator, but she was keeping up with what was going on behind the scenes. This would be how she was aware they were out of wine; and, being an assistant to the wedding would indicate Mary was a relative who was lending a helping hand (as a woman, possibly on the groom’s side of the family).
From the website “My Jewish Learning,” in an article entitled “Wedding Rituals for Parents,” is written, “When it came to making arrangements for the wedding itself, much of the work continued to fall on the parents, in particular the bride’s mother. Since it was usual for the bride’s parents to pay for the wedding, they often took charge of planning the occasion according to their taste and budget. The young couple might be consulted for their opinions (certainly more the bride than the groom), but it was more often the parents who had the final word.”[3] This means Mary might have been at the wedding earlier than Jesus because it was the marriage of her son with Joseph, known as James. Because verse 12 tells of Mary, Jesus, his disciples and hisbrothers leaving Cana to spend a few days in Capernaum, one can assume the brothers of Jesus accompanied their mother to Cana, getting there early to also help and even playing a role as “best men.” The omission of Joseph informs the reader that Joseph (who was significantly older than Mary) has passed away.
Because we know that the wedding reception will run out of wine, there is the possibility of a Levirate marriage, which is defined as: “A type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother’s widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband’s brother.” This type of wedding was more common in ancient days and ordered in Deuteronomy. It was a way of strengthening a clan’s landholdings, which were inherited by the widow, by not allowing the widow to leave the family and let a husband from another clan get the rights to benefit from a new wife’s inheritance. It would make sense that less excitement would be put into planning and coordinating the ceremony, due to it being a procedural marriage. That could lead to not enough “spirits” being on hand; and it could help explain why Jesus was less than willing to volunteer to keep the after-party going. Such a wedding would set up the deeper reading into this miracle story as being symbolic of the lifeless-spiritless Jews of that day and age trying to retain possessions as a clan, rather than fulfill their agreement to be servants of the LORD.
2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.
“eklethe de kai ho Iesous , kai hoi mathetai autou , eis ton gamon .”
“was invited moreover also the Jesus, and the disciples of him, to the wedding.”
The presence of three comma marks in the Greek text means there is a separation between Jesus and his disciples going to the wedding. All were invited, but it would seem that the disciples of Jesus were his guests, more than having been invited by the marriage couple directly. The separation by comma can also mean the disciples were not yet accompanying Jesus in his travels, because it was not yet his “hour.” Thus, the separation leads one to think they all went to the wedding, from different places, as though all were told the directions to that place.
Since this is prior to Jesus beginning his ministry, we know that he has six disciples at that time. Four come from the accounts of Matthew and Mark: Simon-Peter and his brother Andrew, plus the brothers James and John of Zebedee. The naming of Philip and Nathanael, in John’s Gospel, makes the total reach six, prior to the wedding in Cana. While we know Jesus was living in Capernaum, the first six disciples were living in Bethsaida (both cities on the northern shores of the Sea of Galilee), so it is logical to see Jesus leaving before the others, with them joining him there later.
3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”
“kai hysteresantos oinou , legei he meter tou lesou pros auton , Oinon ouk echousin .”
“and having been deficient of wine , says the mother the Jesus towards him , “Wine not they have.”
The Greek word “hysteresantos” says that a state is noted that a situation is “at the end.” This ending is then due to a lacking, a falling behind, a coming up short, depletion, and a state of dissatisfaction where the result leaves one wanting. The intent is to state the failure to reach a goal and missing out on what is vital. While this leads to that state being “of wine” (that made from grapes), one must notice the presence of a comma mark, which separates that state where a wedding is about to come to an end prematurely, due to a lack of fermented grape juice.
A separate statement is begun after that statement of fact, which shows a failure to meet a goal. This statement focuses on Mary speaking to Jesus. It is not so much a command she is making to Jesus, but her mentioning the obvious. She saw there was no more wine and she spoke that news to her son. The mark of comma that follows can then be read as a direct quote (which it is); but the capitalization of “Wine” becomes significant. More than the simplicity of beginning a new sentence with a capital letter, the capitalization shows a greater importance being placed on that one word, “Wine.”
As a metaphor, more than a simple focus on an alcoholic beverage, “Wine” is a statement of religious Spirit. When Mary told Jesus, “They have no Wine,” this statement has no primary importance as a direction to Jesus, as what he should do. Certainly, Mary was not expecting Jesus to blink his eyes (like Samantha and Tabitha on Bewitched) and create fermented grape juice, as if that was the normal way the family procured beverages they had run out of. The surface meaning is a simple statement of fact, probably with a sad face, rather than some maniacal look, as if saying with her eyes, “Quick! Go buy some more wine! They have run out!”
On a deeper level of meaning (which EVERYTHING in the Holy Bible is intended to state), Mary was sad that Judaism had reached a point of failure. It lacked true Spirit. It was more about saving money (thus not enough wine planned) and going through the motions of keeping everything in the family, without sharing their God with the world. In that sense, Mary’s sadness was projecting a suggestion that – perhaps – because Jesus was born to renew that Spirit of devotion within the people – maybe – there was something he could do then, to renew the Wine that was run dry.
4 “Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
“kai legei aute o Iesous , Ti emoi kai soi , gynai ? oupu hekei he hora mou .”
“and says to her the Jesus , What to me with to you , my lady ? not yet is come the hour of me.”
The Greek word “gynai” means, “a woman, wife, my lady.” It can also be translated as “bride.”[4] In the first translation options, “my lady” would make the most sense, because a simple statement by Jesus’s mother would give him no rational reason to snap back at her, referring to his mother as “a woman.” Still, when the option of “bride” is seen, his response makes perfect sense as a dual question, “What is this to me or to you? Are you the wife of the groom, the bride, whose family should have prepared better?” When the conjunction “kai” is seen to also mean, “namely, also, and even,” the question reads better as, “What does no wine mean to me? Even to you? Bride?” Still, the interrogative pronoun “Tai” (capitalized) is better translated as “Who.” So, the real question is, “Who is the bride to me or you?”
Bringing the aspect of the “bride” into the storyline becomes metaphor for everything associated with the Jewish marriage process. It brings in the oft used parables that would come later about the ten virgins and the bridegroom, the bridegroom and the wedding guests, and a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son (the bridegroom). The metaphor is for a marriage between God (the bridegroom) and the Israelites (the bride). As such, Jesus asked his mother how she had nothing to do with the lack of Spirit (“Wine”) as the “bride-wife-lady” of God (remembering that Mary was the mother of Jesus, while God was the Father.” The symbolism is that Jesus heard his mother’s lament that Judaism was without the true devotion as a wife of God, by asking, “Who is this you lament? To me born to you, the bride of God?” In essence, Jesus was the “bride” of God also.
In the Jewish tradition the marriage ceremony was less about two people in love and more about the contract between a husband and wife. Arranged marriages were standard. Jewish wives were never forced to have sex with their husbands, although they enjoyed full benefit of all that her husband had. Jewish wives retained ownership of everything she possessed prior to the marriage. A Jewish male was deemed unfit for rabbinical duty while single, which made marriage a mandatory obligation (between 16 and 24). A husband could have multiple wives (not common but allowed in instances), whereas the wife could only have one husband. This meant the wife was the part of the property of the husband, but the wife benefited from the protective partnership of a marriage.[5] That fairly well sums up the arrangement the Israelites had with God; and in the wedding in Cana the Spirit of commitment was missing.
Thus, when Jesus continued to say, “not yet is come the hour of me,” the intent was that his limited time to achieve a goal had not yet begun, nor ended. Jesus was fully committed to God, and he had just finished spending forty days being tested in the wilderness, after having been baptized by the Holy Spirit, by God. He was, therefore, full of the Spirit and in no way depleted, dissatisfied, or short of faith.
5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
“legei he meter autou tois diakonois , Ho ti an lege hymin , poiesate .”
“says the mother of him to the servants , whatever certain thing he might say to you , accomplish .”
The Greek word “diakonois” means [plural number] “servants,” but also, “waiters, all who provide a service, and administrators.” In a Christian setting, it can mean “ministers” or “deacons,” while universally it is used to denote the servants to a king. Unless Mary was the mother of the bride and the coordinator of this event that had run out of wine, speaking direct orders to the waiters (doubtful), and only if she went to multiple people in charge of the waiters at the wedding, instructing them in how to save the wedding reception (also doubtful), Mary was speaking to the disciples of Jesus (who possibly were there to lend a hand).
When a disciple is seen as a “pupil, a learner, a follower” and “one who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another,” then such a “servant” is an “ad-minister” or “deacon” to a head master priest. The disciples served Jesus as part of their learning from him. It would be right for Mary to give instructions to them, as the heirs to the new religious Spirit that would inspire servants to the LORD, especially after Jesus told her he was quite filled with the “Wine” of faith. Therefore, Mary’s instructions are like a teacher’s aide, telling the teacher’s students, “Whatever thing he might say to you … do it without question.”
On a higher level, relative to the Church that would come totally through the servants of Christ, where the Blessed Virgin is venerated and held in the highest regard, verse five should be talking to you. The Mother of Jesus the Christ, who was filled with the Holy Spirit, married to God and a devoted follower of Jesus Christ as her King, is telling all who forever will read her words and likewise be filled with the Spirit of understanding, they will follow her instruction. Whatever is said by Jesus, in the records of the Gospels, you must do this. The Greek word “poiesate” follows a comma of separation, so it stands alone to say, “Act,” and after Jesus was ascended, the first Apostles did just that. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles tells of the evangelism and ministry of Jesus reproduced. The letters of the Apostles tell others how to stay true to the Holy Spirit and become Saints, through their actions and support of other disciples.
6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
“esan de ekei lithinai , hydriai hex , kata ton katharismon ton Ioudaion , keimenai , chorousal ana metretas dyo e treis .”
“were therefore in that place made of stone , water pots six , according to the purification of the Jews , standing , having room each a measure of 8.75 gallons two or three .”
This verse contains four separation commas, which are typically overlooked in the reconstruction for translation. When the comma mark is seen as an indication of separate focus, which then links to another separate focus, the words that can translate as “were therefore in that place made of stone” is a statement about the presence of a large stone bathing tub. One would presume the stone tub had a valve that could be opened to drain the water out of it after use. It would be an outdoor tub, not far from the well, surrounded by curtains or a wall. Without pipes and running water technology available, the stone tub would then require vases by which to bring water and fill it. The vases would be made with potter’s clay, making them lighter than stone and easier to carry with a full load of water from a nearby well. Instead of simply soaking in water, the vases might be poured over the bather.
With the comma mark separating the word “made of stone” and the statement “water pots six,” the separation then turns the focus to why there would be six pots for gathering water. The number six was seen as a number of perfection, because God made His Creation in six days. Bathing for six days was then the standard ritual cleansing a woman would go through after her period. A seventh bath would not require a ritual container, such that when Naaman was told to bathe seven times in the Jordan, to cleanse himself of leprosy, the last bath was to deem him holy, after six days of purification.
The measure stated is “metretas,” which is a measure of 8.75 gallons. The numbers “two or three” then act as multiplications of that measure, as estimates of total measure. Each jar was estimated to hold between 17.5 and 26.25 gallons of water. Rounded to 22 gallons per jar, the total gallons of water put into the jars would be 132 gallons. A U. S. liquid gallon of water weighs 8.34 pounds, meaning each jar would weigh 183 pounds. This would require two servants to carry a full jar from the nearest well (water source) to the place they were staged. For six water pots that size, one would expect twelve servants to carry them. Twelve servants is the size of Jesus’s “round table” disciples, although he only had six disciples at the time of the wedding in Cana (Simon-Peter, Andrew, Nathanael, Philip, James and John of Zebedee)
7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
“legei autois ho Iesous , Gemisate tas hydrias . kai egemisan autas heos ano .”
“says to those the Jesus , “Fill the jars with water. and they filled them unto brim .”
The assumption here is that Jesus speaks to the servants (“diakonois”) that Mary instructed, but John did not write that word here. It is possible to read “legei autois ho Iesous” as Jesus speaking “to those of like mind,” to “those of Jesus.” In this sense, Jesus is speaking to his disciples. This would mean that Mary spoke to those she saw as servants or administrators of her son’s ministry, while also leaving open the possibility that the disciples were invited to the wedding as waiters. Either way, we see that John omitted the servant identification and simply says, “Jesus said to his.”
When Jesus instructs his disciples to “Fill the jars with water,” one needs to see that the jars are clearly purification jars, which all Jews would readily identify. The disciples Peter and Andrew were certainly former disciples of John the Baptist, who became disciples of Jesus after John identified Jesus as “the Lamb of God” and “the one” he spoke of (“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.” John 1:29-30). John baptized the Jews with water AS A PURIFICATION, in the waters of the Jordan River, where Naaman was cured of his physical reflection of sin. Thus, this instruction to Jesus’s disciples bears much more meaning that the same instruction to some stranger waiters.
The next separate statement is the response of the disciples, where they filled the water pots full, up to the top. The word of interest here is “ano,” which not only means “to the brim,” but equally “above, heaven, things above, upwards, up to the top, and the heavenly region.” This becomes more significant than the simple filling of water pots, because it says the servants knew they were beginning a spiritual cleansing process, knowing that the water would completely (“up to the top”) be touched from “above,” by the “heavenly” Father. This means the disciples (regardless of whether or not they knew the wedding party was out of spirits) went to get water for a holy cleansing.
8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” They did so,
“kai legei autois , Antlesate nyn kai pherete to architriklino . oi de enenkan .”
“and says to them , “Draw out now and carry to the master of the feast. and they carried.”
Again, the first separate portion of this verse is similar to that beginning verse 7, without directly naming Jesus. The conjunction “kai” (“and”) connects the two verses, so the same speaker is Jesus. What is missed is the hint that Jesus speaks as the one from above, who speaks to his disciples as having the earthly authority of God. The instruction comes in two parts, one before the other. The first step is to “draw out now,” where “to draw” means to pour out some of the water that fills the six water pots. If the water pots were not ornate, being tall and having narrow necks, then they would have large openings at the brim. Such an opening would allow for a pitcher or ewer to be dipped into the water, in order to draw some out. That is the purest meaning of “Draw out,” rather than to pour, as it often means to lower a bucket into a well and then draw the bucket back to the top. Still, this could mean that (without touching the water or the water pots) Jesus was commanding the water (due to the importance of a capitalized word) to have properties that “Draw out” sin from within a person, rather than to have the normal properties of washing surface dirt off the top of a body.
The word “nun” is used in commands and appeals, as meaning “at this instance.” While it does mean “now” or “at present,” such that the instruction was to immediately do as Jesus said, the word also bring light to how Jesus previously said his hour had not yet come. “Now” is a statement of time, which indicates that hour is “now at hand.” Therefore, a miracle of Jesus was then “Drawn out” of him, by the powers of heaven.
The second step then is for a portion of this holy water to be taken to the master of the feast. The word “pherete” means more than to simply walk something around, but “to conduct, to lead, and to make publicly known,” such that what was importantly drawn out is immediately brought to the attention of the man who is in charge of the wedding reception and the wining and dining going on. Still, one has to see the symbolic “master of ceremonies,” when the ceremony is a ritual purification by the Holy Spirit, is God. God is the one that Jesus instructed his disciples to make publicly known, as God had been “Drawn out at that time,” being in the water from heaven. That presence would be publicly known through the human being (Jew) acting as the headwaiter.
The last separate part of this verse then acts to continue the instruction to let God be known, as the act of carrying that announcement. God was publicly known through the act of taking a cup of drawn holy water to be tasted. The symbolism of this part is the chalice bearer in a Christian Eucharistic service. God is in the cup (wine mixed with holy water), which is then served to the faithful. The headwaiter is then symbolic of a rabbi (for Jews), who knows good wine from poor wine; but as one who has already been identified as “out of spirit,” Jewish teachers lacked the ability to carry the holy water to their needy members. It was the teachers that needed to be revitalized, so they could carry that spirit onward.
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
“hos de egeusato ho architriklinos , to hydor onion gegenemenon , kai ouk edi pothen estin , hoi de diakonoi edeisan hoi enlekotes to hyddor , phonei ton nymphion ho architriklinos ,”
“when moreover had tasted the master of the feast , the water wine having become , and not knew from where it was , the moreover servants knew the having drawn the water , calls the bridegroom the master of the feast ,”
The first separate statement is one of time, being “when” the cup of holy water has been passed (where “de” can mean “moreover” or “on the other hand”) the “taste” by the headwaiter becomes the “experience of the master of ceremonies.” The time when the transfer from the bearer to the needy takes place, one is able to taste the holiness of God. This is the primary focus of this statement, more than the simple tasting of water by a wedding master of the feast.
The second separate statement, following the first comma mark in this verse, says, “the water wine having become.” The statement makes it clear that it was water that was tasted by the headwaiter, yet it was water that contained the master of purification – God. Because what was in the cup was water, the taste is then that of “wine.” The flavor of wine is due to it being the fermented fruit of the vine (in most cases grapevines), where the addition of yeast (the leavening agent) acts to create the by-product known as alcohol. Alcohol quickly enters the bloodstream and makes one feel different. Thus, alcohol is considered a “spirit” because of this effect on a human being after consumption of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, this statement is less about water becoming wine, and more about the effect of water being like that of wine.
This leads to another comma mark and the third separate statement in verse 9. To ensure that the water is not mistaken for literal wine (red-colored, with sediment, smell, etc.), John wrote that this was “not” the case. The conjunction “kai” says, “and not,” where “kai” can translate as “namely,” meaning that to call the water wine was “not” correct. It was “water,” but they did not know what source made the water seem like spirits. They did not “know” because there were no physical signs of wine. The properties of the water were spiritual, which is a statement that John the Baptist had said, “I purify you with water, but the one after me will purify you with the Holy Spirit.” One cannot see the source of that Spirit, but it makes one feel high, like alcoholic beverages do.
At this point, John repeats the term “diakonoi,” so the ones of Jesus are identified as the servants who followed Jesus’ instructions. Following a comma mark of separation, John returned to the passing of the cup (“on the other hand”), back to the ones who carried the cup to the headwaiter. It was the taster who felt the effects of wine from the water. Here, John said the “servants” knew what they had dipped the cup into, which was not wine but water from the well, filled into water pots.
This then leads to the last comma mark and the separate statement that calls for the bridegroom to have a conversation with the master of the feast. While that is the reality of the wedding that was witnessed by John and the disciples, the symbolic statement completes the statement of the servants knowing where the water came from AND knowing that Jesus (the bridegroom) had called up God (the master of the purification ceremony). That was the holy source of the water taking on a wine taste-experience, which was felt by the master of the feast.
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.”
“kai legei auto , Pas anthropos proton ton kalon oinon tithesin , kai hotan methysthosin , ton elasso ; sy teterekas ton kalon oinon heos arti .”
“and says to him , “Every man first the good wine sets on , and when they might have drunk freely , the inferior ; you have kept the good wine until now .”
This verse begins with the simple statement that indicates what was said by the master of the feast to the bridegroom (“says to him”), but this conversation is to be seen as inspired by having tasted-experienced God in holy water. As such, the master of the feast is like a rabbi that had been out of Spirit, but after tasting-experiencing God in holy water – INTERNALLY- he has been transformed into the bridegroom. He has become married to God, no longer dry of emotional joy for God, but filled with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is the context by which the conversation should be read.
The capitalized first word is “Pas,” which means, “Every, All, The Whole, and Each Part of,” where the important focus begins with the universality of God to humanity and humanity’s need for God. As such, All mankind is to be the recipient of this experience of God, in a married relationship with the Lord unseen. Still, when we read what is first in this relationship, it is God that is the “good wine.” As for the Jewish people, who call themselves God’s chosen, they have been “set on” God through a Covenant that demands goodness from the people. High on the feeling of God having chosen them, the Jews have served God faithfully, as good fruit of His vine, fermented with “good Spirit.”
Unfortunately, they could not “set on good wine” forever, because they had not truly been cleansed by the Spirit within. This means that everyone can spend moments of time high on the Lord … when times are good; but when times sour, people often stop serving that “good wine” of devotion to God.
The comma of separation then states simply, “and when having drunk freely” or “and when intoxicated with wine,” where the abundance of God’s gifts have been abused. Instead of consuming the good wine of God for the purposes of becoming good wine that is shared with others (intended for “All”), the Jews had become intoxicated with their holiness, to the point of forgetting they were in a committed relationship with God. They became full of themselves as holy, without doing what they agreed to do. They became so drunk with the blessings of God that they lost everything.
This is stated in the next separate segment where we see how that drunken state led them to consume “the inferior” wines. More than physical wines, this means the acceptance of kings and queens who worshiped baals and lesser gods. They fell upon the hardship of doing nothing to stop the replacement of holy prophets and priests with those who served Lucifer and Satan. The “inferior” state of Judaism (the religion of Israel and Judah) led to them losing their land, having run completely out of “good wine.” The party was over, because they had no more wine.
This then leads to the final separate statement in verse 10, following a semi-colon, where the praise recognized is “You have kept the good wine until now.” This is a repeating of the timing of “now, at the present, and this instant.” The word translated as “have kept” (“tetērēkas”) also means, “have guarded, maintained, persevered, and watched over,” which reflects the continued acts of ritual ceremony the returned from exile Jews were maintaining, in hopes of renewing their Covenant with God. Because they had run out of wine and had no true Spirit left, God could see their efforts, such that “from the stump of Jesse would come a new branch.” That stump would be where the “good wine” would be stored, to be brought out by Jesus, when his time had come. It was that “now” time then.
11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
“Tauten epoiesen archen ton semeion , ho Iesous en Kana tes Galilaias , kai ephanerosen ten doxan autou ; kai episteusan eis auton hoi mathetai autou .”
“This did beginning of the signs , the Jesus in Cana the of Galilee , and revealed the glory of him ; and believed on him the disciples of him .”
Verse 11 begins with the capitalized first word “Tauten,” which means “This,” which is reference to “You have kept the good wine until now.” The translation as “This” then becomes analogous to the best wine God has kept until then, which is the Holy Spirit offered by Jesus. Therefore, “Tauten” is the pronoun meaning, “He,” who is God through the Christ, as the Son. The “hour” of Jesus had begun then, with the sign that was the best wine being still to come. The sign was the first where Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit, served as a cup of water that was experienced like fine wine.
It was a “sign” of the power of Jesus, as the Christ, which first took place in Cana of Galilee. It was a sign that took place at a wedding, a ceremony of union between two lovers. It was a sign that the union had been a loveless relationship, with all Spirit between the two run dry. The sign was the replenishment of God’s love in the Jews of Cana.
It was the first sign that was revealed publicly the relationship Jesus had with God. It was only witnessed by a select few; but those who knew could see the glory of God shining through Jesus. This one act made the disciples of John the Baptist, who had shown their faith to follow Jesus and see, be convinced he was indeed the one who had baptized with the Holy Spirit, returning the wine of Spirit to the Jews.
This miracle is less than a magician’s trick, where sleight of hand can swap a cup of water with a cup of wine. The disciple-servants never saw anything but water, just as believers in God can never see Him. The miracle that caused the disciples of Jesus to believe in him was they saw the results the water had on a taster, after Jesus had called forth the Father to bless that water. The water was consumed, so it had an internal effect, rather than an external one. Seeing, in the case of the disciples, was reason to believe; but the miracle the witnessed had nothing to do with physical wine being obtained so the same drunken state of Judaism could be maintained. Their eyes experienced a Spiritual renewal of a commitment to God.
As the Gospel reading selection for the second Sunday after the Epiphany, it should be realized that this miracle has little to do with wine. The wedding party ran out of alcoholic beverages. At no point did Jesus say, “The water is now fine wine.” The water became living waters, which brings on the ‘high’ that is the Spirit of Yahweh. Thus, the overall symbolism of a “wedding banquet” is it is a soul’s marriage to Yahweh being celebrated. The wives are all souls in human bodies of flesh that submit themselves to Yahweh. The fact that Jesus is present (but it was not yet his time) says people believe in his deity; but he has not yet become one with their souls. When he put water into purification jugs, this was symbolic of the spiritual baptism that Jesus brings. Thus, his first miracle is the Epiphany of his presence in one’s soul.
Explaining the Readings 