Christ's First Miracle

[annsni]

It's illegal to drink wine and drive

Actually, that's incorrect. Atleast in NY.

 

[canadyjd]

I've just never heard so much "Scripture gymnastics" as when I speak to fellow Baptists about this topic. For people who claim to be "Scripture alone" Christians, this does not make the cause look very good. I mean, you honestly want me to believe that when a wedding party ran out of wine and Christ's mother asked him to help, he turned water into wine, asked that some be drawn out and handed to the host, but he did not want the host to drink any!!!???

What is clear is that you have no intention of actually addressing this scripture in context.

If you believe a Jew, that had spent 15-30 minutes ceremonially cleansing himself in a 30 gal. water pot, would turn around and drink wine from the same pot, you are indeed blinded by your agenda.

Read the text. Don't read into the text what you want it to say. If Jesus had wanted to give 120 gals. of wine to the party, why not fill up the empty wine skins with water? He had them fill up the ceremonial water pots for a reason. That reason was not so people at the party would have 120 gals. more wine to drink.

Another thing. You come across as an arrogant person in your posts. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I know it will happen. But do not attack me personally if you disagree with what I have posted. If you keep talking to people the way you do, it is going to get real ugly, real fast.

peace to youraying:

 

[swaimj]

I do not believe that the story itself reveals whether the wine that Jesus made was alcoholic or not. The argument that the master of the banquet proclaimed it to be the best wine he had tasted does not prove that the wine was alcoholic. I merely proves that he considered it to be the best.

If the story does not reveal whether the wine was alcoholic or not, how can we determine it? I believe that we must understand the story the way the original readers would have understood it. Since the book of John was written and circulated after the synoptic gospels were written, the readers would have understood the wine in John in light of the teaching about wine as it represents the new covenant and the eternal state in the synoptic gospels.

In the synoptic gospels the wine that Jesus brings, which pictures the new covenant, is ALWAYS represented with new wine, not old. The wine that Jesus brings is new, unfirmented wine which, when poured into old wine skins, causes the old wine skins (which represent the law) to burst. Jesus notes when he teaches this that the pharisees and teachers of the law will say that the old wine is better. Of course, they are wrong, the new wine that Jesus brings, the wine of the new covenant is far superior to the old wine. So, in this instance, the wine that Jesus brings is new wine, not old firmented wine, and the new wine is superior.

Jesus attendance at a wedding also points forward to the marriage supper of the lamb and pictures the feast that will be held then. Will the wine at the marriage supper be alcoholic wine or will it be new wine? Several facts point to its being new wine. First, the firmentation process is a process of decay. Remember that it was Noah who first became drunk on wine because decay set in after the flood in an intensified way that had apparently not occured prior to the flood. This process of decay will not be present in the eternal state for all things will be new and death and decay will be removed.

Secondly, at the timie of passover in the OT, unleavened bread was used. What is the difference in leavened and unleavened bread? In leavened bread, a small piece of bread is kept from the original batch and it is allowed to firment. Each time a new batch was made, a pinch from the firmenting old original lump was put into the new batch to leaven it and make it rise. When passover came, a new batch of bread was made that DID NOT contain a pinch from the old batch. Therefore, this new batch was truly new and contained none of the old decaying bread. This new unleavened batch pointed forward to the new covenant which would be a fresh start from the old one. When we get to the marriage supper of the lamb, all things will be new also. There will be no death nor decay. There will be no leavened bread and there will be no process of decay to firment the wine either. But the wine will be far superior to any wine that any human has ever tasted--well except for one human--the master of ceremonies at the wedding Jesus attended who tasted the new unfirmented wine that Jesus made and declared it to be the best he had ever tasted.

 

[canadyjd]

Finally, as far as your statement "First of all, Jesus didn't create a 120 to 180 gallons of wine for consumption," can I ask how you come to this conclusion? Because my Bible say he turned 6 twenty to thirty gallon water containers into wine. What does your say?

Mine says they filled 6 twenty to thirty gallon water pots with water. It doesn't say Jesus turned all that water into wine. You are assuming that.

Jesus said, "Draw out now, and take to the headwaiter." He didn't say, "Draw some wine out now", just "Draw out now." There is no mention of the water turning into wine until the cup is taken to the headwaiter and he tastes it. You can just as easily interpret the passage as saying the water in the cup, and that water only, was turned into wine.

And that makes better sense because when His mother asked Jesus to intervene, He said, "Woman, what do I have to do with you? My hour has not yet come." (v.4) Many scholars see this as Jesus wanting to remain unknown in the country as a miracle worker. It would be inconsistent, then, for Jesus to perform a widely known miracle at that time.

Instead, we see the disciples and them alone are said to "believed in Him." (v.11) This is evidence of the fact the miracle was not widely known.

I still maintain that if the water in the pots were turned into wine (which is not definitive) that the Jews would not have comsumed it because it was in cleansing pots. That is historical, and biblical.

peace to youraying:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

A key verse to the question as to whether the pots were filled with water or wine is here:

Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. (John 2:7)

Where then, was the wine? Why... only in the cup used to dip. Read further:

And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare [it]. 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, (John 2:8-9)

The servants filled the pots with water, and then, the servant drew water out of the pot, not wine. The water was made wine between the drawing out and the bearing to the governor of the feast.

And like swaimj pointed out, the wine was a new wine, not fermented.

The pots, used for purifying, were still filled with the water they had been filled with.

 

[David Lamb]

Since Christ's desire that man not be led into temptation (Matthew 6:13), Christ would not have produced and given a beverage to man that would tempt man to become drunken.

The wine Christ produced was not alcoholic.

But does not John 1.3 teach that everything was made by or through Christ?

Joh 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.​

Are you saying that alcohol, food, sex, diamonds and precious stones, and all things which could lead people into temptation, were not created through Christ? I cannot think of many things in God's wonderful Creation that haven't become a temptation for somebody.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

God does not tempt man, nor can He be tempted of man.

 

[jsn9333]

What is clear is that you have no intention of actually addressing this scripture in context.

If you believe a Jew, that had spent 15-30 minutes ceremonially cleansing himself in a 30 gal. water pot, would turn around and drink wine from the same pot, you are indeed blinded by your agenda.

Read the text. Don't read into the text what you want it to say. If Jesus had wanted to give 120 gals. of wine to the party, why not fill up the empty wine skins with water? He had them fill up the ceremonial water pots for a reason. That reason was not so people at the party would have 120 gals. more wine to drink.

Another thing. You come across as an arrogant person in your posts. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I know it will happen. But do not attack me personally if you disagree with what I have posted. If you keep talking to people the way you do, it is going to get real ugly, real fast.

That's funny... I list nothing but Scripture from various places including Greek definitions... and you just claim Christ made the wine in essentially a bathtub (which by the way the Scriptures don't say anything about the pots being used by people to bath *in*... anywhere) and then you claim I'm taking things out of Biblical context.

You come across as arrogant as well. However, I won't get ugly if you don't.

One could just as easily make something up and say the Jews never would've washed themselves *in* those pots, because they needed only the cleanest water for ceremonial washing... they would ladel the water out and pour it over their hands. My point is, you have no Scripture at all supporting the claims you're making. So someone can just make another claim. In fact, Mark 7:3 indicates that such pots may have been used for washing of the hands anyway (likely by pouring the water out so the water stayed clean).

What it comes down to is that I have various Scriptures in contexts that warn Christians to avoid "too much" wine and not to be drunk "in excess". I have a host of a party telling Christ the wine he made was very good and choice, like the wine people usually drink and get somewhat "methyō" from (the greek dictionary says the word literally means "drunken" and it is only used in relation to wine).

What you have is an assertion (found nowhere in the Bible) that the Jews washed themselves *in* the pots Christ made the wine in, so therefore they never would've drank from them. However, there is no Bible verse that says they washed themselves in these pots. The Bible certainly says the host drank some and declared it to be good and "choice" wine.

And then on top of that, because of these claims you have seemingly pulled out of thin air, you want me to believe that when a wedding party ran out of wine and Christ's mother asked him to help, he turned water into wine, asked that some be drawn out and handed to the host, the host declared it to be excellent wine....
but neither he nor anyone else at the party drank it.

I come across as arrogant to you... and I don't mean to. But you should know that it is arrogant for you to come across like I'm ridiculous to take my position given my position is only based on Scriptural passages, not made-up rules about what pots Jews did and didn't climb into.

Mine says they filled 6 twenty to thirty gallon water pots with water. It doesn't say Jesus turned all that water into wine. You are assuming that.

Jesus said, "Draw out now, and take to the headwaiter." He didn't say, "Draw some wine out now", just "Draw out now." There is no mention of the water turning into wine until the cup is taken to the headwaiter and he tastes it. You can just as easily interpret the passage as saying the water in the cup, and that water only, was turned into wine.

And that makes better sense because when His mother asked Jesus to intervene, He said, "Woman, what do I have to do with you? My hour has not yet come." (v.4) Many scholars see this as Jesus wanting to remain unknown in the country as a miracle worker. It would be inconsistent, then, for Jesus to perform a widely known miracle at that time.

Instead, we see the disciples and them alone are said to "believed in Him." (v.11) This is evidence of the fact the miracle was not widely known.

I still maintain that if the water in the pots were turned into wine (which is not definitive) that the Jews would not have comsumed it because it was in cleansing pots. That is historical, and biblical.

Sure, Christ said his time had not yet come... but then he turned water into wine. That is a miracle. It was taken to the host, who said usually the best wine for the guests brought out first, but you bring it out now (implying the guests were to enjoy the wine). Taking "my time has not yet come" to mean he didn't let people to see his miracle just does not work, because the Bible plainly says he did the miracle and let people see and taste it.

Whether the water was turned to wine in the cup or the pot makes no difference. What the host said implied the wine was intended for the guests. However, even if it was just for the host, the Bible is clear the host tasted it, determined it to be choice wine which was capable of making someone "methyō". To say the guests would not have then had any is a little silly in my opinion, but sure, believe it if you want. But to say no one had any is directly opposed to what the Bible says about the host trying some and making statements about it.

Listen, it's been fun discussing this. Hopefully a few hearts and minds who have been lurking in the board have gotten something to think about. Maybe they'll even decide to enjoy the fruit of the vine God has made for us! If so, God bless, if not, God bless nonetheless.

I have to spend the next week preparing for my next semester of law school that is son to start, and then I'll be busy with school. So I won't be around. Make sure to "slam" my points while I'm gone since I won't be here to defend myself. ;-)

 

[jsn9333]

I do not believe that the story itself reveals whether the wine that Jesus made was alcoholic or not. The argument that the master of the banquet proclaimed it to be the best wine he had tasted does not prove that the wine was alcoholic. I merely proves that he considered it to be the best.... (...)

You are correct in saying that the host's claim that the wine was choice proves nothing about its alcohol content.

What does prove its alcohol content is the fact that he said more then just how good the wine was. He said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have become drunken; but you have saved the choice wine for now." So this wine Christ made "the choice wine" is what is usually brought out first until the guests "become drunken". We can't just ignore that description of the effects of the "choice wine".

The word he used to describe how people get from the choice wine is, methyō. That is the greek word that is translated into "drunken" in my above quote of John 2. It literally translates to "drunken". It does not merely mean "satisified" (as with water or grape juice). However, I also have made the point that to be somewhat "drunken" though still sober (in other words, having not had enough to drink to fail a sobriety test) is not a sin. Ephesians 5:18 says not to be drunk "in excess", implying that the intoxication resulting from a glass or two of wine is not a sin. Similarly Proverbs warns against "too much" wine.

So yes, when the host says the wine is "choice" that means nothing. However, when he says it is "choice... and usually wine this choice is brought out first until the guests become "methyō" (drunken), that makes it very, very clear.

Listen, it's been fun discussing this. Hopefully a few hearts and minds who have been lurking in the board have gotten something to think about. Maybe they'll even decide to enjoy the fruit of the vine God has made for us! If so, God bless, if not, God bless nonetheless.

I have to spend the next week preparing for my next semester of law school that is son to start, and then I'll be busy with school. So I won't be around. Make sure to "slam" my points while I'm gone since I won't be here to defend myself. ;-)

 

[jsn9333]

God does not tempt man, nor can He be tempted of man.

That is correct. But you already said this.

And we determined that therefore God can make women, and yet instruct men in how to properly interact with them. Just because some people abuse the gift by lusting (prohibited in Matthew 5) doesn't 'mean God tempted them to lust.

And so he can make wine and yet instruct mankind in how to properly interact with the it. Just because some people abuse the gift by getting "methnyo" ("drunk") to excess (prohibited in Ephesians 5) doesn't 'mean God tempted them to get drunk to excess.

No one would take Proverbs 20:19 to mean you are not allowed to talk at all simply because it says don't talk "too much".

No one would take Proverbs 25:16 to mean you are not allowed to eat any honey at all simply because it says not to eat "too much" honey.

No one should take Proverbs 23:20 to mean you are not allowed to drink any wine at all simply because it says not to drink "too much" wine. Yet you do.

Listen, it's been fun discussing this. Hopefully a few hearts and minds who have been lurking in the board have gotten something to think about. Maybe they'll even decide to enjoy the fruit of the vine God has made for us! If so, God bless, if not, God bless nonetheless.

I have to spend the next week preparing for my next semester of law school that is son to start, and then I'll be busy with school. So I won't be around. Make sure to "slam" my points while I'm gone since I won't be here to defend myself. ;-)

 

[EdSutton]

I'm just going to get some popcorn and watch this one.

Bring me one as well, please. (And I don't even like popcorn!)

Ed

 

[standingfirminChrist]

You say nowhere in the Bible is Scripture found that says the pots were used for bathing. Apparently you don't read your Bible enough. Or you don't study it correctly.

And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. (John 2:6)

After the manner of the purifying of the Jews. Sure looks like pots used for cleansing to me.


Albert Barnes says this of the pots:

After the manner. After the usual custom.

Of the purifying. Of the washings or ablutions of the Jews. They were for the purpose of washing the hands before and after eating (Mt 15:2), and for the formal washing of vessels, and even articles of furniture, Lu 11:39; Mr 7:3-4.

Yes, those pots were used for cleansing.

Going through my commentaries and Bibles, I see most agree with the fact that the pots were for cleansing; washing hands, face, feet.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Bring me one as well, please. (And I don't even like popcorn!)

Ed

Is that why you only ordered one kernel, Ed?:laugh:

 

[npetreley]

Bring me one as well, please. (And I don't even like popcorn!)

Ed

No problem! I've got other choices, though. Maybe you prefer raisinets, malted milk balls, chips, etc. I've also got beer (non-alcoholic so that our drinking it won't cause those in the thread to freak out).

 

[EdSutton]

I would like this thread to stay on the topic of alcohol (wine specifically) as it relates to the Bible. Please do not mention any illegal intoxicants in this thread as they might apply to yourself or even to others. It is against forum rules. In the past people have gotten my threads locked by continuing to bring up illegal intoxicant use. Please do not do that; in fact, do not even mention any legal intoxicants (like salvia, etc.) other then the drug alcohol.

Christ's First Miracle involved two of my favorite things (weddings and wine!). Recently, the following two points were made in an attempt to establish that the wine Christ made was in fact not wine but was non-alcoholic grape juice. I would like to continue that discussion if possible.

I had made the point that the host in the record of the miracle (in John 2) said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have become drunken; but you have saved the choice wine for now." The word he used to describe how people get from the choice wine is, methyō. That is the greek word that is translated into "drunken" in my above quote of John 2. It literally translates to "drunken". It does not merely mean "satisified" (as with water or grape juice). However, I also made the point that to be somewhat "drunken" though still sober (in other words, having not had enough to drink to fail a sobriety test) is not a sin. Ephesians 5:18 says not to be drunk "in excess", implying that the intoxication resulting from a glass or two of wine is not a sin, but rather the excessive drunkenness as described in various passages as leading to "stumbling as if on high seas" and "vomiting" is what is sinful.



The key to understanding the Bible is context and knowing something about the original language. This word "methyo" is only used in relation to wine and not to other beverages. It does not merely mean "satisfied" or "filled". There are other greek words that mean those things. This word means "drunk". (It is used in reference to blood sometimes, but only when speaking metaphorically about war... other then that it is only used in reference to wine).

If someone said they went to the bar, ordered wine, and drank until he considered himself sufficiently drunk... it would be foolish if you tried to argue that they were just drinking grape juice. Then again, if they said they went to a restaurant, ordered a beverage, and drank it until they were satisfied... then grape juice would be a real possibility.

What you are doing is entirely changing the context and even words to fit your own desired interpretation. The context is a wedding party, the drink is wine, and the word used to describe how people get is "drunk", a word that is only used in reference to wine (not "satisfied").

I did a search for the post you mentioned above. The first post that came up says the following, "One of the key arguments advanced by those who advocate a non-alcoholic wine is that Jesus turned the water into grape juice. This argument cannot be based on any grammatical or linguistic foundation, there is none."

I totally agree.




Job 31:1 says "I have made a covenant with my eyes, not to look at a girl" in some translations. But it would be foolish to think that means we must never look at any female (like muslims).

You have too look at context. The word he uses can also be translated "gaze", which implies lust. Then if you look at the context of the rest of the Bible, "lust" makes sense because we are commanded everywhere to never lust. We are never (anywhere else) told not to even look at a woman. In fact, there are lots of examples where godly men do look at and talk to women.

Yet if you took Job 31:1 and by that verse alone decided men should never look at women period, then you would be doing the same thing you're doing with Proverbs 23.

The actual word used in the passage is "gaze". It is a similar implication as the word "lust". The same passage also sets up the context of verse 30 by mentioning drinking "too much wine" (verse 20) and "lingering over the wine" (verse 30). The phrase "too much" in your Proverbs 23 passage implies that "some" of this wine you are saying we shouldn't even look at is okay, but "too much" is bad. God never says, "don't commit too much adultery" because even a little is already too much. Yet in Proverbs 23 we are told not to take "too much" of the wine, and are also told not to lust after it.

You're having to jump through a lot of hoops to stick to your guns on this one. It doesn't take much more then a simple desire to examine the context of God's Word and put aside traditions of men to understand that the Muslims are wrong for making women wear full face and body coverings, and Prohibitionists are wrong for thinking it is a sin to look at a glass of wine.

Ephesians 5:18 says (literally when you look at the greek) "do not be drunk in excess" with wine. It is not a sin to drink a glass or two of wine and become a little intoxicated (yet still be well sober according to our governments rules of it means to pass a sobriety test). It is a sin to be drunk "in excess", which means you are no longer sober.

"I gets to set all the limits, no!?!?!"

Lovely thread! {Snort!} {Cough!} {Wheeze!}

"npetreley, are you almost back with the popcorn?? I'll get us a couple Pepsis®!"

Ed

 

[webdog]

God does not tempt man, nor can He be tempted of man.

Exactly. That's why when God told Jeremiah (Jeremiah 35:1-11) to go to the home of the Rechabites and bring them into the temple of the Lord, and place before them jars filled with wine...yes wine... and told them to drink...they weren't being tempted by God, as drinking wine is NOT SIN!

 

[EdSutton]

Is that why you only ordered one kernel, Ed?:laugh:

Good one! :thumbsup:

And welcome back from purgatory or "exclusion" or whatever it was.

Now we can argue some more! :thumbs:

Since you can "not defend" yourself, in person. :laugh:

Ed

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Exactly. That's why when God told Jeremiah (Jeremiah 35:1-11) to go to the home of the Rechabites and bring them into the temple of the Lord, and place before them jars filled with wine...yes wine... and told them to drink...they weren't being tempted by God, as drinking wine is NOT SIN!

Yayin (the wine in Jeremiah 35) is either fermented or non-fermented depending on the context.

Since God commanded that one is not to look at yayin (fermented wine) in Proverbs, He is not going to tell one to drink yayin (fermented wine) in Jeremiah. The yayin in Jeremiah is not fermented.

 

[webdog]

Yayin (the wine in Jeremiah 35) is either fermented or non-fermented depending on the context.

Since God commanded that one is not to look at yayin (fermented wine) in Proverbs, He is not going to tell one to drink yayin (fermented wine) in Jeremiah. The yayin in Jeremiah is not fermented.

...you mean "depending on the context I want to use it in". The yayin in the temple would HAVE to be free from impurities (leaven) to be used as a sacrifice (as in Christ's blood). This would either be alcoholic wine, or pasteurized grape juice. Since pasteurization wasn't invented for another 6000 years later...you know exactly what it was, but will not admit to it because it would put a hole in your legalism.

I can't believe you would think a juice with leaven would be allowed in God's temple!

edited in...the usual arguments...the grape juice was boiled, and mixed with water. Wrong. That would still ferment due to the natural leaven in the air.
It was real wine...watered down with water. Wrong. The water contained contaminants, and there would still be alcohol, anyway. Alcohol is not eliminated due to being watered down.
It was preserved juice that was hundreds of years old from a clay jar buried underground. Wrong. Urban legend, as there is no way to preserve juice in that way, for that long.

 

[dan e.]

HA! This is hilarious! Just like the old days! The original group is almost all in this!

I think I'll sit back and watch this one as well....although its sooooo tempting!