The . . . good wine . . . .

John 2:9-10, When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Unfortunately Christians disagree what that good wine was.

I am of the persuasion it was the fresh juice of the grape vine. And Jesus our Christ being our Holy Creator.

You are correct. The good wine (grape juice) was the newly squeezed instead of the old wine that had started to sour (ferment).

37818 said:

John 2:9-10, When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Unfortunately Christians disagree what that good wine was.

I am of the persuasion it was the fresh juice of the grape vine. And Jesus our Christ being our Holy Creator.

Click to expand...

Doesn 't fit the narrative at all but if you are dead-set on Jesus being a teetotaler then I guess you would have to be right!

37818 said:

John 2:9-10, When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Unfortunately Christians disagree what that good wine was.

I am of the persuasion it was the fresh juice of the grape vine. And Jesus our Christ being our Holy Creator.

Click to expand...

Amen to that! The Bible says that when Jesus acted, people had already "drunk freely" (v. 10). The word is methuo (μεθύω), to be a actually drunk. The word occurs 7 times in the NT including this one, all negative. Now if Jesus had made alcoholic wine at that point, He would have been making people more drunk, in other words to sin with drunkenness, and that's not the Jesus I believe in and know and love.

I have heard also, not about the wine Jesus made, but the wine of the day was often mostly pure grape juice with a small amount of alcohol to purify it, take out any germs.

Could be wrong seeing people did still get drunk off it, unless the getting drunk off it was a different kind of wine.

John of Japan said:

Amen to that! The Bible says that when Jesus acted, people had already "drunk freely" (v. 10). The word is methuo (μεθύω), to be an actually drunk. The word occurs 7 times in the NT including this one, all negative. Now if Jesus had made alcoholic wine at that point, He would have been making people more drunk, in other words to sin with drunkenness, and that's not the Jesus I believe in and know and love.

Click to expand...

I have always been bothered by the first miracle of Jesus.

Turning water into wine seems sort of inessential, unless it was a metaphor for Jesus bringing new teachings, new life, new covenant to the world.

If the miracle wine was non-alcoholic grape juice, I find it hard to believe anyone would rave about it. But if it was alcoholic, this does not seem in keeping with the virtues of Christ.

Matthew 11:19

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Ascetic X said:

I have always been bothered by the first miracle of Jesus.

Turning water into wine seems sort of inessential, unless it was a metaphor for Jesus bringing new teachings, new life, new covenant to the world.

Click to expand...

Here is what happened. Jesus was not yet ready for a public ministry, since he said to Mary in v. 4, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come." However, he honored His mother, and did what she asked, just as commanded in the Decalogue: "Honor thy father and mother."

Ascetic X said:

If the miracle wine was non-alcoholic grape juice, I find it hard to believe anyone would rave about it. But if it was alcoholic, this does not seem in keeping with the virtues of Christ.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Personally, I once tasted alcoholic wine and hated it. I don't see how anyone could keep drinking it. On the other hand, I absolutely love grape juice! Sometimes when I drink it or something else good and natural, I say a prayer of thanks to God for inventing it. Whether it was alcoholic or non-alcoholic, it was an awesome miracle, absolutely impossible to anyone but Jesus and never duplicated by apostles or other disciples. But why would Jesus make it alcoholic when folks were already drunk?

Ascetic X said:

Matthew 11:19

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Click to expand...

And your point is with this verse?

360watt said:

I have heard also, not about the wine Jesus made, but the wine of the day was often mostly pure grape juice with a small amount of alcohol to purify it, take out any germs.

Could be wrong seeing people did still get drunk off it, unless the getting drunk off it was a different kind of wine.

Click to expand...

That is mostly what I've read about "wine" in those days, except I've read that they didn't need to add the alcohol, since fermentation begins naturally with contact from the air. At any rate, the alcoholic wine was not that powerful, as you say, with just a small percentage of alcohol. However, modern wine can have up to 20% alcohol, and that will make anyone drunk pretty quick.

Here is a good article about what you wrote by a professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary: Was New Testament Wine Alcoholic? - Christ and Culture. The follow-up article is excellent, too: Does Approval of the Use of New Testament Wine Justify Use of Modern Alcoholic Beverages? - Christ and Culture

There were various kinds of alcoholic beverages, called "strong drink" in the Bible. People being people, they easily found ways to produce "strong drink."

John of Japan said:

Here is what happened. Jesus was not yet ready for a public ministry, since he said to Mary in v. 4, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come." However, he honored His mother, and did what she asked, just as commanded in the Decalogue: "Honor thy father and mother."


Are you kidding? Personally, I once tasted alcoholic wine and hated it. I don't see how anyone could keep drinking it. On the other hand, I absolutely love grape juice! Sometimes when I drink it or something else good and natural, I say a prayer of thanks to God for inventing it. Whether it was alcoholic or non-alcoholic, it was an awesome miracle, absolutely impossible to anyone but Jesus and never duplicated by apostles or other disciples. But why would Jesus make it alcoholic when folks were already drunk?

And your point is with this verse?

Click to expand...

I hate the taste of alcoholic wine too, but I drink grape juice every day.

The enemies of Jesus accused Him of being a person who drank too much wine and ate too much food. It seems like they were hyper-critical and exaggerating just to cause trouble for Him.

Matthew 11:19

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Ascetic X said:

I hate the taste of alcoholic wine too, but I drink grape juice every day.

The enemies of Jesus accused Him of being a person who drank too much wine and ate too much food. It seems like they were hyper-critical and exaggerating just to cause trouble for Him.

Matthew 11:19

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Click to expand...

Okay, thanks. But as you have kind of pointed out, we can't trust what the enemies of Jesus said about Him. There is no proof in that passage, I hope you'll agree, that Jesus was not a teetotaler.

Ascetic X said:

I hate the taste of alcoholic wine too, but I drink grape juice every day.

The enemies of Jesus accused Him of being a person who drank too much wine and ate too much food. It seems like they were hyper-critical and exaggerating just to cause trouble for Him.

Matthew 11:19

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Click to expand...

What I see is that they are more accusing Him of overindulging than of being a drunk. We have had similar discussions about gluttony not too long ago.
The description they gave Him was of riot and excess because of His company and the lack of fasting that was what they saw of Him.
The disciples didn’t fast.
When Jesus did fast, he was alone and not announcing it as the leaders of the day were accustomed to do.

Recently there was a discovery of hundreds of second or first century B.C. amphorae (wine and oil containers) off the coast of Sicily [LINK]
(1) Wine was a common trade good in the region in an era when sterility of the product could not be maintained.

(2) Six, large stone containers held the wine which Jesus supplied in John 2; estimate being up to 180 gallons.

(3) Alcohol content of the wine is not declared in the text.

(4) We don't know what the master of the feast meant when he used the term "good wine."
The context of John 2 tells us that the usual practice was to serve "good wine" first and wine of less quality later.
In this case, the wine that Jesus made was declared better than the wine that was first served.

(5) Ascetic X hates alcoholic wine.

Conclusion:
(1) Jesus could create good wine from water.
(2) The episode recorded in John 2 should not be used to promote the use of alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages.
(3) If you don't like alcoholic wine, you shouldn't drink it.

Rob

People consistently underestimate what it takes to become drunk. With many people, one small drink of whiskey and they are drunk. The legal standard is a BAC (blood alcohol level) of 0.8%, but some are drunk even before then. And one drink of alcohol will begin affecting a person in 10 minutes or less. So my judgment is that Jesus would never, ever have created alcoholic wine, which could easily make the drunken people (see my post above for the Greek word) into complete souses. Sorry, Rob, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Here is an informative website: How many drinks does it take to get drunk?

37818 said:

John 2:9-10, When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Unfortunately Christians disagree what that good wine was.

I am of the persuasion it was the fresh juice of the grape vine. And Jesus our Christ being our Holy Creator.

Click to expand...

Good wine is good wine. Good grape juice is good grape juice.

I do not believe the Bible lies. I do not believe the host called it good wine unless it were wine.

Jesus did not correct the host nor the men assisting him.

I say this as someone who does not drink.

It was good wine. And the symbolism and deeper meaning has escaped many a non- drinking Christian.

Scarlett O. said:

the symbolism and deeper meaning has escaped many a non- drinking Christian.

Click to expand...

The coming of the long-awaited Messiah transformed the 'water of the word' into 'wine that maketh glad the heart of man' by fulfilling it.

Scarlett O. said:

Good wine is good wine. Good grape juice is good grape juice.

I do not believe the Bible lies. I do not believe the host called it good wine unless it were wine.

Jesus did not correct the host nor the men assisting him.

I say this as someone who does not drink.

It was good wine. And the symbolism and deeper meaning has escaped many a non- drinking Christian.

Click to expand...

I agree (and I do not drink).

The symbolism of wine is important (not the abuse of wine, but "making glad"). Same with the symbolism of water as life giving and thirst quenching is also significant.

Wine was not appropriate for kings, lest they forget what has been decreed and deprived people of justice. But wine was good for those in misery so they forget their misery (not necessarily become drunk with wine, but that it uplift their spirits).

These things were chosen as symbols for a reason, and grape juice simply does not have the significance as wine.

If we venture beyond Scripture we can apply any philosophy or legalism to these things.

Serving the best and once people have drunk freely serving poorer wine becomes waiting for them to be drunk. But that is mere assumption. Wine does have an effect, but we cannot asdume that Scripture considers any effect to be drunkenness.

Reading several passages Scripture does not seem to view some effect of alcohol to be drunkenness but instead drinking to the point one looses self control.

I take medicine for my back (old fracture). One pill has the desired effect. Three and I suspect that I would be impaired.

Wine is made from the juice of the grapes.

Mark 2:22, And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.

Deacon said:

Recently there was a discovery of hundreds of second or first century B.C. amphorae (wine and oil containers) off the coast of Sicily [LINK]

Click to expand...

Many years ago I read a piece where they discovered a Phoenician shipwreck that was loaded with skins of wine and everyone was excited to sample >2000 yr old wine, but, it had changed to vinegar. Also on the ship were like 30,000 brass dinner plates that all had a flaw in the same exact spot. The only conclusion was that the plates had been stamped out on a press, There was nothing stupid about those folks back then.

Scarlett O. said:

Good wine is good wine. Good grape juice is good grape juice.

I do not believe the Bible lies. I do not believe the host called it good wine unless it were wine.

Jesus did not correct the host nor the men assisting him.

I say this as someone who does not drink.

It was good wine. And the symbolism and deeper meaning has escaped many a non- drinking Christian.

Click to expand...

Scarlett, I mean no offense, but English is not Greek. In other words, just because "wine" in modern English is always alcoholic does not mean that was true in the Greek language. Most words are polysemous in either language, meaning that words often have several meanings, depending on the context. This is called the range of meaning. Wine in English usually means a grape derived drink of 14% to 20%, and moderns drink it just like that. This level of alcohol is not natural from the grape, but is added. However, wine in ancient Greek never had added alcohol, so it was a maximum of 10% when alcoholic, and usually not that much. Then it was diluted.

Now, Jesus did not make modern wine with up to 20% alcohol. First of all, the Greek word oinos (οἴνος) simply meant "liquid from grapes," not "alcoholic liquid from grapes." When it was naturally alcoholic due to fermentation, it had around 10% alcohol, but after that it was always diluted with water, so that even the heathen did not drink 20% alcoholic wine, but perhaps as little as 3%, which is only half modern beer and nowhere near the level in modern wine. Even the heathen thought it was barbaric not to dilute the wine. Here is a Greek scholar on that: Was New Testament Wine Alcoholic? - Christ and Culture

Furthermore, there was the possibility that the wine mentioned was grape juice, and then it was called "new wine" with the same word oinos, meaning completely nonalcoholic wine. Examples are: Matt. 9:17, Mark 2:22, Luke 5:37-38. So oinos could be grape juice (unlike the English word "wine"). I do recognize a faint possibility that Jesus made alcoholic wine, but (1) if He did it was only about 3% alcohol, and (2) if He really did make alcoholic wine, then our Lord was providing a means to drunkenness for the guests, because they had already "well drunk" of alcoholic wine (v. 10). The Greek word there is methuo (μεθύω), which is normally used for getting drunk. Here is the definition from Friberg's lexicon:
"literally drink a lot, get drunk (1TH 5.7)." Would Jesus have given alcohol to drunken people? I don't believe so.

Finally, I fail to see how the wine being non-alcoholic would obfuscate any spiritual meaning that alcoholic wine would convey. Just sayin'.

Side story. A KJV-Only missionary started a translation into Japanese from the KJV (never finished it). He used the Japanese loan word wain (ワイン) from English, meaning modern wine, in John 2, having then Christ making 10-14% modern alcoholic wine (the only meaning of the Japanese word).

"Ancient wine was stored undiluted in large jars called amphorae. Before it was consumed, it was poured into large bowls called kraters where it was mixed with snow or water before being poured into cups (called kylix). The ratio of wine to water varied. However, the ancients were virtually unanimous that a dilution rate of at least two parts water to one part wine was necessary. Anacreon called unmixed wine 'a Scythian draught.' Scythians ranked with primitive cannibals as the most barbaric of peoples. Archippus said those who drank wine half and half were 'wretches.' Mnesitheus of Athens wrote that to those 'who mix [wine] and drink it moderately, it gives good cheer; but if you overstep the bounds, it brings violence. Mix it half and half, and you get madness; unmixed bodily collapse.'"