I haven't studied John 2 very carefully, but I don't know how you could exegete it correctly and come away with "grape juice". That being said, I don't think that the wine in John 2 was the equivalent of today's table wine or alcoholic content.
If a pastor preaches through the book of John, does he need to spend time on whether the wine in John 2 was alcoholic or not? Or, is this a non-issue except for when the topic of wine/alcohol comes up?
Howard, just my take. I think, in a sermon, debating whether it was alcohol or grape juice detracts from the message of John 2. The difference between grape juice and wine is a natural chemical process. The difference between water and either wine or grape juice is astronomical. Actually, it is miraculous. To go from H2O to sugars, acid, and other chemicals by not adding a single thing is a miracle.
This is not to say there is not a point in trying to figure out what it was, but I think a message on John 2 is the wrong time. A SS lesson on alcohol in the Bible is a much better fit. And again, this is just my opinion.
I was going to go w/unclear but, upon some reflection, I can only say the text doesn't specify. But logic does.
Alcohol in wine is a product of fermentation and fermentation is a process of decay. Why would the Son of God make flawed wine when He could make perfect wine? That is, He was under no constraints to produce the desired taste by the usual process of aging--He made it out of water instantaneously.
So my argument is that He would have to have added entirely superfluous ingredients to make it alcoholic, ingredients known to be potentially harmful.
Just can't think of any reason why it would have alcohol. In what way would that have been useful?
I'd have to concur w/ T Howard though that preaching through John, the question never even crossed my mind. (But it does cross the minds of folks in the pews... it has come up more than once in Q & A sessions).
Aaron, I am just curious how you come to the conclusion that decay is bad, or that decay is flawed.
Thanks
I was going to go w/unclear but, upon some reflection, I can only say the text doesn't specify. But logic does.
Alcohol in wine is a product of fermentation and fermentation is a process of decay. Why would the Son of God make flawed wine when He could make perfect wine? That is, He was under no constraints to produce the desired taste by the usual process of aging--He made it out of water instantaneously.
So my argument is that He would have to have added entirely superfluous ingredients to make it alcoholic, ingredients known to be potentially harmful.
Just can't think of any reason why it would have alcohol. In what way would that have been useful?
Aaron, it would be entirely unthinkable to any brewer that aged wine is flawed wine. Wine improves with age, thereby becoming more coveted and costly. If the master of the feast thought the wine was the best, he doubtless would have assumed that the wine was aged. Also, grape juice and wine taste entirely different. The presence of alcohol greatly affects the taste (and the feel). Jesus making grape juice that tastes like good wine would be just as much a contradiction as the Eucharistic wine becoming Christ's blood but still looking and tasting like wine.
I think you may have missed my meaning there.
He obviously had no need to age it to achieve a great taste (those who had it didn't think so) and certainly had no need to introduce toxicity either.
I don't think the logic is hard to follow here: if you can make wine out of water, you can make wine that tastes perfect without undesirable side effects.
Unless the goal is intoxication, wouldn't a better wine be one that tastes (and feels... I'm dubious about that, but wouldn't know) every bit as good but which cannot intoxicate? I can't see any reason why He'd make something inferior, especially since the text goes out of its way to point out that it really was unusually great stuff.
I haven't studied John 2 very carefully, but I don't know how you could exegete it correctly and come away with "grape juice". That being said, I don't think that the wine in John 2 was the equivalent of today's table wine or alcoholic content.
Just a quick question about this comment (which seems to be a common argument). Does it really matter whether the wine was weaker then than now? It seems apparent that one could get drunk off of the wine at that time. Does it matter that it took 6 glasses then as opposed to 3 glasses today (or whatever the appropriate amount of glasses is)?
Yes, it does matter...especially when people see passages like I Tim. 5:23 and assume that Timothy was drinking what we would buy in a store.
Alcohol in wine is a product of fermentation and fermentation is a process of decay. Why would the Son of God make flawed wine when He could make perfect wine?
Perfect wine would be... well, perfect WINE. It seems quite un-Fundamental to use a more convoluted interpretation when the words can be read more clearly using basic interpretation -- even if the "how" and "why" are not clear to us.
I can't see any reason why He'd make something inferior, especially since the text goes out of its way to point out that it really was unusually great stuff.
Again, I see convoluted interpretation to develop this conclusion.
I think that (in some ways) it would have been even more amazing to the wedding guests if Jesus had turned water into something that was "unusually great" wine but that actually WASN'T wine. I think it would have been noted in the text. Something along the lines of "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have created a new beverage that tastes like wine, but with none of the drunkenness."
This is the first of seven miracles performed by Christ. The big idea of this miracle is in John 2:11 "He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him". Christ is the perfect prophet forecasted in Deut 13 and 18 revealed by miraculous signs that will testify to his true identity. Christ here is revealed to be the Creator, the master of Creation (John 1:1-3). He was full of glory that men cannot see (1:18). This sign pulls back the vale of humanity which hides his glory from our sight and we see the reality of who he is. This results in true faith vis-a-vis blind faith.
The setting of this miracle (2:1) took place during the week long festivity of the wedding, a supreme occasion of joy for those who often had difficulty and poverty life. No wine was more than a social embarrassment. It brought great shame and the bride could sue for damages. Mary requests Jesus' help. He responds literally, "What to you and to me" or why do you involve me, my time has not yet come. This latter phrase used six times in this gospel references his public declaration of Messiah. Mary needed a miracle and expressed faith in her Son, "Do whatever he tells you."
The six stone water jars which were used for ceremonial washings held between 120 and 180 gallons combined. The jars were filled with water perhaps implying the practice of diluted wine. Wine can mean alcoholic beverage or fresh unfermented juice. The master of the banquet makes the point that most present the best first and worst last. This is different, much different. These people after three days of banqueting were not drunk. Jesus would not have created 180 gallons of non-diluted fully aged wine and given it to those who already had too much to drink to make them more inebriated. One could just as easily assume that the wine was fresh since it was newly created. This wine would have a delightful, sweet taste, something unusual in the weddings of their day.
I along with Aaron have often wondered about the fermentation process itself. If fermentation is actually "decay" and decay we assume to be part of the curse, would it be possible to have alcoholic beverages if there had been no fall in the Garden? And if there is any merit at all to that concept why is Aaron's statement about Jesus making this wine into something wonderful but non-alcoholic so strange?
The six stone water jars which were used for ceremonial washings held between 120 and 180 gallons combined. The jars were filled with water perhaps implying the practice of diluted wine. Wine can mean alcoholic beverage or fresh unfermented juice.
I have great doubts that the word οινος was ever regularly used to indicate "unfermented" wine (grape juice). Every lexicon (BDAG, Louw-Nida, Friberg, UBS, Thayer, LSJ, Middle Liddell, Slater, Autenreith) says "wine," with BDAG, Louw-Nida, LSJ, and Friberg calling special attention to its fermented status. Louw-Nida explains that οινος means fermented wine unless combined with a modifier stating otherwise, such as νεος (new). In classical Greek there was the adjective απυρος (unfermented). LSJ and BDAG note that sometimes οινος was used as a generic term for other alcoholic drinks, such as barley beer. From that, it seems that the word may have become even more associated with alcohol than with grapes.
Furthermore, there was a word that specifically means "must," the unfermented juice of grapes - τρυξ. I notice, though, that even though there are a variety of linguistic options available to distinguish between unfermented and fermented grape beverages, the NT writers consistently use the one term that almost invariably points to a fermented drink.
Aaron, grape juice and wine taste and feel totally different, with much of that difference being the alcohol. I find it incompossible that there would be unfermented grape juice that tastes like aged (good) wine. It would be like saying water could taste like milk, yet still be pure H2O.
Also, I think that the word "decay" is prejudicial. I think there were bacteria and microorganisms operating in many ways before the fall. If Adam and Eve ate, the process of "decay" would have resulted in some compost, unless we believe that the belly button wasn't the only thing Adam lacked? The curse is concerned primarily with the termination of life of higher lifeforms. I see no reason to assume all pre-fall trees were evergreens and that all food was not excreted.
I think you may have missed my meaning there.
He obviously had no need to age it to achieve a great taste (those who had it didn't think so) and certainly had no need to introduce toxicity either.
I don't think the logic is hard to follow here: if you can make wine out of water, you can make wine that tastes perfect without undesirable side effects.
Unless the goal is intoxication, wouldn't a better wine be one that tastes (and feels... I'm dubious about that, but wouldn't know) every bit as good but which cannot intoxicate? I can't see any reason why He'd make something inferior, especially since the text goes out of its way to point out that it really was unusually great stuff.
Aaron, part of what makes wine taste good is that which "can" cause undesirable side effects, alcohol. Of course there are other things that go into great tasting wine than just alcohol. I have had a few bottles of what I had thought was halfway decent wine, then I had half a glass of very nice wine (15$ for half glass). The difference was astronomical. So I think sure, Jesus could have made everything else about wine perfect yet left out the alcohol. Although, I think the people would have thought it was a completely different drink as I don't think you can so easily separate the taste of alcohol from the rest of which makes good wine. It would be like making a banana split without the banana. Of course, now we are not even talking about scripture, but about people's tastes etc.
Secondly, I don't think just because a person drinks wine that the goal is intoxication. Different wines go well with different types of food. And some food just tastes better with wine. (I don't think any drink besides wine would have gone well with the meal I had the 15$ glass of wine with. But of course that is just my opinion, not scriptural in the slightest.) Besides that, scripture talks about other uses of wine. To make the heart glad (Psa 104:15). Not sure how grape juice, no matter how good could make one glad. Also as a remedy (I Tim 5:23). I don't think Timothy was doing what we would do with modern medicine: taking out his measuring cup making sure to only take 2 tbsp every four hours. I have a feeling he was drinking it for every meal, and in between meals. In addition, I don't think he was going to the wine presses to get fresh wine so as not to get alcoholic wine.(have you ever gotten a fruit smoothie and let it sit for a bit. Within a short amount of time it starts to ferment) It was also to be used for the dying and the depressed. (Pro 31:6) It is hard to interpret this as anything but alcohol. So there are good goals in drinking alcohol.
With all that said, I think the goal was simply to be merry. And according to Psa 104:15, there would have been nothing wrong with drinking alcohol to be merry. And if merryness was the goal, I don't think Jesus made grape juice. I also don't think it necessitates the highest potency of alcohol either.
And also, you are assuming that alcoholic wine is inferior. Inferior to what? Alcoholic wine isn't grape juice, not even close. The chemical make up of wine has things about it that are different than grape juice, namely ethyl alcohol.(is that the correct alcohol?)
On a separate topic. I am not sure it is right to say that decay is a result of sin. I think it is more accurate to say death is the result of sin (Romans 5:12), and decay is a byproduct of death. For when Adam sinned things did not start decaying, they started dying. And once dead, they decayed. But the result of sin is death, not decay. On the other hand, I don't think decay necessitates death. Or at least death in the way we perceive, as we often think of death, in taking of a life, or something no longer being in existence. Obviously Adam and Eve ate. So whatever we want to call what happened when they cut the grapes from the vine, the natural process (?probably?) would have immediately started to take effect, decay.(of course we have no idea about this as scripture does not speak to it pre-fall, although I think it can be safe to assume, decay happened) I think Charlie did a better job furthering that thought above.
I'll try to explain myself once more I think then leave it alone.
First, I didn't say that a person who drinks is necessarily motivated by the goal of intoxication. I know too many of whom that's not the case.
I was trying to explain what would make the perfect wine.
Another angle.. The Story of Zip
Suppose we're talking about something else entirely... we're guests at an event in some strange cultural setting where they love to drink a beverage called zip. Everybody in that area drinks zip. In fact, there is really nothing else but zip to drink there. Problem is, when zip is exposed to sunlight, some of it's ingredients break down into a compound that makes everyone drowsy (so the parties get really, reaally boring there!). Zip isn't very zippy.
So you're invited to this event, and while you're there sipping zip and getting sleepy, a rumor spreads through the crowd that they are out of zip. Of course, everyone is disappointed because, even though it makes them sleepy, the stuff tastes marvelous... and there's nothing else to drink anyway.
But as you're thinking about leaving (can't stay if there's no zip), a guest steps up to the zip table and says "I'll take care of it."
Turns out he's a genius chemist who can make just about anything out of just about anything. So he makes the ideal zip out of ordinary water.
What are the properties of the ideal zip?
Easy. Tastes the same, feels the same, doesn't make you fall asleep.
Now some at the party were really hoping to fall asleep. So they were pretty bummed that the zip this guest made "didn't work." But the rest were just delighted that it tasted so fine and yet didn't knock them out (and since they didn't want to sleep anyway, they'd been going easy on the zip up to that point).
Of course, I can't say with certainty that Jesus made "the ideal wine" at Cana. I'm just pointing out that,
Obviously He can make it taste and feel any way He likes without it being damaging to the drinker. So why would He make it damaging? If you prefer, we could suppose that the ideal wine would contain "non intoxicating alcohol," but really--He can produce the desired taste any way He chooses. We're already tossing the laws of nature out the window to derive it from water!
(By the way, in answer to the idea that it's not "wine" unless it has all the usual ingredients... that's a bit of a strain. Mike Harding would know for sure from his research, but I'm pretty sure they called it "wine" from the moment it flowed out of the press... having not yet had the chance to ferment. Pretty sure it wasn't put in flasks or amphora labeled "not wine yet"!)
But I do think Mike Harding's Cana scenario is quite likely, maybe more likely than my "ideal wine" scenario.... that Jesus simply made "new" wine... which is very close to "ideal" since you'd need to imbibe fairly ridiculous quantities to get tipsy.
One more point.... about wine making glad. Any good quality food and drink makes me glad and wine was as ordinary as Coke is to us. Coke makes me glad.
I think to suggest that an intoxicating affect is required for it to produce gladness is getting close to justifying drunkenness.
The key NT words for wine and strong drink are oinos, gleukos, and sikera. Sikera (strong drink) is used only once in the NT (Luke 1:15) for a grain-based alcohol or intoxicating beverage made from other sources of fruit. Oinos is used more than thirty times in the NT and usually refers to fermented drink. Gleukos (new wine or sweet wine) represented wine that was not fully aged or wine that had a higher sugar content (Wayne House, “Wine” in Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988]). Professor A. C. Schultz points out that “Usually the new wine was left in the vat to undergo the first fermentation which took four to seven days. It was then drawn off… . The whole period of fermentation would last from two to four months when the wine would be ready for use (“Wine and Strong Drink,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 5:938).
In general, the OT and NT terms for wine referred to the fruit of the vine usually in some stage of fermentation. Exceptions could be “sweet new wine,” fresh wine from the harvest (Isa 16:10; John 2), and diluted wine.
When I studied this a couple of years ago, I could not get over the statement that the master of the feast made in vs. 10. He states, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now." The term "drunk freely" comes from the Greek word which means "to be intoxicated." Therefore, we have to assume that the people at the feast had already drunk enough to have become intoxicated. The reason that I do not believe that this would have been intoxicating wine is that it does not make sense that Jesus would have provided something for the people at the feast to become further intoxicated.
The term "drunk freely" comes from the Greek word which means "to be intoxicated." Therefore, we have to assume that the people at the feast had already drunk enough to have become intoxicated.
Not necessarily. Word studies like this, especially when you're flowing between greek and english, are not be all, end all studies, as D.A. Carson attests in his excellent little book "Exegetical Fallacies". Just because two english words can come from one greek word [or even from another english word] doesn't mean that they're necessarily similar or have similar meanings.
Gotta love the alcohol threads... 
Just to react Aaron's point on fermentation and decay... what about when Jesus miraculously perpetuated bread? Are we assuming that the bread was unleavened? Otherwise, He would have been creating something that incorporated fermentation of some sort... wouldn't He?
While not saying it, you seem to be equating decay of vegetation with the curse of sin/death. Are you suggesting that fruits never spoiled before the Fall? Did leaves not wither and shrivel when detached from the tree? Were raisins impossible before the Fall? I'm not sure we can make that assessment with any degree of certainty.
Fermentation really is not decay ... if I understand the process correctly you have microbes that digest sugars and expel alcohol.
The term "drunk freely" comes from the Greek word which means "to be intoxicated." Therefore, we have to assume that the people at the feast had already drunk enough to have become intoxicated.
Not necessarily. Word studies like this, especially when you're flowing between greek and english, are not be all, end all studies, as D.A. Carson attests in his excellent little book "Exegetical Fallacies". Just because two english words can come from one greek word [or even from another english word] doesn't mean that they're necessarily similar or have similar meanings.
It appears Gabe misspoke slightly. The word in this passage actually is the verb μεθυσκω / μεθυσκομαι. The active means "to get [someone] drunk." The passive, which occurs in this context, means "to become drunk" or "be drunk." At least in the NT, every other use of this word in the passive refers to intoxication.
My personal opinion is that the master of the feast is stating a general principle. This is what people do at weddings - get the guests drunk then bring out the cheap stuff when they can't tell the difference. In the first century, even in Israel, there were probably some weddings were drinking was excessive, and others where it was moderate. It could very well be that the wedding at Cana wasn't a "party crowd," so we're not talking about a bunch of plastered guests. The wedding master is surprised that they would save the best for last.
Jim, I agree. Although I think it may be used here in a more generic sense: going from something to another. Or a breaking down of something that is natural(an orange or an apple) into something that naturally happens (mold, the result of fermentation, etc). Something along those lines. Otherwise, nothing really decays, it all just goes through a naturally occurring chemical change.
(for the sake of me not getting confused, wine = alcoholic wine, grape juice = grape juice)
I know you said you aren't going to get involved any more Aaron, but I feel the need to say a few things. But don't feel obligated to respond.
1) The reason why I kept going back to Psa 104:15 is it is really is hard to interpret it as something other than wine. It doesn't make sense any other way. Otherwise, why not just say drink water. That makes me glad on a hot sunny day. I haven't looked at many commentaries for this, but I think most would agree that wine in Psa 104 is wine. But the fact is, wine does make one glad.
2) Why does ideal wine have to be grape juice? I fail to see this. How did you come to this conclusion? Is there a passage that says ideal wine is grape juice? In the same manner, there isn't one that says ideal wine is wine. But I think wine (according to Psa 104, and very well probably their custom of the day) is a much better fit. I am not saying that it necessarily had to be the highest possible % of alcohol, just that it was alcoholic.
3) I am not saying they did not call fresh squeezed grape juice wine(encompassing both alcoholic and grape juice). I know they did. What I am saying is there is a big difference between grape juice and wine, and alcohol is not the only difference. One thing that is different is there is less sugar. Second, there are flavors in wine that can never be in grape juice. They only come out during the fermentation process.
4) Finally regarding decay. There are things that we use on a daily basis as a result of decay. Take vinegar for example. Vinegar is the final product of fermentation. So I don't think attaching decay to a drink should make it a bad thing.
It appears Gabe misspoke slightly. The word in this passage actually is the verb μεθυσκω / μεθυσκομαι. The active means "to get [someone] drunk." The passive, which occurs in this context, means "to become drunk" or "be drunk." At least in the NT, every other use of this word in the passive refers to intoxication.
My personal opinion is that the master of the feast is stating a general principle. This is what people do at weddings - get the guests drunk then bring out the cheap stuff when they can't tell the difference. In the first century, even in Israel, there were probably some weddings were drinking was excessive, and others where it was moderate. It could very well be that the wedding at Cana wasn't a "party crowd," so we're not talking about a bunch of plastered guests. The wedding master is surprised that they would save the best for last.
Good point - appreciate the clarification.
My bigger objection is to have Jesus creating alcohol for intoxication purposes, and I find that hard to swallow. [pun intended]
Not necessarily. Word studies like this, especially when you're flowing between greek and english, are not be all, end all studies, as D.A. Carson attests in his excellent little book "Exegetical Fallacies". Just because two english words can come from one greek word [or even from another english word] doesn't mean that they're necessarily similar or have similar meanings.
Maybe I am being stubborn, but I fail to see what you mean. I just read your last statement about five times and do not understand what you are talking about. I assume you are referring to my use of the term "drunk freely," but I do not know what you mean by the whole two English word from one Greek word thing. I took one Greek word and gave the definition of that one word.
It appears Gabe misspoke slightly. The word in this passage actually is the verb μεθυσκω / μεθυσκομαι. The active means "to get [someone] drunk." The passive, which occurs in this context, means "to become drunk" or "be drunk." At least in the NT, every other use of this word in the passive refers to intoxication.
I do not mean to become defensive, but I do not understand what you mean by stating that I misspoke slightly. I defined the word as "to be intoxicated," while you defined the word as "to become drunk" or "be drunk." Unless you are differentiating between "intoxicated" and "drunk," I see no difference. I am not implying that everyone was plastered, but how can we believe that Jesus providing intoxicating wine to people who had already been drinking would not have caused intoxication beyond moderation.
Gabe, when you said that the word "comes from" the word meaning "intoxicated," Jay C read that as meaning that the two words were etymologically related. I understood it when I read it, but generally we only say "comes from" when talking about etymology, and say "is a form of" when speaking about different inflections of a base lexeme.
Charlie nailed it on the head. Thanks for clearing that up.
Let me illustrate, and then I'll drop the subject. Oida, in the greek, can be translated [depending on a host of factors] as "know, understand, perceive, experience, learn, know how, be acquainted with, recognize, acknowledge, remember, or even pay attention to", according to my UBS 4 Greek New Testament. So you can't always translate Oida as "know", even though that is how it's commonly used.
I'm really going to have to buy a copy of Greek Tutor one of these days 
.
When I studied this a couple of years ago, I could not get over the statement that the master of the feast made in vs. 10. He states, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now." The term "drunk freely" comes from the Greek word which means "to be intoxicated." Therefore, we have to assume that the people at the feast had already drunk enough to have become intoxicated. The reason that I do not believe that this would have been intoxicating wine is that it does not make sense that Jesus would have provided something for the people at the feast to become further intoxicated.
Thanks Gabe. This is my problem with the notion that Jesus created alcoholic wine. God breathes "Woe" as He warns us in Habakkuk 2:15 that it is a condemnable act to give "his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also...," so I consider it a serious indictment to Christ, if he gave those who had "well drunk" additional intoxicating drink. The word methusthowsin means to become drunk, so Jesus would have committed sin. Yet, the One, who came from glory and who created all things, could certainly have created the very best tasting unfermented wine for the host. He must have done so, or would be subject to the "woe" of Scripture against Him. Why would it seem so incredulous, that the Creator could make unfermented, good tasting, wine out of water?
Silverghost, there is a monumental difference between making someone drunk in order to exploit them [the meaning of that verse in its' context] and giving someone alcohol to drink.
Look at the chapter in it's entirety -
Woe to the Chaldeans
6 Shall not all these take up their taunt against him, with scoffing and riddles for him, and say,
“Woe to him who heaps up what is not his own—
for how long?—
and loads himself with pledges!”
7 Will not your debtors suddenly arise,
and those awake who will make you tremble?
Then you will be spoil for them.
8 Because you have plundered many nations,
all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you,
for the blood of man and violence to the earth,
to cities and all who dwell in them.
9 “Woe to him who gets evil gain for his house,
to set his nest on high,
to be safe from the reach of harm!
10 You have devised shame for your house
by cutting off many peoples;
you have forfeited your life.
11 For the stone will cry out from the wall,
and the beam from the woodwork respond.
12 “Woe to him who builds a town with blood
and founds a city on iniquity!
13 Behold, is it not from the Lord of hosts
that peoples labor merely for fire,
and nations weary themselves for nothing?
14 For the earth will be filled
with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
15 “Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink—
you pour out your wrath and make them drunk,
in order to gaze at their nakedness!
16 You will have your fill of shame instead of glory.
Drink, yourself, and show your uncircumcision!
The cup in the Lord's right hand
will come around to you,
and utter shame will come upon your glory!
17 The violence done to Lebanon will overwhelm you,
as will the destruction of the beasts that terrified them,
for the blood of man and violence to the earth,
to cities and all who dwell in them.
18 “What profit is an idol
when its maker has shaped it,
a metal image, a teacher of lies?
For its maker trusts in his own creation
when he makes speechless idols!
19 Woe to him who says to a wooden thing, Awake;
to a silent stone, Arise!
Can this teach?
Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver,
and there is no breath at all in it.
20 But the Lord is in his holy temple;
let all the earth keep silence before him.”
The NLT version translates that verse well:
“What sorrow awaits you who make your neighbors drunk!
You force your cup on them
so you can gloat over their shameful nakedness.
Silverghost, there is a monumental difference between making someone drunk in order to exploit them [the meaning of that verse in its' context] and giving someone alcohol to drink.
Look at the chapter in it's entirety -
I have read the chapter many times Jay, and I am a stickler on context. However, are you saying thus, that the "woe" has nothing to do with giving intoxicating wine to those who had already "well drunk," as Jesus supposedly did? Inhibitions, such as becoming naked, ensue, as Habakkuk indicated the portrayer of evil desired. Would Jesus think this humorous? The Hebrew in v.15 for "puttest" is sawphakh, which has nothing to do with forcing, which I consider a poor translation in the NLT. It is literally "to scrape out," i.e., the dregs, to make your neighbor drunk. The picture is irrigating his mouth from your wineskin. The KJV translation "to put" is a perfectly fine rendering, putting your bottle in his mouth.
So Jesus, in your opinion, gave alcoholic wine to those who had considerably imbibed already? Subsequently, are you saying that Habakkuk's warning has no bearing on this scene in John 2? Seems that you miss the context at the wedding. In light of all that Jesus did, He being necessarily without sin, according to the Scriptures, is this not a rather messy picture that you paint of the Savior? You seem to sidestep the real issue of the sanctity of the Lord. Even we fallible Christians are to "abstain from all appearance of evil." He would need to be untainted with sin in order to pay for ours.
PS: Is it not rather condescending for you to quote the entire chapter, to make your point? Do you think that after 40+ years of ministry, I would not be familiar with what Habakkuk said?
Silverghost. What Jay was getting at was not simply the giving to drink. The passage seems to indicate that the woe is to the one who gives his neighbor drink in order to see his nakedness. I think the in order to or the so that, or however the passage is said in English is important in the interpretation. It shows the intent of giving drink. If the passage is not interpreted with that phrase, it changes the interpretation drastically.
So the question is, if you give your neighbor drink not for the purpose of seeing his nakedness, does this passage apply? Perhaps the intent is simply to have a good time, or to be merry.
Jay, you beat me to it.
Dear Daniel, The Old Testament is to continue to help us, "written for our admonition." 1 Cor. 10:11. Does not Habakkuk's warning apply to today's drinking society? Should our Savior have been less than our example at Cana? The Scripture indicates that they had "well drunk" the existing wine. For the Savior to have provided intoxicating wine in addition, would entail the depraved manner of life depicted in Hab. 2. Why would the Creator God the Son not make the very best fresh wine for the wedding? 
Jay, you beat me to it.
Dear Daniel, The Old Testament is to continue to help us, "written for our admonition." 1 Cor. 10:11. Does not Habakkuk's warning apply to today's drinking society? Should our Savior have been less than our example at Cana? The Scripture indicates that they had "well drunk" the existing wine. For the Savior to have provided intoxicating wine in addition, would entail the depraved manner of life depicted in Hab. 2. Why would the Creator God the Son not make the very best fresh wine for the wedding?
Scripture doesn't say the had "well drunk" the existing wine. The master of the feast gave a general statement about life in general, when it comes to feast. In essence: "most people give good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, or are getting tipsy, bring out poorer wine, but this wine given out now (towards the middle or end of the feast) is extremely good wine." His statement doesn't have to be taken to mean they were drunk, and Jesus was helping them get more drunk.
The statement, using the phrase it does for "drink freely", and given what we know of wine vs. good wine, seems to point to the alcoholic nature of Jesus' wine. But Jesus supply of much wine, was his first sign miracle. It could as much point to Jesus having more than enough to meet any need, then that it points to Jesus wanting to get people drunk. Furthermore, how do we know the wedding feast didn't have another day to go? It was typical to have feasts last several days.
Jesus' supply of good alcoholic wine (which by the way was probably diluted to 4 parts water, 1 part wine, which would come to around a 4% alcoholic content, I'm told), is in keeping with texts such as Ps. 104:14-15, Is. 25:6-10, and others.
[quote=Scripture doesn't say the had "well drunk" the existing wine. The master of the feast gave a general statement about life in general, when it comes to feast. In essence: "most people give good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, or are getting tipsy, bring out poorer wine, but this wine given out now (towards the middle or end of the feast) is extremely good wine." His statement doesn't have to be taken to mean they were drunk, and Jesus was helping them get more drunk.
The statement, using the phrase it does for "drink freely", and given what we know of wine vs. good wine, seems to point to the alcoholic nature of Jesus' wine. But Jesus supply of much wine, was his first sign miracle. It could as much point to Jesus having more than enough to meet any need, then that it points to Jesus wanting to get people drunk. Furthermore, how do we know the wedding feast didn't have another day to go? It was typical to have feasts last several days.
Jesus' supply of good alcoholic wine (which by the way was probably diluted to 4 parts water, 1 part wine, which would come to around a 4% alcoholic content, I'm told), is in keeping with texts such as Ps. 104:14-15, Is. 25:6-10, and others.
Dear Daniel, This is a bit lame. The statement, "but thou hast kept the good wine until now," indicates the passage of time where all the wine was consumed, and the indication was that they had "well drunk." The word methusthowsin means to become drunk. Your classification of "good wine" is Western thought pattern. This was not the costly vintage wine as we would classify as good wine. This was exquisite tasting wine, which the Creator of the universe had made. It was indeed a miracle. No participant got drunk upon it.
The Savior always did what was right, without taint of sin.
First off SGhost, that was not me who you quoted, but Brother Hayton.(are you related to a Dave Hayton?) Nevertheless, I would probably agree with him on this.
Second, the wine Jesus made did not necessarily have to be full potency wine. Or the max alcohol that they could have made. That, I think is reading into the passage. For all we know the %alcohol could have been 5%, which when diluted would have been hardly anything. I think the difference between the wine Jesus served and the wine they had was a matter of quality of the wine not the % of alcohol.(but that of course is not written in scripture, just my assumption)
Third, I believe we are reading into the passage if we are assuming they have been drinking sun up to sun down, glass after glass for multiple days straight. (key phrase being glass after glass) I am not read up on Jewish customs, specifically marriage ceremonies, but I don't think it would be proper to assume they were drinking glass after glass of wine. Either way, grape juice or wine, it would certainly give a tummy ache.(Have you tried drinking a few glasses of grape juice. Let me tell you, it is not good) So I think they were taking it in moderation either way.
Fourth, what does the phrase in Hab, that you may look on his nakedness, have to do with the rest of the passage?
One other thought on all this: we have no idea how many guests were at the wedding feast? We do know that archeology is unearthing a much more Hellenized presence in Galilee than most originally thought. For all we know, the reason the groom ran out of wine was that a whole bunch of people showed up. Jesus brought his 12 disciples, and people could have been flocking to the feast, having heard Jesus was present. We know Jesus made a lot of wine, but how do we really know he made enough for everyone to have six more glasses?
And Daniel, yes I am. PM me if you want.
[quote=Scripture doesn't say the had "well drunk" the existing wine. The master of the feast gave a general statement about life in general, when it comes to feast. In essence: "most people give good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, or are getting tipsy, bring out poorer wine, but this wine given out now (towards the middle or end of the feast) is extremely good wine." His statement doesn't have to be taken to mean they were drunk, and Jesus was helping them get more drunk.
The statement, using the phrase it does for "drink freely", and given what we know of wine vs. good wine, seems to point to the alcoholic nature of Jesus' wine. But Jesus supply of much wine, was his first sign miracle. It could as much point to Jesus having more than enough to meet any need, then that it points to Jesus wanting to get people drunk. Furthermore, how do we know the wedding feast didn't have another day to go? It was typical to have feasts last several days.
Jesus' supply of good alcoholic wine (which by the way was probably diluted to 4 parts water, 1 part wine, which would come to around a 4% alcoholic content, I'm told), is in keeping with texts such as Ps. 104:14-15, Is. 25:6-10, and others.
Dear Bob, This seems a bit lame. The statement, "but thou hast kept the good wine until now," indicates the passage of time where all the wine was consumed, and the indication was that they had "well drunk." In the Greek, the word methusthowsin means to have drank freely or to become drunk. Your classification of "good wine" is Western thought pattern. This was not the costly vintage wine as we would classify as good wine. This was exquisite tasting wine, which the Creator of the universe had made. It was indeed a miracle. No participant got drunk upon it.
The Savior always did what was right, without taint of sin.
First off SGhost, that was not me who you quoted, but Brother Hayton.(are you related to a Dave Hayton?) Nevertheless, I would probably agree with him on this.
Second, the wine Jesus made did not necessarily have to be full potency wine. Or the max alcohol that they could have made. That, I think is reading into the passage. For all we know the %alcohol could have been 5%, which when diluted would have been hardly anything. I think the difference between the wine Jesus served and the wine they had was a matter of quality of the wine not the % of alcohol.(but that of course is not written in scripture, just my assumption)
Third, I believe we are reading into the passage if we are assuming they have been drinking sun up to sun down, glass after glass for multiple days straight. (key phrase being glass after glass) I am not read up on Jewish customs, specifically marriage ceremonies, but I don't think it would be proper to assume they were drinking glass after glass of wine. Either way, grape juice or wine, it would certainly give a tummy ache.(Have you tried drinking a few glasses of grape juice. Let me tell you, it is not good) So I think they were taking it in moderation either way.
Fourth, what does the phrase in Hab, that you may look on his nakedness, have to do with the rest of the passage?
Dear Daniel, I apologize, in the rush of a few things, I found Bob had replied to my post to you, and I mistakenly made a reply to you. 
Yet to answer your questions, as I had said of v.10, "well drunk." in the Greek is methusthowsin, which means to have drank freely or to become drunk. Customs are different in ancient Jewish society, but people did get drunk. Jesus came to the wedding, as He and His Mother were invited, so they were in the midst of the celebration. He knew exactly what was going on. Was He to allow His actions to make even one person further under intoxication?
That is the point of what Habakkuk was saying, viz., that drunkenness leads to losing inhibitions, and nakedness often occurs. In Habakkuk, it was due to wickedness, but the principle of losing inhibitions still was a potential at Cana. Should Christ have risked that? With His astute knowledge of man, I find it would be totally out of character for Christ, and undoubtedly would have disqualified Him from being our sin-bearer.
I hope that you forgive my mistaking Bob for you, and that this helps explain my position adequately.
Dear Daniel, I apologize, in the rush of a few things, I found Bob had replied to my post to you, and I mistakenly made a reply to you.
...
That is the point of what Habakkuk was saying, viz., that drunkenness leads to losing inhibitions, and nakedness often occurs. In Habakkuk, it was due to wickedness, but the principle of losing inhibitions still was a potential at Cana. Should Christ have risked that? With His astute knowledge of man, I find it would be totally out of character for Christ, and undoubtedly would have disqualified Him from being our sin-bearer.
I hope that you forgive my mistaking Bob for you, and that this helps explain my position adequately.
That's fine. I really didn't care that you mistook me for Bob. Just thought I would let you know.
As far as the Hab passage. I suppose that is where we will disagree. I don't view it as the effect of drinking(although it can be an effect), but the purpose of the one sharing the drink. Even with today's wine, you would have to drink a whole lot to get completely drunk, and especially to get the point of removing clothes. I know. I have been on some work trips where they drink a ton, but nothing like that happens. (luckily I just volunteer to be DD)
Also, the potential for something to happen does not cause sin, sinning causes sin. So just because there was the potential for people to get drunk, that does not equal sin. And again, I don't think they were downing glass after glass of wine. That would just be painful for you stomach consuming that much liquid, whether grape juice or wine. Then you add that they probably diluted it. We are (probably) talking well below 2% alcohol, which is hardly any. So you would have to be downing quite a few glasses to get drunk. Which again, being drunk would probably be the least of your worries.
One other thought on all this: we have no idea how many guests were at the wedding feast? We do know that archeology is unearthing a much more Hellenized presence in Galilee than most originally thought. For all we know, the reason the groom ran out of wine was that a whole bunch of people showed up. Jesus brought his 12 disciples, and people could have been flocking to the feast, having heard Jesus was present. We know Jesus made a lot of wine, but how do we really know he made enough for everyone to have six more glasses?
Dear Bob, Facts being important, not speculation, Jesus, His Mother, and His disciples were called to the wedding. The text says nothing of unexpected numbers showing up. There weren't crowds following Jesus as of yet, for He had not quite yet begun His ministry, as He indicated to His Mother, and He had not done any miracles until then. We also can see that the governor or toastmaster of the feast had indicated that the guests had "well drunk." As I had indicated above, the Greek means that they had drank freely or had become drunk. At least there was a fair amount of alcohol in their system. It becomes very strained to say that Jesus gave them more alcohol at this juncture.
Let's say that the guests were indeed drunk out of their minds.
1) Would they have noticed the difference in quality in Jesus' wine?
2) If Jesus' wine was in fact alcoholic but non-intoxicating, would the already drunk people have even known? Surely they would have assumed it was alcoholic, because they would not have been able to prove otherwise if they were already drunk. It seems that "abstaining from all appearance of evil" won't even work here.
One other thought on all this: we have no idea how many guests were at the wedding feast? We do know that archeology is unearthing a much more Hellenized presence in Galilee than most originally thought. For all we know, the reason the groom ran out of wine was that a whole bunch of people showed up. Jesus brought his 12 disciples, and people could have been flocking to the feast, having heard Jesus was present. We know Jesus made a lot of wine, but how do we really know he made enough for everyone to have six more glasses?
Dear Bob, Facts being important, not speculation, Jesus, His Mother, and His disciples were called to the wedding. The text says nothing of unexpected numbers showing up. There weren't crowds following Jesus as of yet, for He had not quite yet begun His ministry, as He indicated to His Mother, and He had not done any miracles until then. We also can see that the governor or toastmaster of the feast had indicated that the guests had "well drunk." As I had indicated above, the Greek means that they had drank freely or had become drunk. At least there was a fair amount of alcohol in their system. It becomes very strained to say that Jesus gave them more alcohol at this juncture.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. You haven't convinced me.
1) on Hab. 2:15 the text says "Woe" to those who give their neighbor drink, so that they will become drunk, in order so that they can look on their nakedness. All these conjunctions are important. They qualify the Woe phrase. It isn't Woe to people who give their neighbor drink. It's Woe to people who do that in order to get them drunk, in order to gaze on their nakedness. That extreme wickedness is in view.
2) on John 2. The steward said "most of the time, when guests have drunk freely, poor wine is given". Then he says "but you saved the best wine until now". The steward's statement is a general truth, which the groom's actions (actually Christ's providing the wine) contradict. The steward is not stating that the guests at this feast have gotten drunk. He is saying that toward the end of the feast, poorer wine is usually given. Have some drunk freely by this point? Possibly, but the statement of the steward is not a direct description of that feast. Furthermore, we don't know how many guests were at the feast, or how long the feast lasted. So, there are enough variables here to allow for a different conclusion than yours -- that we aren't supposed to be clued off by the steward's use of the term "drunk freely", as to the alcoholic nature of the wine.
3) You argue from a set of assumptions about the feast and an understanding that Jesus wouldn't encourage sin. The assumptions are not fool proof and absolutely clear, so the conclusion is in doubt. Add to this the context of a steward of a feast, at a feast, where we know historically people drank wine, and where Scripture connects wine drinking and feast-activities... in this setting, the steward commends the quality of the wine, this points to it being alcoholic. We can all see the steward's point if indeed alcoholic drink is in view. If so, after the feast has progressed and the intoxicating effects of wine are beginning to occur, the taste of the wine is noticed less and matters less. But if we're talking Welch's, than the steward's statements don't make sense. On top of this there are the lexical arguments that oinos never refers to unfermented wine, and Jesus later is accused of being a winebibber, in contrast to John the Baptist who was rightly noted as being an abstainer. Surely the charges are bogus, but the element of truth could very easily be that Jesus did drink alcoholic wine, but not to the point of drunkenness.
At the end of the day a wider context for one's theological thoughts on the topic informs my views of John 2, and yours I'm sure. Thanks for the discussion. Sorry to take this off track by continuing this particular exchange which seems to be stagnating.
SGhost, in regards to the Greek word drunk. How does that fit with the rest of the passage? Jesus' wine is being compared to the wine that the host would have set forth at the beginning. And since it was alcoholic, would not that make Jesus' wine alcoholic also?
a=wine given at the beginning of the wedding(alcoholic since they were drunk or getting drunk, whether to the point of condemnation by scripture or not, I don't know that.)
b=inferior wine. I don't think inferior would mean non-alcoholic, but rather the quality of the wine. Perhaps pressed from un/over-ripe grapes. Or from a bad vineyard. Or perhaps not enough alcohol, or fermented too long to the point of becoming vinegar-ish.
c=Jesus wine
The master of the feast says that Jesus' wine was actually the good wine. In other words: c=a. If that is the case, then Jesus' wine would have been the premium(not necessarily most alcohol content, but best tasting. So it could be 5% or 12% or anywhere in between, or some other %, but definitely alcoholic) wine.
That's fine. I really didn't care that you mistook me for Bob. Just thought I would let you know.
As far as the Hab passage. I suppose that is where we will disagree. I don't view it as the effect of drinking(although it can be an effect), but the purpose of the one sharing the drink. Even with today's wine, you would have to drink a whole lot to get completely drunk, and especially to get the point of removing clothes. I know. I have been on some work trips where they drink a ton, but nothing like that happens. (luckily I just volunteer to be DD)
Also, the potential for something to happen does not cause sin, sinning causes sin. So just because there was the potential for people to get drunk, that does not equal sin. And again, I don't think they were downing glass after glass of wine. That would just be painful for you stomach consuming that much liquid, whether grape juice or wine. Then you add that they probably diluted it. We are (probably) talking well below 2% alcohol, which is hardly any. So you would have to be downing quite a few glasses to get drunk. Which again, being drunk would probably be the least of your worries.
Dear Daniel, Lust brings forth sin. The problem is that with one or two drinks, some lose their inhibitions, which I'm sure that you have seen. It may not issue in taking off clothes, but it has occurred. With a lighter wine of those days, it may not have been as drastic, but the text tells us that the guests had "well drunk" the wine. As I have indicated, the Greek means that they had drank freely or had become drunk. It remains very problematic to have Jesus contributing more alcoholic drink. He certainly was cognizant of the potential for drunkenness.
Let's say that the guests were indeed drunk out of their minds.
1) Would they have noticed the difference in quality in Jesus' wine?
2) If Jesus' wine was in fact alcoholic but non-intoxicating, would the already drunk people have even known? Surely they would have assumed it was alcoholic, because they would not have been able to prove otherwise if they were already drunk. It seems that "abstaining from all appearance of evil" won't even work here.
The text doesn't say that they were raging drunk. But they had imbibed sufficient amounts. It seems that there is a tendency here to excuse any level of inebriation. Drunkenness is a sin.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. You haven't convinced me.
1) on Hab. 2:15 the text says "Woe" to those who give their neighbor drink, so that they will become drunk, in order so that they can look on their nakedness. All these conjunctions are important. They qualify the Woe phrase. It isn't Woe to people who give their neighbor drink. It's Woe to people who do that in order to get them drunk, in order to gaze on their nakedness. That extreme wickedness is in view.
2) on John 2. The steward said "most of the time, when guests have drunk freely, poor wine is given". Then he says "but you saved the best wine until now". The steward's statement is a general truth, which the groom's actions (actually Christ's providing the wine) contradict. The steward is not stating that the guests at this feast have gotten drunk. He is saying that toward the end of the feast, poorer wine is usually given. Have some drunk freely by this point? Possibly, but the statement of the steward is not a direct description of that feast. Furthermore, we don't know how many guests were at the feast, or how long the feast lasted. So, there are enough variables here to allow for a different conclusion than yours -- that we aren't supposed to be clued off by the steward's use of the term "drunk freely", as to the alcoholic nature of the wine.
3) You argue from a set of assumptions about the feast and an understanding that Jesus wouldn't encourage sin. The assumptions are not fool proof and absolutely clear, so the conclusion is in doubt. Add to this the context of a steward of a feast, at a feast, where we know historically people drank wine, and where Scripture connects wine drinking and feast-activities... in this setting, the steward commends the quality of the wine, this points to it being alcoholic. We can all see the steward's point if indeed alcoholic drink is in view. If so, after the feast has progressed and the intoxicating effects of wine are beginning to occur, the taste of the wine is noticed less and matters less. But if we're talking Welch's, than the steward's statements don't make sense. On top of this there are the lexical arguments that oinos never refers to unfermented wine, and Jesus later is accused of being a winebibber, in contrast to John the Baptist who was rightly noted as being an abstainer. Surely the charges are bogus, but the element of truth could very easily be that Jesus did drink alcoholic wine, but not to the point of drunkenness.
At the end of the day a wider context for one's theological thoughts on the topic informs my views of John 2, and yours I'm sure. Thanks for the discussion. Sorry to take this off track by continuing this particular exchange which seems to be stagnating.
Dear Bob, I fully realize the part of wickedness in Hab. 2. Yet, the Scripture is written for our admonition and our learning. We should see the danger of alcohol, as I'm sure Jesus was cognizant.
The statement of the toastmaster was more than "most of the time," but pas, which is "every" man, which was a shock to him. His statement, "but thou hast kept the good wine until now," indicates that the current condition was that the guests had drank freely already. How much more would it take to go too far?
As you talk of assumptions, Bob, it should be quite clear that Jesus wouldn't encourage drunkenness, not just an assumption. Then to say that the steward's commending of the quality of the wine points to it being alcoholic, is an assumption on your part. In our day, we have made non-alcoholic "wine." Are we saying that the Creator of the universe could not have made the most exquisite tasting fresh wine, without it being alcoholic? It was, after all, a miracle! 
Young's Analytical Concordance has oinos as wine or grape juice. The discussion of Christ of putting "new wine" into wineskins illustrates the word being used for grape juice. A wine press makes grape juice first. As far as Jesus taking a little wine, it undoubtedly, and most often was alcoholic, but He was never drunk, else He had sinned. Yet, that is not the question here.
We certainly don't need artificially induced alcoholic beverages today, which is what most who argue for the Cana example wish to excuse.
SGhost, in regards to the Greek word drunk. How does that fit with the rest of the passage? Jesus' wine is being compared to the wine that the host would have set forth at the beginning. And since it was alcoholic, would not that make Jesus' wine alcoholic also?
Not necessarily, Daniel. He is Creator God, and can produce the finest tasting new wine. It was, after all, a miracle!
a=wine given at the beginning of the wedding(alcoholic since they were drunk or getting drunk, whether to the point of condemnation by scripture or not, I don't know that.)
b=inferior wine. I don't think inferior would mean non-alcoholic, but rather the quality of the wine. Perhaps pressed from un/over-ripe grapes. Or from a bad vineyard. Or perhaps not enough alcohol, or fermented too long to the point of becoming vinegar-ish.
c=Jesus wine
Yes! This is the stuff in question! He created it out of water. 
The master of the feast says that Jesus' wine was actually the good wine. In other words: c=a.
This is not even true about wines today...Chardonnay is not the same as Burgundy, though each may be the quality which is considered "good" by some wine tasters. What Jesus created certainly pleased the toastmaster, but it doesn't automatically make it alcoholic.
If that is the case, then Jesus' wine would have been the premium(not necessarily most alcohol content, but best tasting. So it could be 5% or 12% or anywhere in between, or some other %, but definitely alcoholic) wine.
An unwarranted conclusion...it was a miracle! 
Young's Analytical Concordance has oinos as wine or grape juice. The discussion of Christ of putting "new wine" into wineskins illustrates the word being used for grape juice. A wine press makes grape juice first. As far as Jesus taking a little wine, it undoubtedly, and most often was alcoholic, but He was never drunk, else He had sinned. Yet, that is not the question here.
We certainly don't need artificially induced alcoholic beverages today, which is what most who argue for the Cana example wish to excuse.
Young's Analytical Concordance, doesn't trump the major Greek lexicons, such as BDAG. The only reason new skins were needed for "new wine" is that the fermentation process would explode old skins which were brittle. Wine is in view. The term "new wine" often refers to alcoholic wine, from the most recent harvest. The press would have grapes sit for days before it would be pressed, so there would already be fermentation happening to some degree. I forget the passage, but in Hosea I think, it says, wine and new wine can take away the senses.
I don't condone drunkenness. I don't think Christ was facilitating it or encouraging it. I do think alcoholic wine is in view in John 2. I'm bowing out of the John 2 discussion now. If you are interested in interacting with my biblically based position on moderation as opposed to abstinence, feel free to interact with this comment in another post: http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-what-does-scripture-say-about-use-of...
Silverghost, there is a monumental difference between making someone drunk in order to exploit them [the meaning of that verse in its' context] and giving someone alcohol to drink.
I have read the chapter many times Jay, and I am a stickler on context. However, are you saying thus, that the "woe" has nothing to do with giving intoxicating wine to those who had already "well drunk," as Jesus supposedly did? Inhibitions, such as becoming naked, ensue, as Habakkuk indicated the portrayer of evil desired. Would Jesus think this humorous? The Hebrew in v.15 for "puttest" is sawphakh, which has nothing to do with forcing, which I consider a poor translation in the NLT. It is literally "to scrape out," i.e., the dregs, to make your neighbor drunk. The picture is irrigating his mouth from your wineskin. The KJV translation "to put" is a perfectly fine rendering, putting your bottle in his mouth.
So Jesus, in your opinion, gave alcoholic wine to those who had considerably imbibed already? Subsequently, are you saying that Habakkuk's warning has no bearing on this scene in John 2? Seems that you miss the context at the wedding. In light of all that Jesus did, He being necessarily without sin, according to the Scriptures, is this not a rather messy picture that you paint of the Savior? You seem to sidestep the real issue of the sanctity of the Lord. Even we fallible Christians are to "abstain from all appearance of evil." He would need to be untainted with sin in order to pay for ours.
PS: Is it not rather condescending for you to quote the entire chapter, to make your point? Do you think that after 40+ years of ministry, I would not be familiar with what Habakkuk said?
Silverghost,
No, it's not condescending for me to quote the entire chapter when you take it out of its context in order to make it say what you want [which, by the way, you seem to have done twice now - once in this thread and once on another thread].
Furthermore, if the Hebrew term really means 'to scrape out the dregs' in order "to put your bottle to his mouth" [or to make your neighbor drunk] that would indicate that my exegesis was correct...that God is angry with the Caldeans who exploited the needy and destitute for their own selfish ends. If you want to preach against drunkenness, there are tons of other passages to use, including Proverbs and Ephesians.
Furthermore, at least one commentary indicates that your position is incorrect.
When men have well drunk - This word does not of necessity mean that they were intoxicated, though it is usually employed in that sense. It may mean when they have drunk sufficient, or to satiety; or have drunk so much as to produce hilarity, and to destroy the keenness of their taste, so that they could not readily distinguish the good from that which was worse. But this cannot be adduced in favor of drunkenness, even if it means to be intoxicated; for,
1. It is not said of those who were present "at that feast," but of what GENERALLY occurred. For anything that appears, at that feast all were perfectly temperate and sober.
2. It is not the saying of Jesus that is here recorded, but of the governor of the feast, who is declaring what usually occurred as a fact.
3. There is not any expression of opinion in regard to its "propriety," or in approval of it, even by that governor.
4. It does not appear that our Saviour even heard the observation.
5. Still less is there any evidence that he approved such a state of things, or that he designed that it should take place here. Further, the word translated "well drunk" cannot be shown to mean intoxication; but it MAY mean when they had drunk as much as they judged proper or as they desired. then the other was presented. It is clear that neither our Saviour, nor the sacred writer, nor the speaker here expresses any approval of intemperance, nor is there the least evidence that anything of the kind occurred here. It is not proof that WE approve of intemperance when we mention, as this man did, what occurs usually among men at feasts.
Is worse - Is of an inferior quality.
The good wine - This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase "good wine." WE often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as "good," or mention that as "the best wine," which was harmless or "innocent" - poculo vini "innocentis." The most useful wine - "utilissimum vinum" - was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine - "saluberrimum vinum" - was that which had not been adulterated by "the addition of anything to the 'must' or juice." Pliny expressly says that a good wine was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the "good wine" was "stronger" than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder...
Silverghost,
No, it's not condescending for me to quote the entire chapter when you take it out of its context in order to make it say what you want [which, by the way, you seem to have done twice now - once in this thread and once on another thread].
If you disagree with me, Jay, that's fine. Yet I never said that Hab. 2:15 was a proof text, but that it was written for our admonition and learning. It is a serious matter to give alcohol to another, who have already drank sufficient, which even liberal bartenders often refuse to do. If you wish to be heavy handed with me regarding my activities, because I disagree with you, that's your poor choice. Not much discussion will occur, if it is one-sided, however. 
Furthermore, at least one commentary indicates that your position is incorrect.
When men have well drunk - This word does not of necessity mean that they were intoxicated, though it is usually employed in that sense. It may mean when they have drunk sufficient, or to satiety; or have drunk so much as to produce hilarity, and to destroy the keenness of their taste, so that they could not readily distinguish the good from that which was worse. But this cannot be adduced in favor of drunkenness, even if it means to be intoxicated; for,
1. It is not said of those who were present "at that feast," but of what GENERALLY occurred. For anything that appears, at that feast all were perfectly temperate and sober.
2. It is not the saying of Jesus that is here recorded, but of the governor of the feast, who is declaring what usually occurred as a fact.
3. There is not any expression of opinion in regard to its "propriety," or in approval of it, even by that governor.
4. It does not appear that our Saviour even heard the observation.
5. Still less is there any evidence that he approved such a state of things, or that he designed that it should take place here. Further, the word translated "well drunk" cannot be shown to mean intoxication; but it MAY mean when they had drunk as much as they judged proper or as they desired. then the other was presented. It is clear that neither our Saviour, nor the sacred writer, nor the speaker here expresses any approval of intemperance, nor is there the least evidence that anything of the kind occurred here. It is not proof that WE approve of intemperance when we mention, as this man did, what occurs usually among men at feasts.
Is worse - Is of an inferior quality.
The good wine - This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase "good wine." WE often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as "good," or mention that as "the best wine," which was harmless or "innocent" - poculo vini "innocentis." The most useful wine - "utilissimum vinum" - was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine - "saluberrimum vinum" - was that which had not been adulterated by "the addition of anything to the 'must' or juice." Pliny expressly says that a good wine was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the "good wine" was "stronger" than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder...
This is excellent from Barnes, as a matter of fact. Yet in a large portion, not all, he agrees with me.
When men have well drunk - This word does not of necessity mean that they were intoxicated, though it is usually employed in that sense. It may mean when they have drunk sufficient, or to satiety; or have drunk so much as to produce hilarity, and to destroy the keenness of their taste, so that they could not readily distinguish the good from that which was worse. But this cannot be adduced in favor of drunkenness, even if it means to be intoxicated
Barnes indicates that these were "satiated," their hearts were merry, yet "not of necessity" considered drunk, even though the Greek word usually means to be intoxicated (my position exactly). So be it. My point, if you would be so gracious to receive it, is that Our Savior would be out of character and dangerously implicated in further contributing to these guests becoming unacceptably intoxicated. It is but a mild step from Barnes' assertion that this "good wine...was milder," to reckoning that it was indeed a miracle performed by the Creator of the universe, and therefore subject to His wise choice for the benefit of those who had already drank freely. It was obviously of good taste, else the toastmaster would not have been surprised. Yet, I'm sure this toastmaster didn't go to CSI to have a chemical analysis of it. Barnes indicates that it "was that which had little strength." In light of the fact that it was a miracle, that's quite close to my position of it being non-alcoholic.
If you wish to be heavy handed with me regarding my activities, because I disagree with you, that's your poor choice. Not much discussion will occur, if it is one-sided, however.
Just so you know, Jay's not a moderator (nor does he want to be... tried to talk him into that a while back), so heavy-handedness of that sort is certainly not happening.
Edit: Jay became a Moderator some time in 2010
If you disagree with me, Jay, that's fine. Yet I never said that Hab. 2:15 was a proof text, but that it was written for our admonition and learning. It is a serious matter to give alcohol to another, who have already drank sufficient, which even liberal bartenders often refuse to do. If you wish to be heavy handed with me regarding my activities, because I disagree with you, that's your poor choice. Not much discussion will occur, if it is one-sided, however.
Barnes indicates that these were "satiated," their hearts were merry, yet "not of necessity" considered drunk, even though the Greek word usually means to be intoxicated (my position exactly). So be it. My point, if you would be so gracious to receive it, is that Our Savior would be out of character and dangerously implicated in further contributing to these guests becoming unacceptably intoxicated. It is but a mild step from Barnes' assertion that this "good wine...was milder," to reckoning that it was indeed a miracle performed by the Creator of the universe, and therefore subject to His wise choice for the benefit of those who had already drank freely. It was obviously of good taste, else the toastmaster would not have been surprised. Yet, I'm sure this toastmaster didn't go to CSI to have a chemical analysis of it. Barnes indicates that it "was that which had little strength." In light of the fact that it was a miracle, that's quite close to my position of it being non-alcoholic.
Silver-
I'm not discounting Hab. 2:15 - yes, it is critically important as a part of the Scripture. I'm not saying that we should ignore it. What I am saying is that I think your application of the Habukkuk passage is somewhat flawed and that it was entirely possible for Jesus to create wine in John 2 that contained alcohol and yet remain without sin.
I think we're at an impasse, and as such, will bow out of the conversation now.
Just so you know, Jay's not a moderator (nor does he want to be... tried to talk him into that a while back), so heavy-handedness of that sort is certainly not happening.
Dear Aaron, It had nothing to do with the leadership, of which I would not expect to be heavy-handed as well. It was the manner in which Jay seemed to be insisting upon having it his way...that could make it one-sided. I don't think that Jay meant to do that, by his recent reply. SI needs to encourage wholesome discussion, in which honest views are considered, that are in accordance with the fundamentals of the faith.
Silver-
I'm not discounting Hab. 2:15 - yes, it is critically important as a part of the Scripture. I'm not saying that we should ignore it. What I am saying is that I think your application of the Habukkuk passage is somewhat flawed and that it was entirely possible for Jesus to create wine in John 2 that contained alcohol and yet remain without sin.
I think we're at an impasse, and as such, will bow out of the conversation now.
Thank you for that reply, Jay. I hope that this was a good exercise for us both. I have had to work and counsel with a number of alcoholics and other substance abusers, and this has helped somewhat to sharpen my thoughts. That's a good result that should be SI's normal outcome, is it not?
I just hope that my iron is not too hard to sharpen. LOL!
Interesting how this is coming down. I have always thought that what Jesus produced was nice, freshly pressed grape juice. The kind of "fruit of the vine" that one can only get once a year and othertimes you have to drink the preserved stuff. I thought this long before I heard that anyone dreamed up the crazy idea that ALL wine is bad and there must be two kinds of wine referred to in the bible!
Gentlemen,
The first sign that Messiah gave was at Cana, He turned water into wine. The wine was mature wine, alcohol, the best wine. What He was showing us here is that He was the creator, that He could bypass the natural process because He had devised it.
When man was created in the image of Elohim he was created a mature adult.
What we can deduce from this is that the creator was able to create each and every part of the creation and create it in maturity.
Oil, coal and gas are fossil fuels and there is a natural process in which they are produced. As with the wine at Cana the Lord bypassed the process. Fossil fuels were placed in the earth at the time of the creation, they didn’t evolve.
The first sign was, I am the creator.
As far as I know, nobody is debating what God is able to do, but what He actually did do at Cana.
I don't think the maturity argument for alcoholic wine is very strong. Is "mature" cider hard cider? For that matter, is mature bread moldy?
Fermentation is a natural process of decay.
The words translated had ''well drunk'' would be better translated as intoxicated. They word methyo is used ten other times in scripture and this is what it conveys. The most glaringly obvious is Rev 17:2. This proves that the first wine was alcoholic and to suggest that the wine that was brought forth in the sign was anything other is avoiding the obvious. If it was grape juice why would the ruler of the entertainment make the statement he did? He wasn't aware of where the wine had come from. If he was a member of AA then he would have had reason to commend the bridegroom
Aaron,
Do you have a problem with the implication that Messiah would have anything to do with alcohol? do you see the consumption of alcohol as a sin?
to suggest that the wine that was brought forth in the sign was anything other is avoiding the obvious.
Hmm... when you don't have an argument, simply declare your conclusion to be obvious?
We know what alcohol does to the brain. We know that God knows what alcohol does to the brain. We know that the Bible condemns drunkenness consistently. And we know that Jesus knew what would happen if He created wine with alcohol in it. But I think all these ideas went several rounds earlier in the thread.
I do not find it implausible at all that Jesus could have made great, authentic-tasting wine that would not have the negative side effects of alcohol. This would be a small accomplishment compared to making it instantly from water. The result would be superior to what was normally consumed at the time. We know it was superior in taste. Why could it not have been superior chemically as well?
It's far from obvious that Jesus could not or would not do this.
Aaron,
Do you have a problem with the implication that Messiah would have anything to do with alcohol? Yes/no
do you see the consumption of alcohol as a sin? Yes/no
...without an answer I feel it unwise to continue, because if you do see the consumption of alcoholic wine as a sin, you could never imagine that Messiah would turn the water into ''that kind'' of wine.
When you say ''we know the effect of alcohol on the brain'' are you speaking about effects that you have experienced? Yes/no
Would you consider this verse is speaking of alcoholic or non alcoholic wine ''Ps 104:15 ?
Huw, my answers to the questions you posed aren't really relevant to the arguments I've made. That is, answers one way or the other would neither strengthen nor weaken the case I've made, which is simply that Jesus had no need to include alcohol to produce the desired taste, etc., and there are obvious drawbacks to including alcohol in potentially intoxicating quantities at an event like a wedding reception. So, from the standpoint of a miracle-worker who is not in favor of intoxication, including alcohol would seem to have no advantage.
I'll answer the one about Ps.104:15. There was normally no such thing as non-alcoholic wine (there is also normally no such thing as water you can walk on). So the Ps.104.15 reference would be to ordinary wine. However, the gladness of the heart of man there is not a reference to intoxication, which Scripture clearly condemns everywhere else.
If it helps, I believe Jesus and the apostles drank regular wine most of the time, like everyone else of the era, and this would have normally contained some alcohol, though not at the levels common in wine today.
Based on what you have said the statement ''it is good'', should have been ''it is good, except for the fact they'll be able to make alcohol''.
Well, I think that line of reasoning breaks down as well. Should it say "good except that they'll be able to beat eachother over the head with large rocks" or "good except that they'll be able to get cancer"?
We do not know that fermentation was possible before the fall, but even if it was, "good" has reference to the creation itself not to what people would eventually choose to do with it.
I do find it interesting that you haven't offered a counterargument to my idea that Jesus could easily make wine that tastes and feel excellent without including alcohol. Do you believe this was beyond Him? It would be hard to argue that since the text clear says He could make the beverage out of water.
So my argument, again, is this:
As for #1... the word "wine," it came up earlier in the thread. I suggested then that the term does not necessarily have reference to alcohol, it's just that it almost always did. It's not like people knew what the chemical composition was. I also suggested that there was no word for "grape juice" and they used the term "wine" for the liquid from the moment it flowed from the press (at which moment it would not be alcoholic). Could be wrong on that point, but I haven't seen evidence to the contrary yet.
#2... I don't see anything in the text that requires the wine Jesus made to be potentially intoxicating.
#3... a case could be made that as a principle of interpretation we should not suppose features of miracles that are not specified in the text. Certainly not enlarge miracles beyond the text. This is why, for example, it's probably not a good idea to say that the animals on the ark were asleep the entire time. But accounts of miracles are always compressed and I don't think that supposing some details as a matter of understanding them should be out of bounds.
#3... a case could be made that as a principle of interpretation we should not suppose features of miracles that are not specified in the text. Certainly not enlarge miracles beyond the text. This is why, for example, it's probably not a good idea to say that the animals on the ark were asleep the entire time. But accounts of miracles are always compressed and I don't think that supposing some details as a matter of understanding them should be out of bounds.
Wouldn't a grammatical hermeneutic assume the intended message in the record was of an alcoholic beverage unless there is some reason to conclude otherwise? It seems the burden of proof is on you to show why the text should be read apart from the normal understanding rather than on opponents to prove the possibility you have posed is wrong.
Wouldn't a grammatical hermeneutic assume the intended message in the record was of an alcoholic beverage unless there is some reason to conclude otherwise? It seems the burden of proof is on you to show why the text should be read apart from the normal understanding rather than on opponents to prove the possibility you have posed is wrong.
Yes, except that I have provided "reasons to conclude otherwise." They've gone unanswered. Up to readers to decide if they find them persuasive I guess. But I've made a case.
Part of the grammatical-historical interp. here, though, rests on the meaning of "wine," which I addressed under "#1." If the word does not necessarily include intoxicants in its range of meaning because the juice right out of the press is also called "wine," the grammatical-historical requirements are not as compelling as they may seem.
(If I'm not mistaken, Mike Harding has already shown that "new wine" contained negligible amounts of alcohol and yet the word "wine" was used in reference to it. What I don't have -yet- is any specific evidence that "wine" was used of the juice right out of the press. It seems reasonable to assume since, at the time, folks were not aware of the chemical processes involved. So the word is probably indiscriminate with reference to the amount of intoxicants the liquid contains.)
Edit: winepress
Just hit me. The term "winepress" itself is interesting. They did not call it a "juice press" or even a "grape press." This would suggest that they regarded everything that came out of it as "wine" and did not use the word exclusively of what had been aged.
Adam was created with a history. He was a fully grown man of around thirty years of age ( with a belly button). A tree was created with a history because it was fruit bearing. The whole of creation was put in place with a history. History demands age and age demands the effects of decay. So the effects were in place before the decay entered in via sin.
When the first sign at Cana was given the wine had a history. The creator Himself had bypassed the very means He had put in place. Rain becomes wine through a long process. Messiah just said the word and the water (rain) was wine....or thought the thought?
This is an interesting idea... but I'm not sure I follow the argument. God made grown up humans, therefore wine is grown up rain?
In any case, Adam was made some age but was not, apparently, the equivalent of an old geezer. So even if we accept the premise that whenever God makes something it must "have a history," how much history must it have?
I feel like I'm starting to get into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin territory here. I'm just not seeing any strong evidence here that Jesus had to have made something aged that day.
Aaron, here is my problem with your view. It takes more work to prove it over wine being grape juice or alcoholic wine (whatever % they had). It would be simpler to believe it to be either of those than wine with no alcohol. (occam's razor)
#1, I believe it was used from the moment it flowed from the press till they drank it. So. really, no side has any claim based upon this alone unless there is a specific modifier, i.e. they took the bucket of wine straight from the press to the house. I don't think anyone will argue it was alcoholic.
#2, I don't see any reason for the opposite.
#3, Not sure what you mean in the sentence, but understand what you mean below it.
#4, Not sure that creation necessarily implies everything is aged or mature. There had to be a hen first in order to keep the egg warm, but that does not mean an egg was not created as well.
So your argument is valid but is less likely to be true than it being grape juice or wine. It is much simpler and a lot more plausible for it to be grape juice or wine. The miracle wasn't that he made the best wine. If he made terrible wine, it would still be a miracle to no less degree. The miraculous part is that he broke the laws of nature and turned water into 'wine'.
Not that I necessarily am standing behind this position, but I wonder if it is more credible.(or if anyone has ever posited it) Do the good and inferior qulaifiers refer to the quality of the wine rather than alcohol content?
I'll answer the one about Ps.104:15. There was normally no such thing as non-alcoholic wine (there is also normally no such thing as water you can walk on). So the Ps.104.15 reference would be to ordinary wine. However, the gladness of the heart of man there is not a reference to intoxication, which Scripture clearly condemns everywhere else.
If it helps, I believe Jesus and the apostles drank regular wine most of the time, like everyone else of the era, and this would have normally contained some alcohol, though not at the levels common in wine today.
I think you miss the point here, Aaron. "Gladness of the heart" or an "uplifting of the spirit" occurs well before intoxication. This "gladness" idea is pervasive in Scripture and connected with wine.
Ps. 104:14-15 "You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart."
Ecclesiastes 10:19 "Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything."
Ecclesiastes 9:7 “Go, eat your bread in joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.”
Judges 9:13 "But the vine said to them, ‘Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?’"
Isaiah 24:7-11 “The wine mourns, the vine languishes, all the merry-hearted sigh. The mirth of the tambourines is stilled, the noise of the jubilant has ceased, the mirth of the lyre is stilled. No more do they drink wine with singing; strong drink is bitter to those who drink it. The wasted city is broken down; every house is shut up so that none can enter. There is an outcry in the streets for lack of wine; all joy has grown dark; the gladness of the earth is banished.“
2 Samuel 13:28 "Then Absalom commanded his servants, “Mark when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine, and when I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon,’ then kill him. Do not fear; have I not commanded you? Be courageous and be valiant.”
1 Sam. 25:36 "And Abigail came to Nabal, and behold, he was holding a feast in his house, like the feast of a king. And Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunk. So she told him nothing at all until the morning light. In the morning, when the wine had gone out of Nabal, his wife told him these things, and his heart died within him, and he became as a stone."
Esther 1:10 "On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus,"
Zechariah 10:7 "Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD."
The connection between wine and joy is quite direct in Scripture. And as you'll notice, several of these descriptions of a merry heart refer to intoxication. So there is a connection between wine-induced merriment and drunkenness. Knowing that wine begins to lift your spirit way before it intoxicates you and makes you lose your senses, helps one understand that Scripture here can be praising the spirit-uplifting capacity of wine even while in other places it clearly condemns drunkenness.
For me personally, it was a study of Scripture's teaching and descriptions of wine that made me change my opinion and practice about the issue. This teaching of wine being a good thing, a good gift of God to infuse joy and uplift one's heart was coupled with clear texts such as the following, to compel me to stop despising something God says is good.
Deuteronomy 14:22-26 “You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. And before the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire–oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.”
In John 2, the master of the feast described the guests as having "well drunk". That is a precise term used for "drunkenness". Nothing in the master of the feast's speech indicates he thought the wine they had been drinking or the wine Jesus gave them was not intoxicating. The lexicons are practically unanimous on the question of what the Greek and Hebrew terms for wine referred to. As for wine being a term applied to the product of the press, isn't bread the product of the mill? Oil is the product of the olive, and yet we can talk poetically about the end product as being "treaded out on the presses". We shouldn't miss that the verse used for that is Isaiah 16:10 -- a clearly poetic passage.
A last word here, I am not for everyone drinking. I understand the consciences of some are weak in this matter. I'm not for partying in the club or hanging out at the bar either. But no matter what % of alcohol was in the wine and strong drink (Deut. 14) in Bible times, it was enough that drunkenness was a problem. Since Scripture praises the positive effects of alcoholic drinks (short of the loss of control in drunkenness), a prudent, moderate enjoyment of alcoholic drinks is something a believer should seriously consider. Treating the substance as evil (when no substance is evil, it is only fallen people who use substances wrongly) and dirty, is doing God a disservice since He provided it for man. Grapes ferment naturally quite easily in hot climates. And God took credit for wine as much as He takes credit for bread and oil, in Ps. 104:15.
Note: verses are quoted from the ESV. If anyone is interested in reading some other posts I've done on this topic, click here (and scroll down to the bottom and work your way up to the top).
Bob... how exactly does this "gladness" work ? Does it require alcohol in your view? If so, how does this differ from "a little bit tipsy"? As they say around here, "buzz driving is drunk driving."
I would suggest that the gladness has nothing to do with alcohol but simply with the refreshment that comes from a sweet cool beverage in a hot dry climate.
I don't see any way to give it a significance that requires alcohol without turning into something like "mild intoxication."
Isn't bread the product of the mill? Oil is the product of the olive, and yet we can talk poetically about the end product as being "treaded out on the presses". We shouldn't miss that the verse used for that is Isaiah 16:10 -- a clearly poetic passage.
We don't call it a "bread mill" or an "oil press." My point wasn't that "wine" cannot refer to something aged, but that it doesn't have to. The term "winepress" suggests it's "wine" from the moment it comes out... so "wine" as a biblical term encompasses what we call grape juice as well as what we call wine today.
Aaron,
You're intentionally not listening to the text. So the texts about Nabal, Amnon and Ahaseurus having their heart "merry with wine" which clearly refers to their being over the top tipsy, those texts don't have anything to do with the other texts about how wine cheers man and gladdens his heart? More than that, you don't seem to have a category for moderate drinking that isn't "buzzed" or "drunk". There is a category for that.
Furthermore, we know there is a connection between feasting and joyful parties and alcohol. There always has been. Think King Arthur and any feast you've ever heard of, wine or some other alcoholic drink is a key part of it. In fact, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988; edited by Geoffrey Bromiley] points out, “A banquet hall is called a bet misteh hayyayin (lit. ‘house for drinking wine’ Est. 7:8), and a ‘feast’ is literally a ‘drinking’ (Heb. misteh, Gen. 21:8; Jdg. 14:10; 1 S. 25:36; 2 S. 3:20)” (vol. 4, pg. 1070). With such a connection between wine and joy, how can we miss the obvious undertones of the list of passages I listed. Look at another verse, how the text keys in on the loss of wine as the manifestation of the loss of joy.
Jeremiah 48:33 “Gladness and joy have been taken away from the fruitful land of Moab; I have made the wine cease from the winepresses; no one treads them with shouts of joy; the shouting is not the shout of joy.”
One final point and I'll try to drop the topic here. Certainly if drinking and drunkenness is a problem, it is wise to abstain, right? That is what Christians today (in America) seem to think. But drinking was an obvious problem to the culture of Bible times, and never do we find an admonition for all Christians to abstain. Yet we don't hesitate to rush in with our wisdom to help out the Scriptural case against drunkenness. Apparently, God was fine with teaching us to "avoid drunkenness" while at the same time not forbidding the prudent, moderate use of wine.
Isn't bread the product of the mill? Oil is the product of the olive, and yet we can talk poetically about the end product as being "treaded out on the presses". We shouldn't miss that the verse used for that is Isaiah 16:10 -- a clearly poetic passage.
We don't call it a "bread mill" or an "oil press." My point wasn't that "wine" cannot refer to something aged, but that it doesn't have to. The term "winepress" suggests it's "wine" from the moment it comes out... so "wine" as a biblical term encompasses what we call grape juice as well as what we call wine today.
Just saw this part so I'm responding...
So, let's review here. In old days unless you drank the mushed grapes right away, it would ferment very quickly. Grape juice as we know it was invented by Thomas Welch who applied Louis Pasteur's "pasteurization" process to grapes in an effort to produce a temperance-friendly version of communion wine. There were ways to delay and limit fermentation but not keep it completely out. The best method of preserving the product would be to enhance the fermentation process and make stronger wine which would keep longer. So basically, the primary use of ancient winepresses would only be to create wine - the alcoholic kind. The idea of juice as an easily drinkable product that doesn't ferment and stays cool as a refreshing alternative to just plain water, is more of a modern concept.
Somehow ignoring lexical definitions of the Hebrew and Greek terms seems unwise in building your case. Going with an idea about the meaning of "winepress" from an English standpoint, seems overly simplistic.
Bob,
I'm in complete agreement with you. The only thing I would add is that which I took from The Theological Wordbook.
''Wine was the most intoxicating drink known in ancient times. All the wine was light wine, i.e. not fortified with extra alcohol. Concentrated alcohol was only known in the Middle Ages when the Arabs invented distillation (''alcohol'' is an Arabic word) so what is now called liquor or strong drink ( i.e. whiskey, gin, etc) and the 20% fortified wines were unknown in Bible times''.
Beer was brewed by various methods, but its alcohol content was light. The strength of natural wines is limited by two factors. The percentage of alcohol will be half of the percentage of the sugar in the juice. And if the alcohol content is much above 10 or 11 % the yeast cells are killed and fermentation ceases. Probably ancient wines were 7-10%.
Drunkenness therefore was of course an ancient curse, but alcoholism was not as common or as severe as it is today''.
The other consideration I have is the fact that wine is appreciated not only by the palate. We first check for clarity of the wine (Proverbs) ''when it sparkles in the glass'', then the bouquet, and then the taste. Wine becomes clear only when the sugar has turned to alcohol. So for the master of ceremonies to declare the wine ''good wine'' it would certainly not have been cloudy.
I was suspicious about the grape juice, but I wasn't as thorough as you in my search of evidence to back up my suspicion. I find it good exercise having to prove what we know in our hearts to be true. I must admit I also get frustrated by having to do so.
So the texts about Nabal, Amnon and Ahaseurus having their heart "merry with wine" which clearly refers to their being over the top tipsy, those texts don't have anything to do with the other texts about how wine cheers man and gladdens his heart? More than that, you don't seem to have a category for moderate drinking that isn't "buzzed" or "drunk". There is a category for that.
I get that some of these texts are about drunkenness. But I still don't have an answer for how the "gladness" that is upheld as a good thing in other texts can be identified with that. There are multiple problems:
1) If the positive references to "gladness" and wine refer to a gladness induced by alcohol, what is going on chemically? It's called intoxication
2) Scripture is clearly not for intoxication, mild or otherwise
How would you harmonize these?
As for the category of moderate drinking, of course everybody drank wine as the standard beverage and I'm among those who believe this wine contained some alcohol. That would be "moderate drinking" in the NT sense. So I do believe that category exists. But once we move beyond the refreshment factor (which has nothing to do with the alcohol) into a kind of gladness that is alcohol induced, we have entered the arena of intoxication.
Allowing for some alcohol induced "gladness" as a good thing is huge can of worms. How much of this gladness is too much? When does it become the drunkenness Scripture condemns?
As for Welch's... it kind of cracks me up when people say he "invented grape juice." The first guy who stepped on a grape invented grape juice. 
Yes, Welch invented a way to mass produce and preserve the stuff, but what comes out of a wine press has always been grape juice. It just doesn't stay that way.
Bob, I don't disagree with your observations about preservation. As far as I know (which isn't saying much) they are accurate. But it does not follow that the word "wine" must therefore always be a liquid containing alcohol as a matter of language. What comes out of the press is "wine" and has no alcohol.
So there is no linguistic reason to insist that when Jesus turned water to "wine," He turned water into something that could inebriate.
I get that some of these texts are about drunkenness. But I still don't have an answer for how the "gladness" that is upheld as a good thing in other texts can be identified with that. There are multiple problems:
1) If the positive references to "gladness" and wine refer to a gladness induced by alcohol, what is going on chemically? It's called intoxication
2) Scripture is clearly not for intoxication, mild or otherwise
How would you harmonize these?
Where does Scripture say "intoxication" is forbidden? It uses the term drunkenness. It tells us why drunkenness is forbidden too, when it singles out the loss of control and the excess that goes with it. As soon as one drinks even a very very low alcoholic content (often just the first one or two mouthfuls of a drink), one can feel the effects of it already. It calms you and does promote joy and an easing of your spirit. To go from this to a "buzzed" or drunken state takes much more drinking on average.
As for the category of moderate drinking, of course everybody drank wine as the standard beverage and I'm among those who believe this wine contained some alcohol. That would be "moderate drinking" in the NT sense. So I do believe that category exists. But once we move beyond the refreshment factor (which has nothing to do with the alcohol) into a kind of gladness that is alcohol induced, we have entered the arena of intoxication.
Allowing for some alcohol induced "gladness" as a good thing is huge can of worms. How much of this gladness is too much? When does it become the drunkenness Scripture condemns?
Alcoholic wine is not really "refreshing" generally. But more to your point. People who drink do know how much is too much. Did you notice how Scripture doesn't prescribe when we come to too much drinking? God trusts us to figure that out. Why is it we need to say "abstinence is the only sure way to avoid drunkenness", when God doesn't say that? I agree there is a can of worms opened somewhat, but I'm not opening it. It's always been open. Scripture calls us to be wise and discerning in our use of alcohol. It doesn't call us to avoid any use of alcohol. That may be how we apply our wisdom, for other reasons and factors, but it is not the Scriptural answer for everyone. Scripture assumes we will be partaking of alcohol.
As for Welch's... it kind of cracks me up when people say he "invented grape juice." The first guy who stepped on a grape invented grape juice.
Yes, Welch invented a way to mass produce and preserve the stuff, but what comes out of a wine press has always been grape juice. It just doesn't stay that way.
Bob, I don't disagree with your observations about preservation. As far as I know (which isn't saying much) they are accurate. But it does not follow that the word "wine" must therefore always be a liquid containing alcohol as a matter of language. What comes out of the press is "wine" and has no alcohol.
The point about Welch is that before he got working, most churches everywhere used alcoholic communion wine. He wasn't interested in mass production right away, he had been appointed the elder in charge of communion at his Methodist church which previously was using fermented wine. The church didn't accept his innovation right away either.
So there is no linguistic reason to insist that when Jesus turned water to "wine," He turned water into something that could inebriate.
Aaron, where is your lexical citation to back this up? Lexicons that delve into that question almost universally state the opposite of what you're saying.
There is much in what you say Bob that I recognise. For thirty years I was a drunk. Either thinking of drinking, drinking or recovering from drink so that I could start again. This is something I thought about earlier. If someone were to try and give a man who has been drinking a ''soft drink'' that person would be in a great deal of trouble. When a person is intoxicated they want to either stay at that level or get more intoxicated.
This is a fact that someone would need to experiance to understand and I don't recommend the experiance.
Such is the desire for more alcohol you dream about it and in dreaming you reach out and wake up....it's a terrible, terrible curse.
By God's grace, Huw, I haven't come close to drunkenness. The dangers of drunkenness and the misery that can bring are certainly serious. This is why for many and in many contexts it is good to abstain. Still, as I've said, Scripture doesn't advocate abstinence of alcohol as the wisest policy for most. Abstinence is usually circumstantial and limited in scope, when advocated.
So my argument, again, is this:
Thank you Aaron, for good reasoning in this discussion. I wonder if you are familiar with the recent article by Jeff Straub, in the July/August edition of "The Baptist Bulletin." http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=9514 He presents a marvelous comparison of the old world with today, in the need for hydration that is healthy. We don't have the difficulties that faced the early Christians, yet it still was incumbent even upon them to be sober. Your "good moves" comment is apropos to the position of making non-alcoholic wine of excellent taste. The Lord who created "all things" is certainly capable of doing the marvelous in that which is an already conceded miracle.
Edit: winepress
Just hit me. The term "winepress" itself is interesting. They did not call it a "juice press" or even a "grape press." This would suggest that they regarded everything that came out of it as "wine" and did not use the word exclusively of what had been aged.
In your edit, Aaron, I believe that you've hit (or it hit you!) the fact that fresh "wine" came out of the press, which was the norm for this term at its pressing. "So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine." Prov. 3:10 KJV, as also seen in Isa. 16:10 KJV. The connotation of Jesus word's in Mark 2:22 KJV demands that the οἶνος νέος there is not yet alcoholic.
Silverghost.
Prov 3:10 New wine # 8492
Isa16:10 wine #3196
These terms are used to describe intoxication in Hosea 4:11 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.
If the words were never used to describe intoxication ''taking away the heart, the will'' then I would say you have hit it. However they are used to describe it once.
Actually for "wine #3196" it is way more than just once... And the "new wine" in the New Testament, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew #8492, is clearly alcoholic. That's what the apostles were accused of being drunk with in Acts 2.
This discussion has broached absurdity. It just shows how out of touch most Christians are with classical literature. If you, in ancient times, handed someone a beverage and said it was οινος, it was wine, not grape juice. The term οινος normally means wine, except when it has a qualifying modifier, such as νεος or γλευκτος. In fact, οινος is so closely correlated to alcohol that it is sometimes used to refer to alcoholic beverages that are not made from grapes. A "winepress" is called a "winepress" because the primary purpose is to create wine, and the stuff that comes out of it is called "wine" in virtue of that which it will become. There are plenty of ways to distinguish between grape juice and wine in Greek. There are words for unfermented grape juice - γλευκους (often used with οινος), βορος, ομφακιον, προουρον, χυλος. The LXX uses the word οινος in Numbers 6:3 to refer to wine specifically in opposition to non-alcoholic grape products.
Furthermore, wine and grape juice do not look, taste, feel, or smell the same. The alcohol and the chemical changes caused by alcohol significantly contribute to that. If Jesus had given the master of the feast a non-alcoholic beverage, the master surely would not have called it good wine! Wine is not produced by "decay," (a highly pejorative semantic move) or if it is, it's the same kind of "decay" that ripens fruit. Let the fruit get too ripe and it rottens; likewise, let the wine get out of control and you wind up with vinegar.
By the way, Huw, I suspect that some of the information in the Theological Wordbook is incorrect. Ancient wine was much stronger, often up to about 16% alcoholic content. I have also seen references to wines in Roman times being concentrated.
As a general note, I have never seen in any primary source the idea that small amounts of wine were added to water to "purify" it. I suspect this is a myth invented by the temperance movement. Rather, whenever Romans (like Pliny) mention mixing wine with water, it is for the sake of the wine that they do so.
An article by an actual classicist: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/wine.
An article by an ecclesisatical historian, but which interacts well with primary sources: http://www.churchhistory101.com/docs/Wine-Ancient-World.pdf
Good thoughts, Charlie. One other brief point. Isiah 1:22 shows that mixing wine with water was a negative thing in the Hebrew Old testament culture.
Isaiah 1:22 "Your silver has become dross,your best wine mixed with water."
I'd be very interested to know how the Romans made concentrated wine? If you heat it the alcohol evaporates. I've been checking on some wine making sites and the only way to strengthen wine was to fortify it with alcohol and the distilling process was not available until the Middle Ages?
I'm aware that % strength is in direct proportion to sugar content, but excess sugar has the opposite effect.....or so I'm led to believe.
Silverghost.
Prov 3:10 New wine # 8492
Isa16:10 wine #3196
These terms are used to describe intoxication in Hosea 4:11 Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.
If the words were never used to describe intoxication ''taking away the heart, the will'' then I would say you have hit it. However they are used to describe it once.
I am not Hebrew nor Greek scholar, but have dabbled around in both. I know enough to decipher most situations fairly well, but could be mistaken, so after 50 years, I study on. The activity, on such as Sharper Iron, helps to keep this old guy from becoming a butter knife or worse in acuity.
Yet, the passage in Prov. 3:10 KJV uses the word yeqeb for "press," of which the NKJV translates "vat." (I have to use the KJV designation on verses, or the program automatically keys in the NKJV.) Now the problem with the use of the word "vat," as in the NKJV, is that we Westerners think a vat as a winery holding vat or cask (current meaning), whereas the vat in this text is either the lower catching bin, or the upper pressing bin. In either case, we are speaking of fresh grape juice being produced. The KJV better fills our understanding by the word "press," which we can readily picture. We might even think of Lucille Ball treading out the grapes!
Translation of a word, to me, has always depended upon what the context indicates appropriate. For the wine to "burst forth" or the Hebrew, pârats, a primitive root, meaning "to break out," (as in BDB), it shouldn't be a Western "vat," but a wine "press." The word is never translated "overflow" in the KJV, the word always having the connotation of bursting out, growing, compelling, urging, etc. While the NKJV borrows the verse from the NASV, the NRSV retains the RSV "bursting," with vat, which still violates the Westerners thinking of the equipment, but gives the notion of the action in the original Hebrew of "bursting forth." One will have to decide how well the various translations fill the original meaning.
In regards to Isa. 16:10 KJV, yayin is indicated as not coming forth: "The treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses," obviously a fresh pressed grape juice being in mind. In Hos. 4:11 KJV, God's people have become idolatrous and "wine" yayin, and "new wine" tı̂yrôsh, fresh pressed, took away their hearts. It is not at all conclusive that tı̂yrôsh, the new wine, was fermented, as it is usually not seen as such. So, it may have been fleeting success that deceived them, as idolaters. The Hebrew, lâqach, is never translated in the KJV as "enslave," its primitive root meaning: "to take."
Again, no point is made, as the fresh pressed wine in these verses is not shown to cause intoxication, as the context generally flavors. In all this, are we not avoiding the fact that Jesus Christ created "All things?" As Creator God, is He not able within a miracle, as Aaron & I have mentioned, to create a superior beverage in taste to the best wine of any stripe, and still keep it non-alcoholic? The grapes in the Garden of Eden were undoubtedly better than now, and there was no fermentation there. It wasn't even until after the Flood that we hear of intoxication.
Charlie, I wasn't aware of a term for grape juice as distinct from wine.
I think I mentioned a few times that as far as I knew, there was not a distinct term. The fact remains though that what flowed from the press was called oinos. Still strikes me as odd to call it what it will eventually be rather than what it is.
In any case, Mike Harding's scenario still strikes me as a plausible view of what happened at Cana.
Bob: as for subtle differences between drunkenness and intoxication... I'll have to leave that matter to others. I wouldn't have the foggiest idea what happens a couple of sips into a beverage I've never had any reason to drink. But I remain extremely skeptical of the idea that the Bible encourages us to get intoxicated but not too intoxicated.
And even more skeptical of the idea that people who drink generally know how much is too much... especially once they've started getting "glad."
One for the Romans 14 file. I believe I should not judge my brothers who think along these lines but wow... it's really tempting!
Actually for "wine #3196" it is way more than just once... And the "new wine" in the New Testament, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew #8492, is clearly alcoholic. That's what the apostles were accused of being drunk with in Acts 2.
In Mark 2:22, οἶνος νέος is clearly not alcoholic, for it will burst the old wine skins, as it begins to ferment and expand. Only used once in the New Testament, the Greek word γλεῦκος in Acts 2:13 is generally considered to be the sweet juice of recently pressed grapes, high in glucose, from which the Greek gives us in English for sugar. However, the fresh juice quickly turns to fermenting, depending on the temperature.
Nor is the Hebrew tı̂yrôsh, (#8492) considered alcoholic, but fresh or new wine, an unfermented must, or freshly pressed juice. In the Acts 2 text, however, γλεῦκος obviously can also mean the wine the quickly has fermented from the fresh juice, probably only a week old, but highly intoxicating. Most of the New Testament devotes itself to warning against the danger of wine, simply using the word, οἶνος, not new wine. That alone should tell us that we need to exercise wisdom on this topic.
Good thoughts, Charlie. One other brief point. Isiah 1:22 shows that mixing wine with water was a negative thing in the Hebrew Old testament culture.
Isaiah 1:22 "Your silver has become dross, your best wine mixed with water."
The Hebrew for water in this verse, mayim, indicates it is elimination "water" or your urine, even semen, stomach turning. In context, v. 21 speaks of harlotry & murder, in v. 23, of totally corrupt princes. The Lord is dealing in judgment of their wickedness. Consequently their silver is adulterated with dross and tin (v. 25).
There are plenty of ways to distinguish between grape juice and wine in Greek. There are words for unfermented grape juice - γλευκους (often used with οινος), βορος, ομφακιον, προουρον, χυλος.
Yet Charlie, none of these Greek words are used in the New Testament except οἶνος or a derivative from that root, with the one time exception of the word, γλεῦκος, in Acts 2:22. This word normally is unfermented juice, but by context the accusation indicates that it is new wine that has started the fermentation process. The word γλεῦκος is never used with οἶνος n the New Testament.
Linguistics have little influence over the Creator God of "all things," who was in the process of performing a miracle. If the Lord Jesus Christ was not capable of making a wine of great taste, to please the guests and the governor or director of the feast, without it being alcoholic, I think that we could have a heyday doubting all the miracles of the Bible, including creation.
One of the best articles I've seen on the topic of Christians drinking today is "Keeping the Saints Sober," by Jeffrey Straub, Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Plymouth, MN. It is found in the current Baptist Bulletin, July/August '10, pp. 34-37. http://baptistbulletin.org/?p=9514 It is even-tempered, non-condemning of other views, while making a quality statement on his position.
three choices: grape juice, something with alcoholic content or unclear
Thanks
(Comment: Obviously one could believe that Christ made something with alcoholic content and still believe that abstinence is the best choice for a Christian)
| Cold Fusion Guy | 4BYA.info | FaceBook | Doctrinal Statement | Biography | My testimony | Anatomy of a malicious lie