Jesus turned water into (John 2) ...

[Bob Hayton] 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.

[Silverghost]

[Bob Hayton] 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.

[Daniel] 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.

[Brian Jo] 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.

[Bob Hayton]:( 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! 8-)

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.

[Daniel] 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! 8-)

[Daniel] 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. :bigsmile:

[Daniel] 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. ;)

[Daniel] 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! :p

[Silverghost] 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-o…

[Silverghost]

[Jay C] 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 http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-what-does-scripture-say-about-use-o…] 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.

[Albert Barnes] 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…

[Jay C] 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 http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-what-does-scripture-say-about-use-o…] 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. :cry:

[Jay C] Furthermore, at least one commentary indicates that your position is incorrect.

[Albert Barnes] 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. :)

[Silverghost] 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

[Silverghost] 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.

[Aaron Blumer] 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. :)

[Jay C] 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! 8-)

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:

• Premise: Jesus could easily make the wine without any intoxicant in it
  
  
• Premise: A wine that would not intoxicate would be desirable
  
  
• Conclusion: making the wine “that way” would be a good move
  
  

(And Jesus was in the habit of making “good moves,” no?)

Some possible counterarguments:

1. The word “wine” necessarily includes alcohol
   
   
2. Something in the text requires the presence of alcohol
   
   
3. Something in the nature of miracles of this sort requires alcohol?
   
   
4. The nature of creation (mature) requires aged wine with alcohol
   
   That last one was where you began. I think I answered it, but would add that the fact that God can create a “fully grown” universe does not require the conclusion that He cannot or would never create something “young.”
   
   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.

[Aaron Blumer] #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.

[Huw] 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?

[Aaron Blumer] 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 http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/category/wine/ 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.”

[Bob] 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.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Bob] 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. :D

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.

[Aaron Blumer] 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. :D

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.

[Aaron Blumer] So my argument, again, is this:

• Premise: Jesus could easily make the wine without any intoxicant in it
  
  
• Premise: A wine that would not intoxicate would be desirable
  
  
• Conclusion: making the wine “that way” would be a good move
  
  

(And Jesus was in the habit of making “good moves,” no?)

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.” [url] 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.

[Aaron Blumer] 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.