How Jesus Turned Water to Wine (John 2:6)

How many jars of water were turned into wine at the wedding at Cana? Six

The Gospel of John famously records Jesus’ first miracle as changing water into wine (John 2:1-11). This transformation occurs at a wedding in Cana that predates Jesus’ public ministry (John 2:1-2). Jesus’ mother, Mary, alerts him that the supply of wine is exhausted, an egregious faux pas by the standards of the day (John 2:3-5). The text then interrupts the narrative to direct the reader’s attention to six water pots resting nearby (John 2:6).

Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. (John 2:6 NASB)

Translators describe these containers as “stone water jars” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, NRSV), “stone waterpots” (ASV, NASB), “waterpots of stone’ (KJV, NJKV), “stone jars” (RSV) or “stoneware water pots” (MSG).

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) locates:

The jars stood there: this means either in the dining room itself (Roland Deines [b. 1961] 1993:274) or, perhaps more likely, in a passage near the courtyard where the well would be (Ritva H. Williams [b. 1960] 1997:685-86). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 96)

This notification marks the preparation of the miracle phase of the story (John 2:6). Marianus Pale Hera (b. 1974) interprets:

The narrator...establishes the setting for Jesus to act. He tells the audience about the presence of six water jars there in the scene (John 2:6). The phrase “for the purification rituals of the Jews” explains why the jars are there (ἐκει). (Hera, Christology and Discipleship in John 17, 65)

Jesus instructs the servants to fill the six receptacles with water and then proceeds to transform their contents into wine (John 2:7-10). The story, unique to John’s gospel, concludes with a notation that this act marks the first of Jesus’ “signs” (John 2:11).

The specifications regarding the water pots stand out as they garner an inordinate amount of press (John 2:6). In fact, the only thing that John describes in detail at the entire wedding is these seemingly innocuous water receptacles. The reader is presented with far more information than would be thought necessary: their number, material, purpose and capacity.

Mark Frost (b. 1950) observes:

The story itself is brief [John 2:1-11]. The author is sparing in detail...except when he describes the water jars [John 2:6]. He focuses our attention on the jars long enough to point out considerable detail. Six–count them–six jars. Made of stone, not clay. The twenty-to-thirty gallon jumbo size. Most significantly, we’re told that they were the kind the Jews used for ceremonial washing. These jars were all about religious activity–exclusively so. Thus, the story implicitly poses the question, “What if someone could transform our religious activity into the exquisite joy of fine wine?” (Dave Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], “He Always Had Some Mighty Fine Wine”, Preaching John’s Gospel: The World It Imagines, 100)

The water pots pique the reader’s interest. Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) comments:

John...provides a piece of scenic detail with enough prevision to provoke speculation about intent. There were six stone [or stoneware, hard-baked clay] water jars unattended there in accord with the purification [rites] of the Jews with the capacity to hold up to two or three measure (John 2:6). (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 57)

The tantalizing note has captured the attention of interpreters throughout the centuries (John 2:6). Mark Edwards (b. 1962) canvasses:

Bede [672-735] derives the purification as a Pharisaic rite like the washing of hands at Mark 7:3 (Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274] 1997:83). John Chrysostom [347-407] (Homily 21.2) objects that wine would never have been stored in such a vessel. Isaac of Stella [1100-1169] argues that, as the week contains the seventh day apart from the days of labour, so the six vessels represent the insufficiency of human striving; the two measures stand for the dual sense of Scripture, and the old wine for the wisdom of the Gentiles, which causes them to ‘reel like drunken men’ (1979:88, 85, citing Psalm 106:27). (Edwards, John Through the Centuries, 100)

Some have construed this detail as one of multiple evidences in John’s gospel of an eyewitness account. D. Moody Smith (b. 1931) notes:

The Gospel gives the impression of “things seen” [John 3:32] (details such as six water pots [John 2:6], the whip of cords [John 2:15], Jesus’ fatigue at the well [John 4:6], and others). (Smith, John Among the Gospels, 175)

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) inventories:

Numerous minor details in the Gospel suggest eyewitness remembrance: the six water pots in Cana (John 2:6), the naming of Philip and Andrew (John 6:7), the barley loaves at the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:9), the detail that the disciples rowed out twenty-five to thirty stadia (John 6:19), the odor that filled the house when Mary anointed Jesus’ body for burial (John 12:3), Peter’s beckoning of the Beloved Disciple (John 13:24), the reaction of the soldiers to Jesus’ arrest (John 18:6), the name of the high priest’s servant (John 18:10), the weight of embalming spices (John 19:39), the knowledge of the disciples’ reactions (John 2:11, 24, 6:15, 61, 13:1), and the catch of 153 fish (John 21:11). These details do not prove that the author was an eyewitness, but they are consistent with such a view. (Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ, 82-83)

This particular brand of specificity is typical of the fourth gospel. Paul N. Anderson (b. 1956) educates:

A[n]...aspect of spatial knowledge in the Fourth Gospel involves the use of measurements and references to particular distances and weights within the narrative. Before the sea crossing, the boat was twenty-five or thirty stadia from the shore (three or four miles; John 6:19); Bethany was fifteen stadia (just under two miles; John 11:18) from Jerusalem; the boat at Jesus’ postresurrection appearance was two hundred pēchōn from shore (a hundred yards; John 21:8); the six water jars held two or three metrētas each (twenty or thirty gallons; John 2:6). Likewise, the weight of the spices to embalm Jesus was one hundred pounds (John 19:39); the cost of the bread would be two hundred denarii (eight months of wages; John 6:7); and the cost of the perfume at the anointing of Jesus would be three hundred denarii (a full year’s wages; John 12:5). (Anderson, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John, 204)

The jars’ presence is in conjunction with “the Jewish custom of purification” (John 2:6 NASB). Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) acknowledges:

Why jars for purification are present is not clear [John 2:6]. They may have been used for cleansing of utensils in preparation for the wedding or filling basins for hand washing, in which case the number and size of the empty jars could be an index to the number of guests. John’s underscoring that these are according to Jewish practice may point to conformity to Judean practice in the Galilee and may signify a response to Southern polemic. Judeans thought that Galileans did not keep their high standards of purity. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 57)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) conjectures:

The half dozen represented a good store of water for carrying out the kind of purification of which we read in Mark 7:1-4. Before the meal servants would have poured water over the hands of every guest. If there was a large number of guests a good deal of water would have been needed. John does not elaborate, but says enough for his Greek readers to understand why so much was provided. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 160)

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) connects:

In the context of a wedding feast, perhaps the ritual washing of certain utensils and guests’ hands is especially in view (cf. Mark 7:3-4; for the regulations on washing cf. Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] 1.695-705), but if so John sees this as representative of the broader question of the place of all ceremonial washings (cf. John 3:25). Their purpose provides a clue to one of the meanings of the story: the water represents the old order of Jewish law and custom, which Jesus was to replace with something better (cf. John 1:16). (Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary, 173)

The jars are comprised of stone (Greek líthinos, John 2:6). This stone composition, as opposed to earthenware, directly relates to the purpose of purification (John 2:6).

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) informs:

The jars were made of stone...because stone was not itself considered to contract uncleanness (Ronny Reich [b. 1947] 1995; cf. Roland Deines [b. 1961] 1993:29-34; John Christopher Thomas 1991b:162-65). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 96)

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) explain:

Stone water jars were preferable for holding water for purification since clay pots had to be destroyed if they were contaminated by contact with the carcass of an unclean animal (Leviticus 11:33). (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 69)

Gerard Sloyan (b. 1919) surmises:

Stone jars (John 2:6) would have required less purification than jars of baked clay. Their non-porosity made a great difference to the laws of purity. (Sloyan, John (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 35)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) contrasts:

Clay pots could become unclean, and if this happened they must be destroyed (Leviticus 11:33). But some vessels did not become unclean (Mishnah Kelim 10:1; Mishnah Parah 3:2). (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 160)

The caveat regarding the use of stone jars during purification stems from tradition and is not explicitly stated in the Old Testament. Jey J. Kanagaraj (b. 1948) clarifies:

The use of “stone jars” for purification is mentioned not in Leviticus 11:32-38, but in the Mishnah, a Rabbinic text of the second century that reflects the life situation of the late first century (Mishnah Kelim 5:11; Mishnah Besah 2:3). (Kanagaraj, John (New Covenant Commentary Series), 22)

C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) traces:

Stone, unlike earthenware, did not itself contract uncleanness. This is explicitly stated by Maimonides [1135-1204], and seems to be borne out of earlier evidence (see Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] II, 406). Stone vessels are accordingly especially suitable for water used for purification purposes. (Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 191)

Insight into these receptacles has deepened in recent times. James H. Charlesworth (b. 1940) studies:

Most commentators, intent on understanding the meaning of the pericope in which Jesus turned water into wine (John 2:1-11), have missed the importance of an oblique aside made by the evangelist: “Six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons” (John 2:6). Now, with the Temple Scroll, the longest of all the Dead Sea Scrolls, we possess a pre-70 C.E., firsthand insight into the regulations and specifications for purification. A house and everything within it, especially valuable commodities stored in pottery vessels, become impure when one who is ritually unclean enters...11QTemple 50:10-19...Excavations in the upper city of Jerusalem have unearthed large stone vessels, like the ones the evangelist notes in passing; all of them antedate the destruction of 70 and caused the excavator Nahman Avigad [1907-1992] to report, “we were astonished by the rich and attractive variety of the stone vessels.” Hence, the evangelist, who was most likely a Jew, and probably his fellow Jews–not only his sources–possessed considerable knowledge about Jewish purification rights. We now know from other areas of research that the stipulations for purification developed considerably from the time of Herod the Great [73-4 BCE] in 37 B.C.E. until the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. (R. Alan Culpepper [b. 1946] and C. Clifton Black [b. 1955], “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John”, Exploring the Gospel of John: in honor of D. Moody Smith [b. 1931], 67-69)

The archaeological record is replete with specimens which corroborate John’s account (John 2:6). Carsten Claussen (b. 1966) apprises:

Archaeologists have found such jars at many Jewish sites in Palestine, Judea, Galilee, and the Golan. They appear during the reign of Herod the Great [73-4 BCE] and quickly disappear after 70 CE. While they are widespread in Palestine, they are almost absent in the Diaspora. Recently, a few small vessels have also been found at Khirbet Cana. The jars mentioned in John 2:6-7 can be identified with large vessels, which were turned on a lathe. They could contain about 100 liters each. The Mishnah calls them kallal. Jonathan L. Reed [b. 1963] rightly stresses that, due to their sophisticated production technique, they were “luxury items.” Such luxurious jars are virtually absent in peasant villages like Capernaum, but rather frequent in rich urban sites like Sepphoris. The reader is again impressed by this rather luxurious wedding feast, crowned by an incredible 600 liters of wine, of excellent quality, in rather expensive stone vessels. (James H. Charlesworth [b. 1940] and Petr Pokorný [b. 1933], “Turning Water to Wine: Re-reading the Miracle at the Wedding in Cana”, Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus), 95)

Archaeologist Nahman Avigad (1907-1992) recounts:

The discovery of stone vessels became a routine matter in our work, for whenever we approached a stratum of the Second Temple period, and a building which was burnt during the destruction of the city in AD 70 began revealing itself, they invariably made an appearance as well. Thus, even in the absence of other specific chronological cues, we were often able to date a structure as Herodian solely on the basis of the presence of even a single stone vessel—or even mere fragments. (Avigad, “A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley”, Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962), 174)

The reason stone vessels can be used in the dating of artifacts is because they represent a very specific period in the evolution of liquid storage.

Hydrologist Francis H. Chapelle (b. 1951) chronicles:

There is no lack of archaeological evidence for the use of stoneware urns as water-storage devices in the ancient world. But there is documentary evidence as well, sometimes coming from unexpected sources. In the Gospel of John, for example, the first miracle that Jesus performs is turning water into wine at the wedding of Cana [John 2:1-11]...This passage gives just the briefest hint of the role that water-storing urns played in Jewish households, and it simply confirms what archaeologists find when they excavate sites in the Middle East...The urns of Cana are an example of one of the most important water-storing technologies in human history...The introduction of glassy glazes essentially perfected the oil-, wine-, and water-storing capabilities of stoneware. It was not long before the use of these glazes, however, led to the development of a brand-new material for storing liquids. The new material was glass. (Chapelle, Wellsprings: A Natural History of Bottled Spring Waters, 69)

In referencing the purification ritual, the Jews reenter the gospel’s focus (John 2:6). Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) notifies:

For readers unfamiliar with Palestinian Jewish custom, the narrator...adds the explanatory aside that the these jars were there “in keeping with the cleansing ritual of the Jews [John 2:6].” (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 96)

Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) understands:

Keeping “the Jews” in his narrative space and time as he does, the Evangelist allows the reader to understand that the story about Jesus, with its denouement, takes place in “Jewish” space and time. His story is to be a Jewish story. The use of the phrase “of the Jews” in John 2:6 and John 2:13 does more, however, than simply identify Jesus’ story as a Jewish story. The usage allows the reader to gain a glimpse of the relationship between Jesus and Jewish space and time. The jugs that were available for the Jewish rites of purification are employed by Jesus as vessels in which Jesus makes available the abundance of first-quality wine that symbolizes the surfeit of gifts given at the (messianic) nuptials. (Reimund Bieringer [b. 1957], Didier Pollefeyt [b. 1965] and Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville [b. 1972], “Speaking of the Jews: ‘Jews’ in the Discourse Material of the Fourth Gospel”. Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, 159-160)

Many scholars have connected the water jars with Judaism as a whole. Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) introduces:

The mention of Jewish purification (required by law) may subtly reinforce the contrast drawn by the evangelist between the law given through Moses (John 1:17) and the new messianic provision by Jesus (Adolf Schlatter [1852-1938] [1948:69] cites John 13:10). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 97)

Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) expounds:

The water jars themselves may have been mentioned for symbolic reasons. C.H. Dodd [1884-1973], The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 299, believes that they “stand for the entire system of Jewish ceremonial observance — and by implication for religion upon that level, wherever it is found, as distinguished from religion upon the level of alētheia [“truth”]...Thus the first of [Jesus’] signs already symbolizes the doctrine [“the law was given through Moses; (deep) Grace and (deep) Truth came through Jesus Christ],” John 1:17. On the same page (note 2), Dodd cites Origen [184-253]’s Commentary on John, 13:62, 277-78: “And truly before Jesus the Scripture was water, but from the time of Jesus it has become wine to us.” C.K. Barrett [1917-2011], The Gospel according to St. John, 192, believes John intends symbolism in the jars: “This incident illustrates at once the poverty of the old dispensation with its merely ceremonial cleansing and the richness of the new, in which the blood of Christ is available both for cleansing (John 1:29) and for drink (John 6:53). If the initial reference to the water jars is to the supercession of Judaism, Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976] [120] is right [Barrett concludes] to generalize: the water ‘stands for everything that is a substitute for the revelation, everything by which man thinks he can live and which yet fails him when put to the test.’” Comparably, Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], The Gospel according to John 1:105. Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975], John 1:179, gives a helpful summary: “In the older rites of purification man attempted to make himself clean before God. But now, in the ‘hour,’ comes the new, the new hour of God: man does not take his own impurity away; ‘the Lamb of God’ does [that] (John 1:29, 36).” (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 139)

This reading is far from unanimous. John A. Dennis (b. 1962) objects:

I take issue with Frédéric Manns [b. 1942]’s interpretation of the Cana symbolism: “Jean a l’intention de montrer l’imperfection de la loi juive” (L’Evangile à lumière du Judaïsme [Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Analecta 33; Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1991], 103). This assessment is followed by Mary L. Coloe [b. 1949] , God Dwells with Us, 69: “At the wedding of Cana, the six jars of water point to the inadequacy of Israel’s religious institutions, an inadequacy now brought to perfection by the coming of the true bridegroom.” There is nothing in the text that would support this kind of over-expectation. The text, with its symbolism, simply argues that Jesus is bringing the expectations of the messianic age to their intended climax. There is a sense in which these Jewish expectations do not reach their intended fulfillment until the messianic age, which for John is the advent of Jesus, but this idea is not substantially different from other Jewish messianic expectations, namely, that only in the messianic era will the expectations reach their climax. The difference between John’s view and other Jewish views is clear: in Jesus the Messiah the hopes and promises engendered by the Prophets are being fulfilled. The language of “inadequacy” is misleading therefore. (Dennis, Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology in the Light of John 11:47-52, 166)

Peter-Ben Smit (b. 1979) advises:

It seems...preferable not to read too much into the apparent emphasis on the Jewish character of the six stone vessels in John 2:6, as it is part of John’s style to refer to anything Jewish as explicitly Jewish without necessarily characterizing it negatively. As neither “Jewishness” nor purification are of central importance in John 2:1-11, the note that these large stone vessels belong to Jewish rites, should be taken as explanatory. The same might be true of the note as a whole: its function is simply to explain why the vessels are there. (Jan Krans, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte [b. 1963], Smit and Arie Zwiep [b. 1964], “Alternative Patronage in John 2:1-11?”, Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer [b. 1947], 154)

Reading the ceremonial jars as representative of Judaism can even be dangerous. Lamar Williamson, Jr. (b. 1926) cautions:

Some interpreters, focusing on the six stone jars for the Jewish rites of purification (John 2:6) have seen here a story about the changing of the water of Jewish ritual into the wine of the gospel. The theme of the rejection of Judaism and its replacement by Christianity (supersessionism), so common to much patristic biblical interpretation, has led to unspeakable atrocities against the Jewish people through the centuries. In the text, “the miracle is...neither a rejection nor a replacement of the old, but the creation of something new in the midst of Judaism.” In today’s world, a supersessionist interpretation of the text is inappropriate, even inexcusable. (Williamson, Preaching the Gospel of John: Proclaiming the Living Word, 27-28)

If one chooses to connect the water pots with the religion they serve, it is worth remembering that Jesus does not destroy the jars but rather recommissions them (John 2:6-10).

Ian D. Mackay (b. 1936) characterizes:

John’s changing of water to wine reflects his more positive, fulfillment approach to the Jewish religion - the six purification water parts are not destroyed but filled with something ‘absolutely’ superior [John 2:6-10]. (Mackay, John’s Relationship with Mark: An Analysis of John 6 in the Light of Mark 6-8, 97)

The text also notes the quantity of the water pots: There are a half dozen of these vessels present at the wedding (John 2:6). This number represents an abundance.

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) brief:

Most village families would have had no more than one such jar (which held about twenty gallons), hence the presence of six stone jars may indicate that others have been borrowed from neighbors for the occasion. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 69)

Kenneth E. Bailey (b. 1930) concurs:

If we reject allegory and assume an authentic detail in John 2:6, we would have there an illustration of jars gathered from the neighbors for the large gathering. The average family would have only one. (Bailey, Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke, 123)

C.H. Dodd (1884-1973) footnotes:

In early Christian art the six waterpots regularly balance the five, or seven, loaves in symbolic allusions to the Eucharist. (Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 224)

Some have read the number six allegorically. Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) mentions:

The number six may signify incompletion or labor. Six is the number of days God works before resting on the Sabbath [Genesis 1:1-31]. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 57)

When the numeral is associated with incompleteness it is also connected with Judaism. Leon Morris (1914-2006) discusses:

Some commentators find symbolism in the number six [John 2:6]. The Jews saw seven as the perfect number, and six accordingly was short of perfection and thus lacking, incomplete. The six pots are then held to symbolize Judaism as imperfect. There may be something in this, but a strong objection is that the narrative contains nothing that would symbolize completeness, which would surely be required to correspond to the incomplete. Jesus does not create or produce a seventh pot. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 160-61)

Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) deliberates:

Along with many others, C.K. Barrett [1917-2011] rejects this suggestion, as he claims Jesus does not create a seventh jar to bring the number to perfection (The Gospel according to St. John, 191). This misses the point. The narrator merely wishes to indicate that Judaism, along with its rituals, falls short of fullness. On this, see Marie-Émile Boismard [1916-2004], Moïse ou Jésus; Essai de Christologie Johannique (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 84; Leuven: University Press, 1988) 56. The good wine (John 2:10) created by openness (John 2:5: the mother) and obedience to the word of Jesus (John 2:7-8: the attendants) provides that fullness. (Moloney, Belief in the Word: Reading John 1-4, 85)

Some have seen the entire story as pertaining to incompleteness (John 2:1-10). Joseph A. Grassi (1922-2010) connects:

These two verses [John 2:6-7] have a strong emphasis on filling or completion. The number six...is a familiar symbol of incompletion in the bible [John 2:6]. The jars themselves hold an enormous quantity of water, but they are still far short of their capacity. At Jesus’ order they are filled [John 2:7]. The execution of the command is carefully noted: “they filled them to the brim [John 2:7]”. Jesus brings them to overflowing capacity. The Greek of John 2:6 literally reads that the jars held from two to three measures [John 2:6]. The work of Jesus is to fulfill the Father’s design to give the Spirit without any measure: “It is not by measure that he gives the Spirit” (John 3:34). The Pentecostal account in Acts also emphasizes this filling by the Spirit: “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4); they were filled or drunk with new wine (Acts 2:13); it is the outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:17); it is an overflowing gift that goes out from the disciples to believers in the crowd; Peter tells them that if they repent and believe, they will receive the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:38). (David E. Orton, “The Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11): A Pentecostal Meditation?”, The Composition of John’s Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum, 127)

Throughout the centuries, expositors have made use of the number six (John 2:6). Ray E. Atwood (b. 1966) documents:

An interesting interpretation that Bernard [of Clairvaux, 1090-1153] uses, typical of medieval preachers, is the symbolic meaning of the six stone water jars at the Wedding Feast of Cana (John 2:6). Bernard explains them in terms of six steps of repentance (since they were used for purification): (1) sorrow for sin; (2) confession of sin; (3) the generous giving of alms; (4) forgiving those who sin against us; (5) the mortification of our flesh; and (6) new obedience (Bernard, In Epiphania, Sermo V, 4)...In another sermon, this one for monks, Bernard interprets the water jars as symbolizing: (1) chastity, (2) fasting, (3) manual labor, (4) keeping of vigils, (5) silence, and (6) obedience (Bernard, In Epiphania Sermo VI, 7). (Atwood, Masters of Preaching: The Most Poignant and Powerful Homilists in Church History, 170)

The six stone water pots each have a capacity of two to three measures (John 2:6). This has been rendered “two or three firskins” (ASV, KJV) which most contemporary translations convert to “twenty or thirty gallons (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Though the six vessels may not have been uniform, each represents a warehouse club size, larger than most modern kegs. This abundance might be characterized by the Coneheads as “mass quantities”.

Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) considers:

It is not clear if the total volume is two to three measures or if each jar holds that amount, making the total twelve to eighteen measures [John 2:6]. A measure is about nine English gallons, so whatever the volume it is copious. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 57)

Gerald L. Borchert (b. 1932) calculates:

This segment of the story begins with a notation that there were present six large stone jars used in Jewish water purification rites, each capable of containing between two and three measures (John 2:6), each measure by calculation being roughly between eight and nine gallons. Each jar therefore contained somewhere between sixteen and twenty-seven gallons (the NIV “twenty to thirty gallons” in very close). Obviously these six jars could contain an immense amount of water (Borchert, John 1-11 (New American Commentary), 156)

The Greek term for measures is metrētēs (John 2:6). C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) develops:

In classical usage the μετρητής was a measure equivalent to the ἀμφορεύς, a liquid measure of ‘1½ Roman amphorae or nearly nine gallons’ (Henry G. Liddell [1811-1898] and Robert Scott [1811-1887] s.v. ἀμφορεύς). In the Septuagint μετρητής renders the Hebrew בת (bath) an almost identical measure. Each waterpot therefore contained 18-24 gallons; say 120 gallons in all. (Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 192)

Merrill C. Tenney (1904-1985) updates:

The combined capacity of the waterpots was about 150 gallons. Reckoning a half pint to a glass, these vessels would contain about 2400 servings of wine—certainly enough to supply a large number of people for several days. In quality and quantity the new-made wine more than satisfied the needs and taste of those who attended the feast. (Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief, 83)

These pots would be heavy when filled. A gallon of water weighs 8.34 pounds meaning that the jar’s contents alone measure between 166.8-250.2 pounds.

Robert L. Deffinbaugh (b. 1943) imagines:

We would have to agree that these stone waterpots would be heavy when empty, and even heavier yet when full (the weight of the water alone in a full pot would be about 200 pounds). It does not appear Jesus intended for the servants to carry these pots away, dump them, refill them, and then carry them back. They are far too heavy for this, especially when filled with water. (Deffinbaugh, That You Might Believe: Study on the Gospel of John, 66)

Given the brimming state of these water pots, the amount of wine produced is excessive (John 2:7). Gail R. O’Day (b. 1954) and Susan E. Hylen (b. 1968) reveal:

The quantity and capacity of the stone jars...is unusual, even for a large wedding, and their description enhances the extravagance of the miracle (John 2:6). Jesus turns an abundance of water into wine. (O’Day and Hylen, John (Westminster Bible Companion), 36)

The sheer volume could also serve to validate the miracle. Beauford H. Bryant (1923-1997) and Mark S. Krause (b. 1955) discern:

Their total content was...from 120 to 180 gallons [John 2:6]. Jesus had the servants of the feast fill them completely with water [John 2:7]. No one could therefore say that Jesus’ power was limited so that he could perform on only one or two of the jars. Likewise, he had each jar filled to its brim, so no one could assert that some magic potion was added by him to the water. When God performs a special work he does an adequate job of it! (Bryant and Krause, John (College Press NIV Commentary), 73)

Some have seen the vessels’ immense capacity as suggestive of the wealth of the wedding party. Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) suspects:

A large number of wedding guests must be accommodated for the course of an entire week of festivities. “The fact that there were servants, and more than one, indicates that the family was in at least comfortable if not opulent circumstances” (Lyman Abbott [1835-1922] 1879:30; cf. Roland Deines [b. 1961] 1993:25 n.39). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 96-97)

Such excess is typical of John’s gospel which in modern parlance depicts Jesus exercising a “go big or go home” mentality. Robert Kysar (1934-2013) reads:

Their capacity suggests the enormity of the wonder about to be performed [John 2:6]. While John narrates fewer wonder stories than his canonical colleagues, each of his is remarkable by virtue of the extent of the wonder (e.g., the blind man of chapter 9 has been blind from birth [John 9:1, 2, 3]; in chapter 11 Lazarus has been dead for three days [John 11:17, 39]). (Kysar, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 46)

Graham H. Twelftree (b. 1950) agrees:

The most obvious feature of the miracle stories in the Fourth Gospel is that they are few and take up little space. Yet they dominate the Fourth Gospel because they are spectacular and relatively uncommon. The Cana story of water into wine is a miracle of immense proportions: six jars of twenty or thirty gallons of water each are turned into wine (John 2:6). The paralytic at Bethesda had been paralyzed for thirty-eight years but was immediately made well merely by Jesus’ word (John 5:5, 9). The story of Lazarus is self-evidently stupendous, not least because he had been in the tomb four days (John 11:39). (Robert T. Fortna [b. 1930] and Tom Thatcher [b. 1967], “Exorcisms in the Fourth Gospel and Synoptics”, Jesus in Johannine Tradition, 137-38)

Carsten Claussen (b. 1966) supports:

Six stone water jars full of the best wine are certainly more than one may deem necessary [John 2:6], and the fact that the disciples collected twelve baskets of leftover pieces from the five barley loaves suggests that this multiplication surely went over the top as well [John 6:13]. Similarly, the 153 large fish of John 21:11 was certainly more than the seven disciples and Jesus needed as their “daily bread”. Clearly, in the fourth gospel there is not only one “miracle in the service of luxury”—as David Friedrich Strauss [1808-1874] once commented on the wine miracle at Cana (1860, 2:585)—but at least three of them. (Francisco Lozada, Jr. [b. 1965] and Tom Thatcher [b. 1967], “The Role of John 21: Discipleship in Retrospect and Redefinition”, New Currents Through John: A Global Perspective, 63)

As is often Jesus’ habit, scarcity is answered with abundance.

The excess of wine has often been seen as an early indicator of Messianic fulfillment. Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) reminds:

The prophets had foretold of an abundance of wine in messianic days; and the abundance of wine at Cana [John 2:6-7]...would bring these prophecies to mind and point to the messianic nature of Jesus’ mission. In this messianic framework the wine represents his wisdom and teaching. (Brown, The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary, 29)

Richard A. Burridge (b. 1955) annotates:

The prodigious amount has invited comparisons between Jesus and the Greek god of wine, Dionysus. Various stories are told of bowls being miraculously filled with wine in his temple at Elis, or of a fountain flowing with wine in his temple at Andros. In fact, we do not need to go so far afield for inspiration. The prophet Amos uses the images of ‘the mountains dripping with sweet wine and the hills flowing with it’ for the great Day of the Lord to come, and similar examples of wine as a sign of so-called ‘messianic abundance’ can be found in other Hebrew prophets (Amos 9:13; Hosea 14:7; Jeremiah 31:12). Isaiah looks forward to the Lord giving a huge party, ‘a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines’(Isaiah 25:6) and likens God’s rejoicing over his people to a wedding (Isaiah 62:4-5). Jesus uses this image of a wedding banquet for the kingdom of heaven in his parable of a marriage feast and those who refused the invitation (Matthew 22:1-10; Luke 14:15-24), and he likens himself to the bridegroom in Mark 2:19. All of this, says the fourth evangelist, is being inaugurated in the here and now as Jesus begins his ministry at this wedding feast in Cana [John 2:1-11]. (Burridge, John (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer), 48)

Mavis M. Leung (b. 1970) reinforces:

The act of Jesus miraculously converting six jars of water into choice wine (John 2:1-10), within a festive ambiance, evokes the Jewish hopes for a messianic era. In both biblical and extra-biblical Jewish traditions, profuse wine is a motif associated with eschatological bliss (e.g., Isaiah 25:6; Jeremiah 31:12; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13-14; Hosea 14:7; Sibylline Oracles 3:620-23, 744-49). The image of copious wine appears in Jacob’s blessing to Judah in Genesis 49:8-12, a text that is read messianically in Second Temple Judaism (cf. 4Q252 V, 1-7; 1QSb V, 29; Targum Onqelos Genesis). In II Baruch 29:5-7, the messianic age is characterized by the delightful boon of abundant wine (cf. I Enoch 10:9). During the first and second Jewish revolts (66-70 CE, 132-135 CE), which were to some extent incited by royal-messianic ambitions, various symbols pertinent to wine (e.g., vine, grape, and wine cup/pitcher) were minted on Jewish coins. In view of the “wine” symbol’s messianic associations and John’s stated intent (John 20:30-31), the Cana “sign most probably has the function of authenticating Jesus’ messiahship. (Leung, The Kingship-Cross Interplay in the Gospel of John: Jesus Death as Corroboration of His Royal Messiahship, 82-83)

Jesus’ converting water into wine provides an early glimpse into his power (John 2:1-11). John characterizes it as a “sign” (John 2:11) and this marker points to Jesus’ true identity: the Messiah, the long awaited Christ.

If the wedding party is wealthy, what does this say of Jesus’ family’s social circle? In filling religious implements with wine is Jesus mixing the sacred and the profane? In doing so does he defile religious vessels? Why does Jesus produce so much wine? Did the wedding guests actually consume all of it? What is the greatest quantity of beverages you have seen at a celebration? What does transforming water into wine indicate about Jesus? As this miracle is borne out of circumstance, does Jesus intend symbolic meaning in its implementation?

In utilizing the stone jars, Jesus uses a “weapon of opportunity” (John 2:6). He does not simply produce wine out of thin air, an ex nihilo creation as in the creation of the world (Genesis 1:1-31). Instead, he takes what is there and works with it.

In doing this, Jesus transforms not only the contents of the water pots but also the purpose of the receptacles themselves. Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) contemplates:

The six stone jars which he uses had once been used for another form of re-freshment—Jewish purification [John 2:6]. In other words, for the cleansing of faults and impurities (John 2:6). Cleansing is no mean achievement, but it tends to focus on the negative. Jesus, is offering something that is overwhelmingly positive. (Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 172)

Lesslie Newbigin (1909-1998) applauds:

We are in the midst of an event which is under the law. Six great stone jars holding twenty to thirty gallons of water each stand there as a reminder of this fact [John 2:6]. The water is for the rites of purification required by the law—part of the whole ritual apparatus which is provided to keep Israel as a nation consecrated for the Lord in the midst of a world which is defiled by sin. Purification is a negative action. The water removes uncleanness but does not give the fulness of joy. What the law cannot supply Jesus will give—in superabundance. The action of Jesus is free, sovereign, and surpassing any mere rectification of a defect. It is the coming into experience of that which is really new—the “new wine” of the kingdom of God (Mark 2:22). It is an act of the overflowing majesty of the Creator. (Newbigin, The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel, 27-28)

This act has an effect on the way religion will be experienced. Michael A. Daise (b. 1956) analyzes:

During the wedding at Cana, the empty stone jars at John 2:6-7 show ritual purity at that juncture to be the result of a physical rite effected by water. But, by Jesus’ vine and branches metaphor in the Farewell Discourse, “cleanness” has become the result of a verbal act effected by Jesus’ speech – “You are already clean, because of the word which I have spoken to you” (John 15:3)...The dynamic in question may be what Catherine Bell [1953-2008] labels “ritual transformation”: not the creation of new rites ex nihilo (which Bell dubs “ritual invention” ), but the modification of traditional rites into new forms and aims. Applied to the Fourth Gospel, it seems that, in the liminal period that occurs between the first Passover, when the Jesus’ ‘hour’ is introduced [John 2:4, 4:21, 23, 5:25, 28, 7:30, 8:20], and the last Passover, when it arrives, Jewish rituals are being gradually transformed into metaphorized counterparts; and these, in turn, form the framework for a new, distinctly Johannine (ritual) system. (Daise, Feasts in John: Jewish Festivals and Jesus’ “Hour” in the Fourth Gospel, 174)

Jesus is a game changer on many fronts. In this instance, he begins to shift the way that religion is performed. In this regard, the method Jesus uses to change water into wine not only indicates who he is but what he has come to do. It is a fitting first sign (John 2:11).

Why does Jesus use this particular methodology when changing water into wine (John 2:6-10)? Why did Jesus not simply make the wine materialize or reuse the receptacles from the first batch of wine? What does it say of Jesus that he uses what is there as opposed to discarding it and creating something new? Would you rather fix something broken or simply replace it? When has an action epitomized the values of its actor?

“In the Talmud, it is specified how much water is needed for the rites of purification. Only about a cup of water was necessary to purify a hundred men. But here, in this story, there is well over a hundred gallons of water! That is enough water to purify the entire world!...Get it? Jesus is that purifying water which is available in enough quantity for the whole world.” - William H. Willimon (b. 1946), “Some Saw Glory”, unpublished sermon preached January 18, 1998, at the Duke University Chapel

King Solomon’s Wives (I Kings 11:3)

How many wives did Solomon have? Seven hundred (I Kings 11:3)

Known as the wisest man on the planet (I Kings 4:30), King Solomon is a successful ruler. The holdings of Israel’s kingdom reach their apex during his reign (I Kings 10:14-29). The modern adage “Go big or go home” would have been an apt motto for the ancient monarch as he seemingly accrues everything in warehouse club portions. In addition to wisdom and commodities, Solomon amasses an abundance of women: seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3).

He [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. (I Kings 11:3 NASB)

The number of Solomon’ wives is fantastic. Douglas Sean O’Donnell (b. 1972) relays:

In Mark Twain [1835-1910]’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck says to Jim that Solomon “had about a million wives.” A slight exaggeration—Solomon only had 700 wives and 300 concubines. He had a thousand, not a million (but still large enough!). (O’Donnell, The Song of Solomon: An Invitation to Intimacy (Preaching the Word), 130)

Not surprisingly, Solomon and his wives have become fodder for humor. A.J. Jacobs (b. 1968) gibes:

Solomon holds the record with seven hundred wives...Solomon’s proverbs warn against adultery [Proverbs 2:16-19, 5:1-23, 6:24-29, 32, 7:5-23, 9:13-18, 22:14, 23:27, 30:20], which I find curious, since I can’t imagine he had any time or energy for other men’s wives. (Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Possible, 135)

Andy Stanley (b. 1958) exclaims:

Seven hundred wives! Think about that. Seven hundred mothers-in-law. What was he thinking? Apparently he wasn’t. (Stanley, The Principle of the Path: How to Get from Where You Are to Where You Want to Be, 92)

The note itself falls awkwardly into the narrative as it does not fit comfortably into its present context (I Kings 11:3). Percy S. F. Van Keulen (b. 1963) scrutinizes:

The position of the note in I Kings 11:3a is awkward. Materially, this note links up with the remark of I Kings 11:1 that Solomon loved many women. Its belated appearance at I Kings 11:3a is due to the circumstance that first the issue of the alien origin of Solomon’s wives is dealt with in I Kings 11:1b and I Kings 11:2. However, at I Kings 11:3a the note interrupts the logical sequence between I Kings 11:2b and I Kings 11:3b; the latter verse notes the fulfillment of the prediction made at I Kings 11:2b that foreign nations could turn the heart of the Israelites away behind their gods. (Van Keulen, Two Versions Of The Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry Into The Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2-11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2-11, 208)

The Septuagint reorganizes the passage to accentuate the bevy of marriages. Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) footnotes:

The Septuagint...rearranges I Kings 11:1-3 to emphasize Solomon’s many wives followed by his love for foreign women and apostasy: “And King Solomon was a lover of women. And he had seven hundred royal wives and three hundred concubines. And he took Gentile women, and the daughter of Pharaoh, Moabites, Ammonites, Syrians, and Idumeans, Hittites and Amorites, of the nations concerning which the L-rd said to the sons of Israel ‘You shall not go into them, and they shall not come in to you, lest they turn away your hearts after their idols.’ To them, Solomon clung in love” (see Heinrich Hrozný [1879-1952], Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus vom hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern 70-72; Gottfried Vanoni [1948-2006] 24-57). (Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 153)

Solomon is said to have seven hundred “wives” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “women” (MSG). These are distinguished from his additional three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3).

The sheer volume is staggering. Solomon tends to do everything extravagantly and marriage is evidently no different. He has far more wives than anyone else in the Bible.

Gene Rice (b. 1925) compares:

As Solomon’s building program, wealth, and fame were on a grand scale, so was his harem. Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines are not unprecedented [I Kings 11:3], but never before or after did an Israelite king have so many wives. The next largest harem was Rehoboam’s eighteen wives and sixty concubines (II Chronicles 11:21). David had at least eight wives (II Samuel 3:2-5, 5:13-16, 11:27; I Chronicles 3:1-9) and some ten or more concubines (II Samuel 15:16). Only one of David’s wives in known to have been a foreigner (II Samuel 13:37; I Chronicles 3:2). (Rice, 1 Kings: Nations Under God (International Theological Commentary), 86)

Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) illustrates:

It would seem that Solomon conducted his sex life on the same unmatchable scale that he did everything else...In fact, it is scarcely possible to conceive a sex life on this scale. In 1921 the Yiddish writer David Pinski [1872-1959] tried, undertaking an audacious attempt to describe all 1,000 of Solomon’s wives, but though he worked for fifteen years he managed to complete portraits of only 105; there were just too many to handle—and he was merely writing about them. Solomon seems to do everything in multiples of thousands—40,000 stalls for his horses [I Kings 4:26], 180,000 laborers to build the Temple [I Kings 5:13-16]; a sacrifice consisting of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep [I Kings 8:63; II Chronicles 7:5]—but no figure in I Kings has impressed itself on the imagination, or strains it, quite like the king’s 700 wives and 300 concubines. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 150-51)

Given the outlandish figure, many have seen the record as employing hyperbole. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) considers:

Not for the first time in the Solomon story (cf., e.g., I Kings 4:26), we may suspect that the number (a round 1000) is not meant to be taken literally. The point is that everything Solomon did, he did in a big way! Song of Solomon 6:8-9 contrasts the one true love of the king (Pharaoh’s daughter? cf. Victor Sasson [b.1937], “King Solomon and the Dark Lady in the Song of Songs,” Vetus Testamentum 39 [1989], pp. 407-14) with his 60 queens and 80 concubines—a more modest number, though not in itself unimpressive, particularly when combined with “virgins beyond number [Song of Solomon 6:8].” (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 93)

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) discounts:

The number of Solomon’s wives is said to be one thousand; as usual, this is probably an exaggeration, and the number has no significance for the course of the narrative. It only matters that his love for the women causes Solomon’s heart to turn away from Yahweh as the only God [I Kings 11:3-8]. The Deuteronomistic Historian firmly roots Solomon’s idolatry in his biography. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings (A Continental Commentary), 131)

Linda S. Schearing (b. 1947) pronounces:

His alleged marriages to 700 foreign princesses...is considered historical by some in spite of I Kings 11:3’s obvious hyperbole and literary function...John Gray [1913-2000], 1 & 2 Kings, pp. 274-75, for example, asserts that although “historical fact has been magnified and stylized” in I Kings 11:3, there is still a “historical basis” to Solomon’s diverse harem; while John Barclay Burns [b. 1943], “Solomon’s Egyptian Horses and Exotic Wives,” Foundations & Facts Forum 7 (1991) 33, admits that the “exaggerated numbers of wives and concubines would not have appeared in any formal chronicle” yet goes on to argue that “nonetheless, it is conceivable that Solomon wed foreign princesses to weave a strong web of alliances.” (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “A Wealth of Women: Looking Behind, Within and Beyond Solomon’s Story”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 436)

Not all agree that the number is figurative. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) defends:

While the daughter of Pharaoh held a special position as the number one wife of the king, I Kings 11:3 tells us that Solomon also had 699 other wives as well as 300 concubines. The fact that this number far exceeds the typical harems of other contemporary monarchs should not cause a problem with credibility, since Solomon diligently competed to exceed the other nations in every way. He had accumulated greater wealth, wisdom, and power than all others; and since virility was supposed to be an indicator of royal greatness in that day, he wanted to surpass them in this category too. Some interpreters who doubt the accuracy of the number in I Kings 11:3 point out that in the Song of Solomon 6:8 Solomon speaks of only “sixty queens and eighty concubines and virgins without number.” But the supposed discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the “virgins without number” could have brought the total to a thousand. It can also be explained by reckoning that the number listed in the Song of Solomon may have come earlier in Solomon’s reign before he had accumulated the full number in this chapter. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 131)

There are parallels to Solomon’s polygamy in other cultures. John Monson (b. 1963) correlates:

In addition to being a status symbol, the royal harem maintained close ties to Solomon’s constituents through marriage into families of varying clans, tribes, and social classes, including wives of higher status who were counted among the royalty. Counting royal women by the hundreds was not unusual during the Iron Age. Assyrian wine lists from Nimrud indicate that as many as three hundred women of various ranks lived at that palace. Extensive harems produced a large pool of heirs to ensure the enduring strength of the dynasty. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 50)

Solomon is the poster child for polygamy. Surprisingly, polygamy is not explicitly outlawed in the Bible. The Torah does mandate that the king “shall not multiply wives for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17 NASB) and the rabbis capped the number of marriages at eighteen (Mishnah Sanhedrin 2:4). The marriages themselves, however, are not the source of Solomon’s criticism.

Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) comments:

Polygamy in ancient Israel was apparently permitted, even though it obviously contradicted God’s ideal of one man for one woman for life. Most of the biblical patriarchs had numerous wives. David had fifteen. Abijah had fourteen [II Chronicles 13:21]. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, had eighteen wives and sixty concubines [II Chronicles 11:21]. So except for the unprecedented number, Solomon’s marital situation was not unusual for the historical period. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 131)

The harem was likely a source of pride for the king. Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) informs:

If the historical Solomon really did have a large harem, he was probably quite proud of it. Biblical family values allowed a man to have multiple wives and concubines (it was only in the Middle Ages that Jews embraced monogamy as the ideal), and a large family was considered a mark of virility, wealth, blessing—evidence that a man was favored by God. In the Kebra Nagast, the Ethiopian version of Solomon’s story, the king’s motive for marrying so many women is a pious one; he wants to fulfill God’s promise to Israel of many descendants more numerous than the stars in the sky [Genesis 15:5, 26:4; Exodus 32:13], and there seemed to him no better way to bring this about than to have sex with as many women as possible. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 151)

While polygamy is not expressly forbidden, intermarriage with those of other religions is (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). This tenet is also sustained in the New Testament where the apostle Paul instructs, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (II Corinthians 6:14 NASB).

Steven Weitzman (b. 1965) notices:

We are told virtually nothing about Solomon’s wives as individuals—only one is given a name, Naamah, the mother of Solomon’s successor Rehoboam, and only because she was the mother of a future king [I Kings 14:21, 31; II Chronicles 12:13]. What I Kings does make a point of revealing, however, is the ethnic background of these women—they were Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites [I Kings 11:1], non-Israelite peoples who lived within or on the borders of the land of Canaan—and that is what doomed Solomon’s marriages from the start. (Weitzman, Solomon: The Lure of Wisdom, 151-52)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) adds:

Solomon’s many foreign wives...provide the focus for the description of his unfaithfulness (I Kings 11:1-8). But it is not Solomon’s polygamy per se that centers the account, but disloyalty to God that follows therefrom. Deuteronomic law had prohibited marriage with the peoples of Canaan because of the danger of being led astray to serve other gods (Deuteronomy 7:3-4; see Exodus 34:16; Joshua 23:12-13). Such intermarriage, in fact, had taken place early in Israel’s life in the land (Judges 3:5-6). That law, paraphrased here (I Kings 11:2), is interpreted to apply to other non-Israelite peoples as well. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 63)

Solomon, it appears, is exercising a loophole in Deuteronomy’s prohibition (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). Cameron B.R. Howard (b. 1980) observes:

Throughout Kings, the worship of foreign gods is repeatedly linked with the influence of foreign women. Solomon’s wives’ seductive powers extend outside the matrimonial realm to the religious, where they “turn his heart” to the gods of their homelands [I Kings 11:3, 4, 9]. According to I Kings 11:1, the peoples represented in Solomon’s marriages include Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites. Notably, this list does not correspond to the book of Deuteronomy’s injunction against intermarriage (Deuteronomy 7:1-6), even though the narrator seems to be invoking that prohibition. Marvin A. Sweeney [b. 1953] notes that Solomon’s list corresponds instead to alliances and conquests made by David, and that the invocation of Deuteronomic law was probably a later reaction to make Solomon’s actions fit it, rather than having composed Solomon’s list in light of the Deuteronomic prohibitions (Sweeney, 155). (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 169)

Solomon certainly has a problem. Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) critiques:

How many women did he “love” [I Kings 11:1]? At least a thousand, which was a thousand times too many! The king was living so large that even his sin was super-sized: “He had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines” (I Kings 11:3). (Ryken, King Solomon: The Temptations of Money, Sex, and Power, 176)

The Message paraphrases, “King Solomon was obsessed with women.” (I Kings 11:1 MSG). Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) condemns:

The number of wives, “seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines” (I Kings 11:3), even among ancient practices and even assuming some hyperbole, is unconscionable. It bespeaks an excess of one who has lost touch with reality and with relationships. Here, no prospect of human relationship or care exists. Women have been reduced to a commodity to exchange and possess. The iteration of his love for foreign women (I Kings 11:1-2) in such numbers does not convey intimate caring but a recalcitrant attachment to these women as possession and obsession. Moreover, the unimaginable number of wives coincides with behavior patterns well established through his lifetime. Excess has defined this king’s ambitions. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 109)

Seven hundred wives would produce a logistical nightmare. This is seen in the fact that the wives remain nondescript, nameless and devoid of character. Stuart Lasine (b. 1945) attends:

In spite of his thousand wives and concubines, readers do not witness any illuminating exchanges between the king and his famous loves, as one is allowed to follow David’s interactions with Michal [I Samuel 19:11-17: II Samuel 6:16, 20-23; I Chronicles 15:29], Abigail [I Samuel 25:2-42], and Bathsheba [II Samuel 11:2-27; I Kings 1:11-31]. None of Solomon’s wives is said to love him as David was loved by Michal [I Samuel 18:20]. None pursues and flatters Solomon as did David’s wife-to-be Abigail [I Samuel 25:18-35]...In fact, of Solomon’s one thousand wives and concubines only Pharaoh’s daughter receives any attention at all in I Kings 3-11, and remarkably little is said about her or about Solomon’s alleged love for her [I Kings 3:1, 7:8, 9:16, 24, 11:1]. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Solomon and the Wizard of Oz: Power and Invisibility in a Verbal Place”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 379-80)

Sadly, it is doubtful that Solomon had much more of a relationship with his wives than does the reader.

There is also implicit condemnation of Solomon’s serial polygamy. Adele Reinhartz (b. 1953) surmises:

The negative judgment of the narrator upon Solomon for loving foreign women, expressed explicitly in I Kings 11:1-3, is also conveyed by silence regarding the offspring of these unions. That there were offspring is indicated in the formulaic reference to Naamah the mother of Rehoboam (I Kings 15:21) and the naming of several daughters of Solomon who married his prefects (I Kings 4:11-15). This silence regarding Solomon’s offspring is emphasized by the reference to the son of his archenemy, King Hadad the Edomite (I Kings 11:14). In some respects, Hadad is the mirror image of Solomon. Like Solomon, he married a close relative of the Pharaoh, and an anonymous one at that (I Kings 11:19). But unlike Solomon, Hadad is portrayed as the father of a son, Genubath, borne of the Pharaoh’s sister-in-law and raised in the Pharaoh’s palace (I Kings 11:20). It is a mark of Solomon’s disgrace that his adversary is accorded the kind of conventional treatment by the narrator that Solomon himself is denied. (Reinhartz, ”Why Ask My Name?”: Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative, 26)

The text categorically states that “his wives turned his heart away” (I Kings 11:3 NASB). They evidently exercised more influence on him than he them.

David C. Hopkins (b. 1952) accounts:

The narrative of Kings reports Solomon’s seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines (I Kings 11:3) and suggests their influence upon their husband was both considerable and pernicious. Any influence in reverse escapes mention; the disproportionate numbers undoubtedly weighed against Solomon’s potential sway. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “The Weight of the Bronze Could Not Be Calculated: Solomon and Economic Reconstruction”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 301)

Seven hundred wives coupled with three hundred concubines is a formula for disaster. With one thousand women of varying religious affiliations it is not surprising that Solomon has divided loyalties. The text notes that the predicament finally gets the better of him in his old age, as if his senescence mitigates his fall (I Kings 11:4). He acquiesces and erects idols to placate his pagan wives (I Kings 11:4-8). In appeasing the women, he alienates God (I Kings 11:6). The king does what many do: he makes the mistake of tending to the interests of the immediate, temporal issues which surround him instead of the transcendent, eternal deity which sustains him.

What does the number of his wives say about Solomon (I Kings 11:3)? Is the mandate against intermarriage primarily a warning against foreign women or foreign gods (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)? Would you pursue a relationship with someone who practiced a different religion? What is the most spouses you have heard of someone having? What did you think of that person? Why does the Bible not expressly condemn polygamy? Are there any biblical instances where polygamy “works”? In addition to marriage partners, when is less more? Does Solomon have any influence on his wives? How much influence does your significant other have on you; how much do you exert over them? Who would it grieve you more to displease, your loved ones or God?

The note regarding King Solomon’s wives is a precursor to the account of the division of Israel’s kingdom in the next chapter (I Kings 12:1-24). I Kings 11:1-13 braces the reader for the fall of Solomon’s empire.

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) dissects:

The long narrative preparing the division of the empire is not a unified whole but was assembled from several single pieces to arrive at its current form. After giving the basic reasons for the events in Solomon’s wrong behavior in I Kings 11:1-13, the narrative moves on to depict Jeroboam as a renegade and unlawful usurper in I Kings 11:26, 40. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings (A Continental Commentary), 130)

August H. Konkel (b. 1948) classifies:

This section [I Kings 11:1-13] has been characterized as a theological review. It contains offenses and judgment statements that evaluate the king according to prophetic orthodoxy. The prophetic indictment is given as a word from Yahweh without any specification as to the occasion or manner in which that word is delivered. (Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (NIV Application Commentary), 219)

Despite elevating Israel to unprecedented heights, the mighty king will fall. The seeds for this demise have long been evident. Lissa M. Wray Beal exposes:

The initial verses (I Kings 11:1-8) reveal Solomon’s heart and the reasons for YHWH’s judgment. With I Kings 3:1-3 they bracket Solomon’s narrative and negatively characterize the king. In Kings 3 Solomon marries Pharaoh’s daughter; the closing bracket now includes other foreign women. In I Kings 3:3 Solomon ‘loves’ YHWH; the only other place where Solomon ‘loves’ is in I Kings 11:1 – but now the ‘love’ is for these foreign women. In I Kings 3:1 the king’s intention to build the temple is mentioned...in I Kings 11:7-8 the temple project is denigrated as Solomon builds temples to foreign gods. Finally, I Kings 3:3 records the king’s positive attitude towards torah obedience, obedience explicitly compromised in I Kings 11:10. (Beal, 1 & 2 Kings (Apollos Old Testament Commentary), 168-69)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) concurs:

The narrative turns from Solomon’s love for the Lord (I Kings 3:3; see Deuteronomy 6:5), as God had loved him (II Samuel 12:24), to his love for his foreign wives (I Kings 11:1-2); these two references bracket the reign of Solomon. This is a love story gone awry. God’s continuing love does not overwhelm Solomon’s decision to turn his love toward that which is not God, to violate his own call for complete devotion to God (I Kings 8:61). (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 62)

Solomon’s plight is foreshadowed in the preceding chapter as well (I Kings 10:1-29). Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) catalogs:

The praise for Solomon is not undiluted, since the narrator records that Solomon violates the laws of kingship by multiplying gold and weapons. Gold is mentioned some ten times in this chapter [I Kings 10:1-29]...Solomon has so much gold that he uses it for drinking vessels [I Kings 10:21] and for ceremonial shields [I Kings 10:16-17], and the abundance of gold drives the value of silver to nothing (I Kings 10:21). This seems a further encomium to Solomon, but Deuteronomy 17:14-17 specifically forbids Israel’s kings from multiplying gold and silver...Solomon also gathers horses and chariots [I Kings 10:25-29], again in violation of the rules of Deuteronomy 17:16, and even imports them from Egypt [I Kings 10:28], the very place that Israel was forbidden to go for horses and chariots. These violations prepare for the climactic violation in I Kings 11, the multiplication of wives, who seduce Solomon into idolatry [I Kings 11:1-13]. (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 81)

In recounting Solomon’s reign, the text saves the worst for last. A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) reveals:

The most trenchant criticism of Solomon is left to the end of the report. We have sensed at various points in the previous chapters an undertow of critique; but now it is on the surface and in the open. (Auld, I & II Kings (Daily Study Bible), 80)

J. Maxwell Miller (b. 1937) detaches:

I Kings 3-11 presents Solomon the faithful ruler who achieved the golden age, then I Kings 11 presents a later Solomon led astray by foreign wives and struggling to maintain the secularity of his kingdom. This is an artificial arrangement; the compilers separated out and placed at the end of Solomon’s reign the items which conflicted with their notion of an ideal Solomonic era. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Separating the Solomon of History from the Solomon of Legend”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 16)

Paul S. Evans concurs:

Beginning in I Kings 10:26 there is a clear bent to present Solomon’s shortcomings. Describing his direct violations of the law regarding chariots (from Egypt no less—explicitly forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:16) and amassing of wealth (forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:17). This undercurrent of negativity in this otherwise lionizing description of Solomon has been noted by many. See Richard D. Nelson [b. 1945], First and Second Kings (Atlanta: John Knox, 1987), 66-67; and Jerome T. Walsh [b. 1942], I Kings (editor David W. Cotter; Collegeville, Minnesota; Liturgical, 1996), 137-38. This aspect is surprisingly overlooked by many. E.g., Burke O. Long [b. 1938] (1 Kings, 120) notes this section’s intention as to “glorify Solomon” and does not note the overt (or subtle) critique when read in light of Deuteronomy 17. Curiously, Martin J. Mulder [1923-1994] (1 Kings [Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; translator John Vriend [1925-2002]; Leuven; Belgium: Peeters, 1999], 542) notes the Deuteronomy 17:17 connection only to support the idea that “Egypt was famous for its horses.” (Evans, The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18-19, 149)

Israel Finkelstein (b. 1949) and Neil Asher Silberman (b. 1950) characterize:

The Biblical Solomon is haunted by a great contradiction. In I Kings 3-10, he is the great successor of David, a larger-than-life ruler who builds the Temple in Jerusalem and who provides the standards of wisdom and opulence that countless later kings would attempt to achieve. Yet in I Kings 11:1-13 he is little more than a senile apostate, who is led astray by the charms of his many foreign wives. (Finkelstein and Silberman, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition, 179)

The downfall of a nation in conjunction with an idolatrous queen will recur in I Kings. Cameron B.R. Howard (b. 1980) studies:

Taking on a sardonic tone, the narrator remarks of Ahab, “And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, he took as his wife Jezebel daughter of King Ethbaal of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshiped him.” [I Kings 16:31] The marriage was surely a political move, creating an alliance with the Sidonians, that is, the Phoenicians, whose kingdom was just north of Israel. Solomon had employed the same strategy hundreds of times, to the disdain of YHWH and the Deuteronomists, though with great political effect. In the eyes of the narrator, it is as if Jezebel herself is capable of more harm than Solomon’s seven hundred foreign wives and three hundred concubines put together. (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 172)

Despite the influence of his pagan wives, when Solomon’s kingdom falls, Solomon himself is to blame. Gary N. Knoppers (b. 1956) clarifies:

One may observe that the topos of mixed marriages explains a reversal in the course of Solomonic rule, but it does not excuse it. Solomon’s foreign wives catalyze his decline, but YHWH becomes enraged with Solomon and not his wives, “because he turned...his heart from YHWH, the God of Israel” (I Kings 11:9). Similarly, the judgment oracle of I Kings 11:11-13 accuses Solomon and not his wives, of malfeasance. The refusal to excuse Solomon underscores the force of the prohibitions he violates. In his dotage (I Kings 11:4) Solomon flounders because he flouts established divine commands. Under the rule of law even one of Israel’s most distinguished monarchs can be judged and found wanting. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Solomon’s Fall and Deuteronomy”, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 398)

John W. Olley (b. 1938) examines:

According to the practices of the ancient Near East all was praiseworthy, showing a mastery of international politics and diplomacy...The biblical writer however saw a sign of weakness and failure for it contradicted the Deuteronomic warning (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). It could be said that Solomon trusted in political alliances, sealed by marriages, rather than wholeheartedly in Yahweh, a negation of “be strong” of I Kings 2:2-3. In fact, the warning became reality as his wives turned his heart after other gods (I Kings 11:4). While this statement has been read as blaming the wives, just as Adam blamed Eve (Genesis 3:12), God places the responsibility squarely with Solomon (I Kings 11:9-10; cf. Genesis 3:17-19). (Olley, The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today), 115-16)

Solomon is clearly not discriminating in his marriages and various explanations have been posited for his excessive polygamy. Gerhard Langer (b. 1960) recounts:

Rabbi Jose ben Halafta [second century CE] (Canticles Rabbah 1.1.10) is of the opinion that Solomon took these women in order to win them for the Lord, to convert them to the true faith. Other Rabbis opine that Solomon was seduced to sin and sexual deviance. According to Rabbi Eleazer ben Rabbi Jose ha Gelili [second century CE] , Solomon had intercourse with these women during their menstruation period. (Joseph Verheyden [b. 1957], “Solomon in Rabbinic Literature”, The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect, 130)

Though he is said to have “loved many foreign women” (I Kings 11:1 NASB), many assume that there are political motivations behind Solomon’s marriages. Richard D. Patterson (b. 1929) and Hermann J. Austel (1926-2011) suspect:

Though Solomon may originally have taken foreign wives for the cementing of diplomatic alliances, I Kings 11:2 states that he “held fast to them in love.” This speaks of strong emotional attachment, which is normal and desirable in a husband. But because Solomon was attached to the wrong women, he was led astray. The seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, though perhaps adding to the splendor of Solomon’s kingdom, were his downfall. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel ~2 Kings (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 728-29)

Richard D. Nelson (b. 1945) appraises:

What the modern reader may see as the necessary political reality of intermarriage between allied royal families and what the ancient person would have normally interpreted as a witness to Solomon’s glorious potency as a ruler (cf. I Kings 11:4), the narrator evaluates single-mindedly as a violation of the law of God (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). It is not the fantastic number of these wives which is presented as the problem; it is their nationality and religion and Solomon’s accommodation to it. Even though Solomon himself did not worship their gods (I Kings 11:8b, note the plural), it was enough that he had been lured into building places of sacrifice for them. Just as the construction of the temple is presented as the acme of his piety, so these high places are sufficient evidence that “his heart was not wholly true to Yahweh his God” (I Kings 11:4). (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 69-70)

Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) supports:

The choice Solomon made again and again over the course of his life is clear. The final assessment that unfolds in these verses (I Kings 11:1-8) is less about breaking one law of Deuteronomy as it is about his repeated choices that now culminate in comprehensive waywardness. Polygamy itself is not the issue. That was a common and accepted practice in the ancient world. Failure to trust in the Lord is the crime here. The involvement with women from Egyptian, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite kingdoms indicts Solomon. Such intermarriages grew out of international alliances and treaties by which nations secured themselves before enemy threats. Solomon’s guilt lies in placing his trust in the power of others rather than in God. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 108-09)

Though Solomon’s many lovers facilitate his downfall, the fact that he enters into these unions is evidence of his proneness. His political allegiances demonstrate a lack of trust in God. Like Adam who is with Eve when partaking of Eden’s forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6), the great king is culpable in his kingdoms demise despite his wives’ influence. The root of the problem lies in Solomon, not the women or their gods. God is to be his true love and as such, all of the women and idols become little more than “the other woman”.

Where is Solomon’s legendary wisdom when consenting to his marriages? When have you seen the worst of a person revealed at the end of her life; when has the worst been saved for last? Who is most to blame for the fall of the united kingdom of Israel? Who do you know whose downfall was closely connected to the opposite sex? Do you most rely upon divine guidance or human ingenuity? Where does God rank among your loves?

“I found out a long time ago
What a woman can do to your soul
Oh, but she can’t take you any way,
You don’t already know how to go.”
- The Eagles, “Peaceful Easy Feeling” (1972)

Drinking a Paycheck (Proverbs 23:21)

Who will come to poverty according to Proverbs 23:21? The drunkard and the glutton.

Proverbs 23:19-21 is an earnest appeal from father to son (Proverbs 23:19) admonishing not to associate with drunkards and gluttons (Proverbs 23:20). The father’s rationale is quite practical:

For the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty,
And drowsiness will clothe one with rags. (Proverbs 23:21 NASB)

Midrash argues that a drunkard will eventually sell all of her possessions in the pursuit of wine (Leviticus Rabbah 12:1). This counsel stands in stark contrast to the opinion held by many that excessive comfort food and/or adult beverage relieve stress and lead to happiness.

While the motivation for abstinence or moderation here is pragmatic, elsewhere in Proverbs, drunkenness and gluttony are rejected on moral grounds. Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) notes:

Drunkenness and gluttony are here castigated. Elsewhere the rationale for criticizing getting drunk has to do with clouding one’s ability to think and make decisions. In other words, it disrupts one’s wisdom. The same can apply to overeating, which would lead to lethargic behavior, not the kind of diligent work so frequently encouraged in the book. However, the explicit motive given here against overdrinking and eating is that such overindulgence would lead to poverty. Spending too much money on too much food and too much drink would be foolish, not wise. For other teaching against overdrinking, see Proverbs 20:1, 23:29-35, 31:1-9. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 428)

This utilitarian argument for abstaining from excess fits the book’s perspective on poverty. Timothy Keller (b. 1950) acknowledges:

Another cause of poverty, according to the Bible, is what we would call “personal moral failures,” such as indolence (Proverbs 6:6-7) and other problems with self-discipline (Proverbs 23:21). The book of Proverbs is particularly forceful in its insistence that hard work can lead to economic prosperity (Proverbs 12:11, 14:23, 20:13), though there are exceptions (Proverbs 13:23) (Keller, Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just), 34)

Kathleen A. Farmer (b. 1943) summarizes:

The fourteenth “saying” (Proverbs 23:19-21) sees a relationship between overindulgences and poverty, as did several of the Solomonic sentences (e.g. Proverbs 20:12, 21:17). The drunkard, the glutton, and the chronically drowsy will all be clothed in rags, warns the sage. (Farmer, Who Knows What is Good?: A Commentary on the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (International Theological Commentary), 111)

Here, extravagant drinking and eating are to be interpreted as a collective representing the epitome of overindulgence. The father’s message is that leading an extravagant lifestyle will eventually lead to poverty.

The Bible does not discourage drinking any more than eating. It is the excess that is frowned upon and this excess was a serious offense. The same words for “heavy drinker” and “glutton” are found in the Law characterizing a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). If found guilty, the stubborn child was to be executed (Deuteronomy 21:21)! Passages like these underscore how heavy a charge opponents levied on Jesus in deeming him “a glutton and a drunkard” (Luke 7:34 NASB).

Given this aggregate interpretation, the proverb is reminding that time, energy, money and opportunity are often wasted in the pursuit of indulgence . Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) conclude:

Overindulgence will prevent a person from making a living, and poverty will be the result. The author needs to warn the reader that self-control in all things is a prerequisite for those wishing to counsel those in power. Lose control and you lose your power and your job. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 228)

What did your parents teach you about alcohol and gluttony? What is the connection between excess and poverty? Has this proverb been proven true? Who can you think of whose extravagant lifestyle resulted in destitution? Have you ever known someone who gave up a vice for financial reasons? Is alcohol consumption more a moral or economic issue? Why does gluttony receive so little press relative to drinking?

Though the verse makes no distinction between gluttony and drunkenness, Proverbs does what most modern readers do when reading about drunkards and gluttons - it abandons gluttony and follows with a discourse on the dangers of excessive drinking (Proverbs 23:29-35).

Duane A. Garrett admits (b. 1953):

Those who live like Shakespeare’s Falstaff soon exhaust their resources. Christians should note that both drunkenness and gluttony are condemned. We often eschew the former and practice the latter. (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New American Commentary), 196)

Many of the arguments against excessive drinking also apply to gluttony. Max Anders (b. 1947) deduces:

Modern Christians often focus on alcohol, forgetting verses like these that speak against gluttons who lack self-control and gorge themselves on meat. In each case, the problem is the urge to indulge too much!...Either problem leads to the same result. The alcoholic pours all his resources into his drinking habit and eventually lands in poverty. The laziness and drowsiness that accompany such behavior lead inevitably to financial embarrassment. (Anders, Proverbs (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 198-99)

For all practical purposes, most do not perceive gluttony to be a sin. A gluttonous preacher railing against the depravity of inebriation is commonplace. This has not always been the case. In fact, gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins.

Perhaps the Enlightenment’s emphasis on intellect led to a modern docetism in which we accept things that harm the body more readily than those that affect the mind. Francine Prose (b. 1947) recounts:

As the Renaissance and later the Industrial Revolution and eighteenth-century rationalism refocused the popular imagination from heaven to earth and adjusted the goals of labor to include the rewards of this world as well as those of the next, gluttony lost some of its stigma and eventually became almost a badge of pride. Substance, weight, and the ability to afford the most lavish pleasures of the table became visible signs of vitality, prosperity, and of the worldly success to which both the captains and the humble foot soldiers of industry were encouraged to aspire. (Prose, Gluttony (The Seven Deadly Sins), 3)

Culture’s perception of gluttony has clearly changed. Has God’s?

Do you feel gluttony is a sin? If you had to presume a hierarchy of sin, which is worse, drunkenness or gluttony? Why? What are other sins associated with drinking and gluttony? What is the connection between the body and soul?

“Our fear of hypocrisy is forcing us to live in a world where gluttons are fine, so long as they champion gluttony.” - Jonah Goldberg (b. 1969), “Booking Bennet”, May 5, 2003