Why did Jesus make wine?

[rjprince]

So then it is your contention that Jesus is a violator of His own Word? The problem is that you cannot prove intoxication in the context of the cultural setting and you are also reading in an American predisposition to the understanding of drunkenness or drunk, meaning intoxicated.

No. I do not contend that Jesus violated His own Word. How do you get that out of what I said?

I never contended that they were intoxicated. Only that the wine Jesus made was capable of producing intoxication. What Jesus made was the good stuff that they give you first. Then when people are drunk, they bring out the cheap stuff. I do not see how looking at it in the Greek anglicizes the text? In the other passages (see earlier post) where the word is used, it means drunk...

The historical context alone from non-theological sources proves that intoxication is not the desired use of the wine or of the statement about being drunk. Besides, the structure of the verse (2:10 - KJV) states "have well drunk" which gives the natural implication of drinking large quantities of beverage and does not imply a state of intoxication.

That is nonsense! The Greek is clear! What Jesus made was capable of getting men "well drunk"! Again, I do not really like it. I wish I could believe that it was grape juice, like I taught earlier in my ministry before spending some time on the issue. But, I do not have the option of preaching the Word like I wish it was. I must preach and teach it as it is, not what I can wrangle or twist it into...

Proper interpretation is not JUST word definition, it is also historical context in relation to the word definition and proper understanding of historical meanings and settings. If the world of that day understood wine as to be good to the taste, and the historical understanding of wine is that the alcohol content is very low and we know that a high alchol content makes a bitter product, then how can it be argued that they are drunk to intoxication.

Grape juice, when it is not pasturized will AWAYS reach an alcohol content somewhere near 16%. It has been that way since the days of Noah. As far as historical meanings and settings, drunkenness was a problem in Israel in both the times of the Old Testament and the days of Jesus. Drunkenness was drunkenness. Look at the references to it in the Bible and argue from the historical setting of the Scriptures, they are plain enough. Do NOT rely on ancient historical citations that have been picked and culled to support one particular side of the argument.

I have no idea about sweetness and bitterness as relates to alcohol. I have NEVER had beverage alcohol in my mouth! Never at all. Not a beer, not wine, not champagne, not whiskey, not scotch, not mixed, not straight, not shaken, not stirred. NONE, NADA, NOT ANY. Someone spilled some on me at a company pic-nic when I was just a kid, the smell was nasty. Never could stand the smell, sure did not want to drink it. Also did not want to in any way weaken my testimony. BUT, I refuse to twist the Word, or slant it to make it say what I wish it said. Just can not do that. Will not do that. If I ever slant the Word because I think I know better about what I think it should say, I hope God just slaps my mouth shut and calls me home. I have been ready for a while and if I ever get to thinking I know more about it than God, my usefulness has already come to an end!

Is this an easy position? Nope. One of my best friends left my church (the Lord's Church in which I am an undershepherd) over my stance on this issue. I am sure that it would be more popular if I could just convince myself that it really was grape juice. Believe me, I have tried!

 

[npetreley]

I have no idea about sweetness and bitterness as relates to alcohol.

Just some trivia: A wine is sweet or bitter (dry) depending on how much sugar is left in the wine after fermentation is finished. Fermentation can finish on its own (the concentration of alcohol kills all the yeast, or it eats all the sugar and there's no more food for the yeast), or you can stop it with chemicals to produce a wine with less alcohol and more sugar (modern method - not applicable to NT times). If the fermentation stops because all the sugar is eaten, then the wine is considered "bone dry" unless you add sugar later to sweeten it.

For what it's worth, I've always hated the smell of scotch/whiskey. Makes me want to puke.

 

[Pistos]

'Why did Jesus make wine in John chp2' here's some reasons which I believe...

1. The water in the waterpots serves as for cleansing before entering the house. This is one of the culture of the Jews in those times. In my home we still remove our shoes, slippers, sandals before entering our house because we don't want any dirt to get in. This speaks of man's righteousness that man looks at what he has accomplished thinking that God may consider it for salvation.

2. The waterpots symbolizes --man-- and the --water-- is his lifestyle.

3. The Lord didn't change the waterpots but rather change the content --from water to wine--... So as He did to anyone that believes in Him.

4. Who was instrumental for this miracle? The Disciples. They were instructed by the Lord not by Mary, to fill up the waterpots up to the brim with water. People who needs the Lord are like empty waterpots. So we must fill them up with "water" (Word of God) and it is the Lord that saves and changed a person. Take note He didn't change the waterpots but what's inside.

5. The 'New Life in Christ' must be presented to anyone and surely they will like it because it tastes good and smell good like "wine" not like a water colorless, odorless, tasteless which pictures a life without Christ.

This is I think why Christ did change the water into wine...

 

[David Lamb]

4. Who was instrumental for this miracle? The Disciples. They were instructed by the Lord not by Mary, to fill up the waterpots up to the brim with water.

A small point, perhaps, but it was the servants. The disciples, like Jesus, were guests at the wedding.

John 2.5-8 (emphasis added):

5 His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it."
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece.
7 Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And He said to them, "Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast." And they took it.​

Albert Barnes, commenting on those verses, wrote:

This was done by the servants employed at the feast. It was done by them, so that there might be no opportunity of saying that the disciples of Jesus had filled them with wine to produce the appearance of a miracle.​

I must say that I have never heard anyone put forward the idea that it was the disciples who filled the pots.

 

[angelfire]

It is wrong to assume he made wine for a bunch of drunks. In fact they were NOT drunk ,or they would not have known this was better than what they had been drinknig. As in the British navy in the middle ages, water in the area was generally not the best quality ,The drink of choice was a blend of water and some sort of alcohol to "purify" the water. People who regularly drink alcohol build up a tolerance for it, and were NOT drunk. Jesus also referred to "fruit of the vine" that he would serve at the "PARTY" in Heaven, and that He would not drink of it again 'til He drank it with us at that party. ---hope youre not going to miss the party!

 

[readmore]

---hope youre not going to miss the party!

Maybe I'm reading too much into this... Are you suggesting that interpreting this passage as wine rather than grape juice may cause a person to "miss the party"?

 

[Zenas]

It is wrong to assume he made wine for a bunch of drunks. In fact they were NOT drunk ,or they would not have known this was better than what they had been drinknig.

It was not the party guests who recognized the new wine was better. It was the headwaiter. Read John 2:9-10. The context suggests the guests were pretty far along and really didn't care whether they had good wine or bad.

 

[Helen]

Wedding parties were about a week long. People traveled long distances for them and were put up by friends and relatives for the week. The groom was LEGALLY responsible for all refreshments. If he had run out of wine during that week he would have been legally liable, to the point of being jailed.

It was real wine and the reason for the miracle was to keep the man safe from legal liability. We have 'receptions' of just a couple of hours long, so the culture that celebrates for a week is far from us. But that is the way it was.

It was real wine and it was done for very compassionate and practical reasons. God works that way. If the water had simply been turned into grape juice and the groom had tried to use that in place of wine, his honeymoon would have been a 'bit' delayed...

 

[readmore]

Wedding parties were about a week long. People traveled long distances for them and were put up by friends and relatives for the week. The groom was LEGALLY responsible for all refreshments. If he had run out of wine during that week he would have been legally liable, to the point of being jailed.

That's interesting... I've read a lot about the subject and I have never seen it said that the groom was legally responsible, although I have seen indication that he was socially responsible (i.e. he would bring disgrace on his family if he ran out of wine). Can you point me to a source for that? I've been looking to delve into deeper research on the subject for awhile, but can't find a good book or web page.

 

[Helen]

It was brought up on this board before and the person had the references. I don't have the time to try to search for it now, but I'll see what I can do later. I was quite interested in the post at the time because I was not aware of it, either. Some friends from Israel did point out that it was true, but that's not enough, I know! The relevant post was within the last two years....big help that, eh?

I'll see if I can find it later.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Wedding parties were about a week long. People traveled long distances for them and were put up by friends and relatives for the week. The groom was LEGALLY responsible for all refreshments. If he had run out of wine during that week he would have been legally liable, to the point of being jailed.

It was real wine and the reason for the miracle was to keep the man safe from legal liability. We have 'receptions' of just a couple of hours long, so the culture that celebrates for a week is far from us. But that is the way it was.

It was real wine and it was done for very compassionate and practical reasons. God works that way. If the water had simply been turned into grape juice and the groom had tried to use that in place of wine, his honeymoon would have been a 'bit' delayed...

It was wine, but it was not fermented wine. Jesus would not have put a stumbling block in front of others. He came to seek and save that which was lost, not help them along on the road to hell.

 

[Helen]

If it had not been regular, fermented wine, the groom and the wedding master would have been in major trouble. Wine is NOT a stumbling block any more than food is! Overindulge and pay the price.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If it had not been regular, fermented wine, the groom and the wedding master would have been in major trouble. Wine is NOT a stumbling block any more than food is! Overindulge and pay the price.

Wine is not a stumbling block? You've got to be kidding!

Many a person has become a drunkard because of such lies as "Wine is not a stumbling block."

 

[Helen]

Wine is not a stumbling block? You've got to be kidding!

Many a person has become a drunkard because of such lies as "Wine is not a stumbling block."

I'm not kidding at all. Many a person's reputaton has been ruined because of gossip, but talk is not a stumbling block in and of itself. Many a person's health has been ruined because of overeating, but food is not a stumbling block in and of itself. Wine is a gift from God, the same as talk and food. But it can be abused and damaging.

I am aware, as is everyone who has been on this board for any amount of time, SFIC, that you consider wine incredibly evil, etc. I respectfully disagree. I do not find it evil, only easily abused. Food, however, in our western culture is probably more easily abused. And talk, in every culture, is MUCH more widely and easily abused.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Alcoholic wine is not a gift from God... it is a tool of satan.

 

[Helen]

maybe for you it is.

 

[Joe]

IMHO, overeating only hurts yourself and doesn't dilute the mind. Apples and oranges. Just a 1/2 -1 glass of wine relaxes you. It is known to help some health problems, such as macular degeneration (Red wine) so to be used as a self- medication in certain instances seems appropriate since Doc's don't prescribe it.
This drug is the most dangerous one of them all. It breaks up more marriages, causes far more domestic disputes, violence and more deaths per year than any other drug. It's a very dangerous drug, no doubt. IMHO, it can have beneficial uses in rare instances, yet it is mainly used as a Tool of Satan. I agree with that.

 

[rmered]

If it had not been regular, fermented wine, the groom and the wedding master would have been in major trouble. Wine is NOT a stumbling block any more than food is! Overindulge and pay the price.

I agree. It is the overindulgence that is sin. Just like overeating.

 

[TCGreek]

If it had not been regular, fermented wine, the groom and the wedding master would have been in major trouble. Wine is NOT a stumbling block any more than food is! Overindulge and pay the price.

Drenched in the wine of wisdom. :thumbs:

 

[TCGreek]

1. Drinking wine at the dinner table was common in Jesus' day.

2. Jesus would have used wine over and over again. Why do you think He was accused of being a drunkard? It is precisely because He dined with sinners, drinking wine (Matt. 11:19).

3. So there was no harm in Jesus making wine that day, for it was common place to serve the best wine.