The context does not tell us the nature of the wine except for the word methuo, and that does not necessarily mean what Jesus made from water. I am a linguist and Bible translator, and therefore I go with the meaning of the word oinos, which after much research I take to mean simply a liquid made from grapes. We have translated it that way in our Japanese NT. Context must then determine what kind of "wine" it is. I know this is a minority view, but it is what it is, as my son likes to say.
That’s not much different from the “two wine theory” as I was taught it. Basically it is wine with alcohol content in a “bad” context, and grape juice in a “good” context. As far as I remember, with the exception of figurative uses in Revelation, all the wine in the New Testament appears to be “wine” and not “grape juice.”
Furthermore, if modern wine has several times the level of alcohol that ancient wine did, then it is misleading to simply translate with "wine" as is usually done. 3-4% alcohol vs. 11.5%–13.5% (modern wine) is a huge difference.
But if it had 3-4% alcohol content, wouldn’t it be more misleading to translate it grape juice?
I haven't looked at all the data, but in the 6 usages in the NT the meaning of "drunken" is clear to me in all of them. I looked at about 20 usages in the LXX (there are many more), and without exception all were clearly "drunken." I'd have to know what the data is for this article, but unfortunately the software screen here won't let me access it.
If you mean the article I linked, here are some of the uses of
methuo from the Septuagint from the linked author, that he thinks shows that the word does not exclusively imply intoxication. I’m not saying I agree with him, because I have not looked over these, other than to copy them where you have access to see some of what he had.
Psalm 23(22):5, “ἡτοίμασας ἐνώπιόν μου τράπεζαν, ἐξεναντίας τῶν θλιβόντων με· ἐλίπανας ἐν ἐλαίῳ τὴν κεφαλήν μου, καὶ τὸ ποτήριόν σου μεθύσκον με ὡσεὶ κράτιστον.”
Psalm 65(64):10, “ἐπεσκέψω τὴν γῆν καὶ ἐμέθυσας αὐτήν, ἐπλήθυνας τοῦ πλουτίσαι αὐτήν· ὁ ποταμὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπληρώθη ὑδάτων· ἡτοίμασας τὴν τροφὴν αὐτῶν, ὅτι οὕτως ἡ ἑτοιμασία..”
Isaiah 34:5, “ἐμεθύσθη ἡ μάχαιρά μου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ· ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τὴν ᾿Ιδουμαίαν καταβήσεται καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν λαὸν τῆς ἀπωλείας μετὰ κρίσεως.”
Isaiah 34:7, “καὶ συμπεσοῦνται οἱ ἁδροὶ μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ κριοὶ καὶ οἱ ταῦροι, καὶ μεθυσθήσεται ἡ γῆ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ στέατος αὐτῶν ἐμπλησθήσεται.”
Isaiah 55:10, “ὡς γὰρ ἂν καταβῇ ὁ ὑετὸς ἢ χιὼν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀποστραφῇ, ἕως ἂν μεθύσῃ τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐκτέκῃ καὶ ἐκβλαστήσῃ καὶ δῷ σπέρμα τῷ σπείραντι καὶ ἄρτον εἰς βρῶσιν,”
Isaiah 58:11, “καὶ ἔσται ὁ Θεός σου μετὰ σοῦ διαπαντός· καὶ ἐμπλησθήσῃ καθάπερ ἐπιθυμεῖ ἡ ψυχή σου, καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ σου πιανθήσεται, καὶ ἔσῃ ὡς κῆπος μεθύων καὶ ὡς πηγὴ ἣν μὴ ἐξέλιπεν ὕδωρ καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ σου ὡς βοτάνη ἀνατελεῖ καὶ πιανθήσεται καὶ κληρονομήσουσι γενεὰς γενεῶν.”
Lamentations 3:15, “ἐχόρτασέ με πικρίας, ἐμέθυσέ με χολῆς”
Haggai 1:6, “ἐσπείρατε πολλὰ καὶ εἰσηνέγκατε ὀλίγα, ἐφάγετε καὶ οὐκ εἰς πλησμονήν, ἐπίετε καὶ οὐκ εἰς μέθην, περιεβάλεσθε καὶ οὐκ ἐθερμάνθητε ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ὁ τοὺς μισθοὺς συνάγων συνήγαγεν εἰς δεσμὸν τετρυπημένον.”
It's simplistic to say that only the "good wine" served first made them drunk. It was obviously a process, with different "wines" served during the long reception.
I have no objection to be considered simplistic. The governor only associates “well drunk” with the “good wine” and doesn’t mention any process.
Here's another thought. Jesus made a huge amount of "wine." The passage says in v. 6, "And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece." According to TDNT (Vol. 5, p. 163), this was "a vast amount of water into wine (6 pots of 39 litres each)."
If the drink was alcoholic, then Jesus probably made enough for not just the drunks, but everyone at the wedding to get drunk. I just can't see Jesus doing that (based on Christology, not emotion).
I understand the conundrum, and am not unsympathetic to it. Nevertheless, I have to take what I understand the text to say – even if I’d prefer not to. Whatever else might be said about this miracle, there seems to be some intersection in its meaning and the idea that God is involved in all the details of our lives, even the “minor” ones like refreshments at a wedding. Perhaps the Lord made enough to provide for a poor couple long after the guests had departed, as opposed to assuming that they guzzled and guzzled and guzzled until it was all gone.
Modern reaction to an alcohol making Jesus: "This is a cool dude. Let's invite him to our next party!"
Reaction to a non-alcohol making Jesus: "What a huge miracle. Is this the Messiah?"
I have heard some of these “cool dude” type reactions and am not impressed by them. Nevertheless, your statement provides a false dilemma between two options when there is a third (or possibly more?). For example, option 3: Reaction to an alcohol making Jesus: “What a huge miracle. Is this the Messiah?” Regardless of the first half of the equation, the last half of the equation certainly is “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” The greater import of this miracle was in what it demonstrated of Jesus as Messiah, not in the wine itself.
Other than that, good points. But to me the primary motif is that Jesus honored His mother even when she was somewhat out of line. She never again interfered in His ministry, though one time she tried to (Matt. 12:46-50).