Thoughts on Luke 8:1-8

Hi, all.

This Sunday the plan is to study together the parable of the persistent widow and the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8). Jesus told this parable ‘that they ought always to pray and not lose heart.’ The word translated ‘to lose heart’ can also mean to grow tired, weary, or exhausted. I suspect that most of us have experienced times when we wearied of praying for something, even something very good that we knew would be glorifying to God. So, this parable has meaning for us. Here are some things to be thinking about:

— The parable itself is simple: The Judge is basically wicked. He even says of himself (in v4) that he did not fear God and did not care what anyone thought of him. Thus, the judge is a perfect example of someone who could refuse even a worthy widow, indefinitely. 

The Widow is relentless, who ‘kept coming to him’ (v3). We do not know much about her, except that she had an ‘adversary,’ that she sought justice, and apparently that she had no path to justice except through the unjust judge.

In the end, the widow wins out. The judge relents and grants her justice. The message is simple: If even this unjust judge will relent—who has no reason or inclination to be merciful—how much more easily and quickly will God answer the prayers of His saints? 

Some people struggle with comparing God to the unjust judge. Is it hard for you? If so, why? If not, can you understand why some people have a hard time with the comparison?

— The things Jesus says after the parable are the hardest to grasp, for me. The promise is that God will give justice to His elect ‘speedily’ (v8). But, does the coming of God’s justice always seem ‘speedy’ to you? And, if God’s justice always comes ‘speedily’ then why is there any need for the disciples to be told to persevere in prayer? If it comes speedily why would you ever lose heart or grow weary in praying? How do you put these things together?

— At the end of verse 8 Jesus says, ‘Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?’ This sounds despairing to me. Why would Jesus doubt the presence of faith on His return? Why would He tell that to the disciples? How is this helpful for us?

May God bless the rest of your work week. See you Sunday.

Love,
Jim.

Thoughts on Luke 17:20-37

Hi, all.

This Sunday the plan is to study together Luke 17:20-37, where we get the first round of end-times teaching from the Lord Jesus. It seems probable to me that Jesus spoke to His disciples often about coming persecution and the end-times, so that they would learn and remember, but the bulk of what we have preserved in the Gospels is found only in Jesus’ teaching near the temple in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. ‘As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.’

In contrast, the context in Luke 17 is initially an exchange with the Pharisees about the Kingdom of God, and this is followed by teaching to the disciples about the Day of the Son of Man, and about the way that judgment falls on people. Here are some things to be thinking about:

— In verses 20-21, the Pharisees were asking Jesus about the coming kingdom of God. Exactly what they were asking is not clear. It may be that they were asking again about signs, or perhaps they wanted a clear statement from Jesus about whether the kingdom was coming soon. In either case, they probably did not expect Him to say what he did: ‘The kingdom of God is in the midst of you.’

The first edition of the NIV translated this phrase as, ‘the kingdom of God is within you,’ and the ESV has that translation in a footnote. Which do you think is correct? Is the Kingdom in the midst of us, or within us? If you consider that Jesus is saying this to the Pharisees, does that change your thinking about the meaning?

— Then, starting in verse 22, Jesus addresses the disciples: ‘The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.’ Waiting for the coming of the Son of Man sounds hard, but the coming of the Son of Man sounds hard, too, as it will be like Noah’s flood and like Sodom and Gomorrah. The pictures of judgement here are stark, with death for most people. But Jesus says that we will long for His coming. That is, the second coming of Christ is explicitly associated with judgment, and with rescue.

Can you compare this with what you have read in Revelation? How is it that rescue and judgment go together?

— A key verse in this passage is 32: ‘Remember Lot’s wife.’ She was the one who ‘looked back’ as they were fleeing the destruction of Sodom, and was turned into a pillar of salt. The context in Luke is verse 31, which says, ‘On that day [when the Son of Man is revealed], let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back.’

What is this ‘turning back’ about in Luke 17? When the Son of Man is revealed—with signs as obvious as lightning lighting up the sky from horizon to horizon—how might a person react that would be ‘turning back’? What is the warning for us?

May God bless the rest of your work week. See you Sunday.

Love,
Jim.

Thoughts on Luke 17:11-19

Hi, all.

Traditionally we have not met on Thanksgiving weekend, as many of us were traveling. However, let’s make an exception this year. Kathy and I usually drive to Arkansas for a big family gathering, and that is not happening this year. Indeed, my aunt and uncle who host the annual gathering have been staying holed up at the farm, and seeing no one.

But our class can still meet by Zoom, and the passage this week is Luke 17:11-19: the healing of the ten lepers. It is a simple account, and unique to Luke. Briefly, as Jesus was traveling, He was approached by ten lepers who cried out for mercy. Jesus commanded them to go and show themselves to the priest (Le 13), and as the men were going, their leprosy was ‘cleansed.’ One man (a Samaritan) turned back to glorify God and to thank Jesus. Here are some things to be thinking about:

— In this healing, Jesus yet again heals by a new pattern. He does not touch the men, He does not speak words over them, nor even does He pronounce them clean. He commands them to go and show themselves to the priest, as is required in the Law for a person whose skin disease was healed. The actual healing does not happen until the men are on the way. That is, they are already obeying Jesus before the healing happens.

What kind of faith did the ten men have? How would you describe their faith in Jesus?

— One man turns back, glorifying God, and falls at Jesus’ feet in gratitude. What kind of faith did this man have? Did his faith differ from that of the other nine, who did not come back? What do you think?

— At the end of the passage, Jesus tells the man, ‘Your faith has made you well,’ or ‘Your faith has saved you.’ This is another of those places where the verb can mean ‘healed’ or it can mean ‘saved.’ Which fits best this passage? What do you think?

May God bless your Thanksgiving weekend. See you Sunday.

Love,
Jim.

Thoughts on Luke 17:1-10

Hi, all.

This Sunday the plan is to begin Luke 17, which starts with specific instructions for disciples. In verses 1-10, I see the following flow of Jesus’ teaching:

1) Do not be the one through whom temptation comes to another person. That’s very, very bad.
2) Among believers, extensive repentance and forgiveness is expected, even if the fellow believer sins against you over and over.
3) Watch yourselves about these things!
4) The disciples respond to these difficult instructions by saying, ‘Increase our faith!’
5) Jesus says, You just need a little bit of faith.
6) Then He says, You boys don’t need more faith. You just need to do what I tell you.

Here are some things to be thinking about:

— The instructions in verses 1-4 warn us that it is very important not to cause sin in another, and when someone sins against us, we are to be very, very forgiving. How are these two instructions related in the harmony that should exist among believers? How can we help one another in learning to be obedient to these instructions?

— The disciples ask for more faith. What does their request imply about faith? Do we have quantities of faith? Can you think of a situation in which ‘increasing’ faith make sense? Can you think of a situation in which it does not?

— Verses 7-10 are hard for us in part because the rhetorical questions about masters and servants are so far from our own culture. (For me, it seems natural to thank a servant, but apparently that was not done!) It may help to call upon your experience with Downton Abbey or some similar historical piece to get the perspective the disciples would have had in Jesus’ day.

Jesus’ final instruction is, “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’” How is this simple instruction helpful to you? How is it hard?

May God bless the rest of your work week. See you Sunday.

Love,
Jim.

Thoughts on Luke 16:14-31

Hi, all.

We will celebrate the middle of November by studying Luke 16:14-31, which follows closely the passage we studied last week, but which has several special things to say. The basic flow is a shift from Jesus’ address to the disciples (verse 1) to Him speaking directly to the Pharisees, who were ‘ridiculing’ Him. Jesus speaks to them about self-justification, about the permanency of the Law, and then with a parable about two men who die and the communication between the man in hell and Father Abraham in Paradise. Here are some things to be thinking about:

— Jesus says to the Pharisees, ‘God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.’ This is a powerful statement! Is there anything in my life that I exalt—probably along with all my peers who celebrate it with me—and yet it is an abomination to God? A very sobering thought.

— In verses 16-18, Jesus teaches that the Law came before the Good News, and that ‘everyone is forcefully urged into it.’ (I prefer the passive voice in verse 16, which is a legitimate option in translation here.) But, the Law has not passed away. Indeed, it is easier for ‘heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.’

Why is the Law so important? Isn’t the Law superseded by the Gospel? How do these work together? And, why did Jesus choose the seventh commandment to emphasize in this context (v18)?

— The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is beautiful. The poor man, Lazarus, whose best friends were the dogs who licked his sores, dies and goes to Abraham’s bosom, which definitely is a picture of heaven and the destination of the righteous. The rich man, who walked past Lazarus every day, ends up in a place of torment, being ‘in anguish in this flame.’ But, somehow, the rich man can look from hell and see Lazarus beside Abraham in heaven. He first appeals to Abraham for relief, but is told that is not possible. The rich man then calls out to Abraham, to send Lazarus to the rich man’s brothers, ‘so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ Abraham’s response about the fate of the brothers is stark: ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’

How is it that Moses and the Prophets point a person toward salvation? How can it be that a person can be so set against God that they would not be convinced even ‘if someone should rise from the dead’? How is it that anyone is saved? What do you think?

May God bless the rest of your work week. See you Sunday.

Love,
Jim.

Depends on your definition: Christians who embrace evolution

We are living in New York City for a few months, and so are out of the ‘bubble’ of our home church. Because of that, I am having more conversations with believers who are not as saturated with the Bible as tends to be the case back home.

One of the things that has surprised me—but probably shouldn’t have—is the number of times I have already talked with Christians who are trying to bundle the cultural view of creation into their faith in Jesus. They say something like, ‘I think that God could have created the world in any number of ways,’ or, ‘I don’t think that evolution conflicts with God as Creator.’

I understand where they are coming from. I became a believer after I was already a professional scientist. More than that, I had begun my career in evolutionary biology, so I very much came to Christ out of an understanding that all life had come into being through the process of evolution. I remember that I left Genesis 1-11 alone for the first couple of years of my Christian life: I knew that the Biblical view of creation would hold challenges for me that I was not ready to deal with.

When I finally began to investigate Biblical creation, I was greatly helped by the writings of a lawyer: Phillip E. Johnson. Johnson is most famous for his book Darwin on Trial, but I remember reading an essay in which Johnson addressed specifically the concept of ‘theistic evolution’—the idea that God created life through the process of evolution. Here is a paragraph from Johnson:

Of course, theists can think of evolution as God-guided whether naturalistic Darwinists like it or not. The trouble with having a private definition for theists, however, is that the scientific naturalists have the power to decide what that term “evolution” means in public discourse, including the science classes in the public schools. If theistic evolutionists broadcast the message that evolution as they understand it is harmless to theistic religion, they are misleading their constituents unless they add a clear warning that the version of evolution advocated by the entire body of mainstream science is something else altogether. That warning is never clearly delivered, however, because the main point of theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream scientific community. The theistic evolutionists therefore unwitting[ly] serve the purposes of the scientific naturalists, by helping persuade the religious community to lower its guard against the incursion of naturalism. [From: http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/wid.htm]

Let me walk you through this: When someone believes that God created life through the process of evolution, they certainly can do that. However, when they put these two ideas together, they need to realize that the evolution they believe in is something quite different from what the schools teach about evolution.

The schools—and television, and movies, and museums, and universities—teach the concept of evolution that is mainstream, that is supported by the intellectual elite, that is embraced by most of the culture. Johnson captures this concept of evolution in another place by modifying John chapter 1 to say, ‘In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of physics.’ [from a message delivered by Johnson to the Evangelical Free Church of Hershey PA, May 13, 2001, reproduced at http://www.ldolphin.org/ntcreation.html]

Phillip Johnson is helpful to me because he thought clearly about these things. A Christian can say that he believes that God created through evolution, but the moment that he says the word ‘evolution’ he has defined something different from the evolution taught in our culture. Evolution taught in our culture is, by definition and intent, a picture of life coming into being in a non-supernatural way, with no purpose or direction. As Richard Dawkins wrote:

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. [from Dawkins’ book, River Out of Eden]

No design. No purpose. ‘In the beginning were the particles….’ Not guided. No God. No supernatural anything.

So, if a Christian believer says that he or she has no problem with the concept that God created life through the process of evolution, they should always add that by ‘evolution’ they mean something different from what is taught in schools. They could say something like, ‘I believe that God created the world slowly, through a process of development of different life forms so as to leave a record of different creatures in different layers of the earth. The process was guided by God but in such a way that it looks to have happened naturally.’ Then they also need to usually add something like, ‘And yet I believe that human beings are special, and I still believe the Bible.’

Bottom line: If a Christian says that he or she believes that God could have created through evolution, they are believing in some kind of evolution that is different from what the larger culture means. And this is the problem, because I think that most Christians who embrace evolution do so because they want to fit in with culture. But when they construct a supernaturally guided process of evolution, they have already broken away from the culture. I believe that Johnson was right: You cannot have both ‘God created’ and evolution. Something has to give.

To say this another way, nobody wants to look like an idiot. But when Christians say they believe in evolution, they have already entered a place that is intellectually indefensible, and that place will not protect them from disapproving looks and derision. Indeed, in one interview Dawkins called such people ‘deluded’ [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BAbpfn9QgGA]. He did not use the term ‘idiot,’ but Dawkins frankly showed more respect for creationists in that interview than he did for people who try to keep evolution along with some faith in God.

So, if you embrace evolution to avoid looking foolish in the culture, you leave yourself open to looking foolish from every direction. An evolutionist will tell you that your definition of evolution is foolish and unscientific. An atheist can still accuse you of being deluded by your hope in something that is not true. A Christian embracing a more Bibcial view of creation may shake his head in sadness about your compromise. And anyone who can follow simple logic can dismiss your combination of theism and evolutionary leanings as weak, at best. It is only your fellow theistic evolutionists who will support you in your beliefs; you are open to scorn from any other direction.

So, what about me? How do I believe in Jesus and also work as a professional scientist? That will be another post.…

 

Water into wine—a thought experiment

In the last post, I wrote about the miracle described in John chapter 2, and emphasized some aspects of that miracle that make it especially remarkable. In sum, the conversion of water into wine—from a chemical perspective—requires the appearance of complex molecules, but also of atoms that previously did not exist in the water. The miracle is actually one of creation of something from nothing, creatio ex nihilo.

In this post, I want to look at the same account in John 2, but add to it some imagination. Specifically, I ask that you join me in traveling back in time to the wedding in the first century, where we proceed to collect samples and then return to the 21st century. Imagination, yes, but I believe that you will find the thought experiment to be worthwhile.

We begin by traveling back to about 30 AD, to Cana in Galilee, and make our way to the wedding, where Jesus and his mother are celebrating with the friends and families of the happy couple. (As you follow me here, go ahead and imagine whatever else is needed for you to suspend disbelief. For example, I envision that we have babblefish to help us to understand and to speak the local form of Aramaic, and that the local people have such a strong sense of hospitality that they invite the strangely dressed foreigners to attend the celebration. You add whatever you need, too. Oh, and you have a stopwatch. That’s important.)

We are at the wedding celebration, crowded into a house that is large for the village, but much too small for the number of people present. We identify Jesus by asking some people in the crowd, and we are surprised to see that he looks nothing like any drawing or painting of him that we have ever seen. Nevertheless, we make our way through the crowd so that we can sit near Jesus, and we are able to overhear his conversation with his mother, Mary. We are there in time to hear Mary say to Jesus, ‘They have no more wine.’

Jesus responds to his mother with a strangely formal answer, ‘Madam, what is that to you or me? My hour has not yet come.’ She then turns to the servants and tells them to do whatever Jesus tells them to do. Jesus points to some large stone jars nearby, the water jars that had been used for for the ceremonial washings that began the gathering, and he tells the servants to fill them with water. We then see the servants labor to bring in water to fill the huge jars, until each jar is filled with water, to the brim.

Jesus then instructs one of the servants to take some to the master of ceremonies (the MC) for the celebration. As the servant draws out a ladle full of the water, we (and the servants) observe that it no longer looks like water, but it has the rich, red color of wine! The servant’s eyes are wide, but he follows Jesus’ instructions and takes the ladle of wine to the MC. The MC tastes it, and immediately gets the attention of the gathering by loudly remarking to the bridegroom (written as the babblefish translated it into my ear), ‘Wow! This is the best wine I have ever tasted!’ At that moment, you press the button on the stopwatch in your pocket.

The wine is served, and you and I take our cups and slip out of the celebration. When we are outside, we immediately pour our wine samples into clean containers and cap them tightly. We return to our time machine, put the samples on ice, and head back to our own time. Then we fly to California, to the best wine laboratory in the country, and submit our samples for analysis to the chemists who have been awaiting our arrival.

Now, we already know something about what the analysis of our wine samples will show: Because the MC declared this liquid to be ‘the best wine’ it means that the molecules required for such a feel, flavor, and aroma were in this water-that-had-been-made-into-wine. But, the specific question that we will ask the wine chemists is this: How old is this wine?

I think that the wine chemists will have to answer like this: ‘These wine samples came from the same bottling. Although we cannot tell you exactly how old it is, we can tell you that this wine came from grapes that grew on old vines. It was also undoubtedly a good season, with good rain and with warm days and cool nights. The grapes must have been harvested near the peak of their sugar content, and then pressed. The juice was fermented for two to three weeks, and then stored. We cannot tell you exactly how long this wine has been stored, but the molecules in it indicate some aging after fermentation, anywhere from three months to some years. We are sorry that we cannot be more specific than that.’

You then show the chemists your stopwatch, which is reading 23 hours and some minutes, and tell the chemists that we saw this wine made less than 24 hours ago.

The chemists do not believe us. They smile. One of them laughs. They look at us as if we are joking. When we insist that the stopwatch is accurate, their facial expressions change. They view us as crazy, or perhaps that we harbor evil intent.

Do not be hard on these chemists, though, for they have been taught from their earliest days that the supernatural does not exist. They might even believe that we traveled back in time (if they are science fiction fans) but they will not believe that water was turned into wine by Jesus Christ. That would upset everything for them. They simply cannot go there. They cannot allow the possibility that miracles ever happen. Ever.

But you know that the wine came into existence less than a day ago, even though it looks older than that, at least from its chemical composition and the way that wine usually comes into being.

Here is the first lesson for believers that can be learned from this thought experiment: The existence of the supernatural makes it very hard to establish, from appearance alone, the age of anything. In this example of the water-made-into-wine, the wine had to look older than it was. This looking-older was not because Jesus intended the miracle to misrepresent the true age of the wine, but simply because good wine, by normal definition, always has a history attached to it. By normal definition, apart from the supernatural, ‘good wine’ comes about only by the process described above by the chemist. Thus, apart from the supernatural, good wine must be more than one day old. That’s just the way it is.

The same thing must be true concerning the age of anything, really. If there is no testimonial evidence as to the age of something (like, for example, some layer within the earth’s crust) the existence of the supernatural makes it impossible to be sure how old it is. One can estimate its age, but one can do that only by assuming that only natural processes have occurred to bring about its formation. If it is possible that the formation of that layer of rock was touched by the supernatural, in any way, it is possible for its appearance to be older (or younger) than it really is.

It is important for believers to realize that the influence of the supernatural on the appearance of things must not be construed as intending to fool anyone. For example, it is possible that the galaxies that appear to be millions of light-years away from us were created relatively recently, but that they were created with light from those galaxies already on the path streaming to our eyes, so that we can see something that is very, very far away. That is, even though its time of creation was too recent for light from it to make it here on its own, it is possible that the light path could have been filled upon its creation simply to allow us to see something that God has made at a distance impossibly far away. If God has done this (and my thinking is that He did) it could be for the purpose of showing forth His glory. That is, the light was created on the path to Earth not with the intent to make the galaxies look older than they are, but to allow them to be seen.

But this explanation is not likely to be accepted by your unbelieving coworker, and thus it brings up the second lesson for believers from this water-into-wine thought experiment: For those who refuse to admit the existence of the supernatural, it is impossible to believe that a miracle has occurred, ever. It is easy to think that if a person were to see a miracle, they would then believe in the supernatural, but it does not usually work that way. In general, people have in their minds an existing conviction about the limits of reality. This can come from culture, but it can also come from a desire to think in a way that makes life a little easier. I will write more on this another time, but it is important for believers to realize that all beliefs—even the beliefs of an unbeliever—tend to be very stable, and are rarely changed by any single observation or event.

Believers need to hold both of these things together, I think. We need to realize that even though our culture trumpets the apparent age of the earth in diverse media, the assumptions behind such a view likely exclude the supernatural. If you believe that Jesus made water into wine, then you should be appropriately skeptical of anyone stating the age of the earth with any confidence.

But we also need to have some understanding of how our non-believing friends and colleagues see these same things. Part of this understanding is to have compassion on them in their situation, but also this understanding will help the believer not to be intimidated by the confident statements of ‘fact’ from educated people. I understand why they believe what they do, and thus why they think I am loony, and that keeps me from being knocked into uncertainty and doubt.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Stay on that.

Water into wine—a bigger miracle than you might think

I have found the account of Jesus at the wedding in Cana to be very instructive in thinking about various subjects, and I offer the following thoughts as help to other believers.

You probably know the story already: There was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples were also invited. During the wedding celebration, Mary came to Jesus and said, ‘They have no wine.’ Jesus responded to his mother with a curiously formal tone, ‘Madam, what has that to do with me or you? My hour has not yet come.’

Mary then said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he says.’ (I imagine that she spoke this while rolling her eyes, but that is probably just my own emotions about what it must have been like living with a perfect human being.) Jesus told the servants to fill up some large water jars with water and they did. The total volume of water was something over a hundred gallons, and Jesus told them to draw some out and give it to the steward of the feast.

The steward, who likely was a friend of the groom who was directing the celebration, did not know where the new wine came from, but the servants who took it to him did know. Upon tasting the new wine, he called the bridegroom to the attention of all, and said, ‘Everybody serves the good wine first; and when the guests have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.’

To say it another way, the steward tasted the liquid given to him by the servants, and declared it to be ‘the good wine.’ Now I ask, What does that mean about the liquid that he tasted? What was it made of?

Well, to give the flavor and feel of good wine, an array of substances must have been in the wine-made-from-water. To begin with, wine has alcohol, sugars, and other organic molecules that make up several percent of its total composition. But the taste of wine has more to do with the sensation of what one smells, more than anything else, and the molecules that give wine its aroma and bouquet are relatively complex structures. Similarly, the ‘feel’ of wine in the mouth comes from other molecules, also relatively complex. And, while we are at it, even the color of wine is due to some very complex molecules.

Thus, in thinking about this miracle, in changing from water into wine, the liquid had to go from chemically simple to chemically complex. In order for the flavor, color, and even texture of the liquid to be sensed by the steward as ‘good wine’ there must have been present a substantial concentration of complex molecules in the new wine.

But the change is really even more dramatic than just complexity. I confess that I have always thought of this miracle as being one of rearranging the atoms of the water to get wine. That, admittedly, would be quite a miracle, but for me it still would involve to some extent the ‘conservation of matter’ law that was drilled into me in my chemistry classes.

But when I listed out the approximate composition of first-century wine, I discovered something that surprised me: Water, even rather dirty water, does not have the correct atoms to make wine. Those sugars, alcohols, aromatic compounds, and colors contain much more carbon and nitrogen than would be in water. In order for the water drawn by the servants to become a liquid recognized by the steward as ‘good wine,’ new atoms would have to be formed within the jars. That is, the miracle of water-to-wine must involve the creation of new carbon atoms, new nitrogen atoms, and a number of other elements (such as a rather large amount of potassium).

To drop away from the chemistry for a moment, let me say it this way: In changing the water into wine, Jesus did a miracle that was more than just a rearrangement of the stuff of the water into something else. It was the making of new stuff. The formation of new atoms is really just like the old lead-into-gold idea that the alchemists are said to have pursued. In modern science, this kind of transformation can be done, but only in giant particle accelerators or special systems like that. It is never something that can be pulled off in the chemistry lab. Atoms always stay the same in the lab. They can be rearranged into different molecules, but they never change into something else. Oxygen never becomes carbon. Hydrogen never becomes nitrogen. Such things cannot happen.

Do you see the implications for this ‘minor’ miracle? Jesus caused the water to be changed into wine, apparently mostly at the urging of his mother, and to keep the bridegroom from being embarrassed about the poor provision for the celebration. But the miracle was, in one sense, not very different from the initial creation itself. Creatio ex nihilo is the Latin phrase used to describe God’s creation of the universe: Creation out of nothing. Something from nothing. Matter and energy where previously there was nothing at all.

Jesus’ first miracle thus ranks with Genesis chapter 1, the creation of matter out of nothing. Water into wine. Creatio ex nihilo.

May your faith in the Lord Jesus be strengthened by this thought. Amen.