Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
And here is an article from Tim Gallant: (biblical studies center ~ Gallant: Wine Means Wine)

This is the full text from the Biblical Studies Center link:

On the night He was betrayed, Jesus instituted a very simple rite. Two prayers, two elements: bread and wine. One would think that with such simplicity, we would have no problem following the pattern. But in truth, we do have a problem. We usually have one prayer instead of two, and in North America, wine is less likely to be served in most churches than grape juice.

Leaving aside the matter of one prayer rather than two, why do we employ grace juice instead of wine?

There have been two primary defenses of this move to grape juice. First, it is claimed by some that the original practice was grape juice, and that this is what the Bible is referring to when it speaks of "the fruit of the vine." Some go so far as to suggest that whenever wine is spoken of positively in Scripture, grape juice is being referred to.

Second, even among those who accept that wine was the original element in the Lord's Supper, there is a strong sense that the use of wine in communion is a grievous offense to those who have been alcoholics, and may well plunge them back over the abyss.

What follows is by no means an exhaustive treatment of this subject, but I do wish to address these points very briefly.

1. Wine Really Referred to Wine
The early Church practiced the Lord's Supper weekly. Paul implies that whenever the Corinthians came together as a church, their intention was to eat the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11.18, 20). Similarly, Acts 20.7 refers to the customary practice in Troas: meeting together on the first day of the week "to break bread" - a reference to the celebration of the sacrament.

What does this have to do with whether wine was used in the Lord's Supper?

Well, it must be remembered that prior to the advent of modern preservation methods, it was literally impossible to have unfermented grape juice on hand at all times. It would spoil in short order. A year-round, available-weekly supply of wine could only be precisely that: a year-round supply of wine, real honest-to-goodness strong-drink-wine. The early Church, we should not forget, did not live in the days of Mr Welch.

Long before instituting the Supper, Jesus characterized Himself as the giver of wine. We are all familiar with the story from John 2: at a wedding in Cana, the wine ran out, and Jesus met the emergency by miraculously changing water of purification into fine wine. It is frequently objected that what Jesus made was new, and therefore unfermented. In short, it was grape juice. This, however, is not true to the text. The master of the feast was so delighted with Jesus' wine that he asked the groom why he had saved the best wine for last; the usual practice was the reverse. (This is because once some wine is consumed, the guests would already be pleasantly warmed and the tastebuds would be less discerning.) Now, as Jesus says elsewhere, no one drinks old wine and straightway desires new, because "the old is better" (Lk 5.39). There is no question of Jesus doing a half-job, turning water into unfermented grape juice. He made wine. That is how He characterizes Himself: He is the giver of wine.

2. Only Wine Can Be "the Fruit of the Vine"
As noted, some claim that "the fruit of the vine" is broader than wine, and therefore grape juice, being from the fruit of the vine, is at least an acceptable substitute to wine.

This ignores several facts, however:

  1. The New Testament does use the term "fruit of the vine" (which sounds more general), but it also explicitly uses the term "wine." Even if for no other reason than this, the specific governs the general. We can no more say that "fruit of the vine" can mean "grape juice" than we can say that "the Son of David" can mean "James the Lord's brother." If we may not worship James or Jude, neither may we substitute wine with grape juice.
  2. The term "the fruit of the vine" is used in parallel in each of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), where Jesus says He will not drink of this fruit of the vine. It is not used elsewhere to refer to the Lord's Supper. In other words, there is no general command instructing us to use "the fruit of the vine" in general. If the fruit of the vine Jesus was referring to was wine, we again have no mandate to broaden the referent to include grape juice.
  3. The phrase itself, "fruit of the vine," is borrowed from the Jewish thanksgiving for wine (see e.g. I. Howard Marshall, NIGTC Commentary on Luke, ad loc cit at Lk 22.18). We are not permitted to break down the parts of the phrase and make it mean anything that it possibly could mean. We must interpret it as it was actually employed.
3. Tinkering With the Form Alters the Meaning
One of the greatest afflictions under which the Church presently suffers is a sort of Gnosticism that treats matter - tangible things - as indifferent, as if everything important took place in the space between one's ears. Form is considered peripheral at best, and often, completely irrelevant. (Incidentally, it is this Gnosticism that underlies the other error mentioned at the beginning - one prayer instead of two. "Why pray over the bread and wine individually," we implicitly reason: "they are the same thing for our purposes." Ironically, the Baptists don't treat immersion in this way. And while I disagree with their idiosyncratic notion that baptism means immersion, I respect their insistence on performing the rite in a particular way.)

Wine plays a specific function within Scripture, and it cannot be replaced by grape juice. In Scripture, wine is symbolic of many things: potency, joy, celebration, bounty, banqueting. Grape juice shares none of these biblical associations.

Since we are Gnostic and think all the activity is in our heads, at least allow me to attempt to tackle this issue by appealing to the intellectual implications of wine versus grape juice. Even if we say that the elements are merely and only symbolic, they still must be symbolic of some thing. They don't refer back to themselves.

One of the common errors is to suppose that the point of the element is the colour, which reminds us of Jesus' blood. Now, I do not deny that the colour is probably intended to be part of the association between wine and Christ's blood. But it at least begs the question whether colour is the only intended association. Otherwise, cherry Koolaid or some other red beverage would be equally appropriate.

Our problems with our theology of the Supper and our disputation with the original form of the Supper are interrelated. Because we see the Supper as principally a time to sit around, close our eyes, and visualize the blood dripping from Jesus' body, and feel deeply mournful/moved/whatever - because of that, grape juice is no hindrance. If anything, it is an improvement over wine. Less distracting. No buzz.

But what if? What if our practice is reinforcing a wrong conception of the sacrament to begin with? What if Jesus intends us to see His blood, not as something to mourn about and feel "moved" regarding - but as life, abundant life? That, after all, is what He indicates in John 6, where He ties life, eternal life - the life of the world - to eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Isaiah 25.6 has a glorious prophecy regarding the time of the Messiah. "And in this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all people a feast of choice pieces, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of well-refined wines on the lees." Is it so strange to think that the wine of the Lord's Supper is intended to evoke and embody such a promise? Is it so strange to think that we are (as we claim to be doing) to celebrate the Lord's Supper, rather than to engage in a wake?

4. Christ's Wine is Healing
What then are we to say to the common objection that if we use wine in communion, we will lay a stumbling block before alcoholics?

We are to deny such to be the case.

We have drunk deeply (pardon the pun) in the anti-gospel of modern diagnosis. I cannot go far into that here. But I will say some things that I think are manifestly true from Scripture.

First, the Bible does not know of something called "alcoholism." The sin that it deals with is drunkenness. The notion of alcoholism largely functions to fuzz the boundaries between illness and sinful deeds.

Second, the sins most commonly associated with drunkenness in Scripture are sins of indulgence and lack of self-control, such as gluttony. The biblical resolution to gluttony, by the nature of the case, is not abstinence from food. Rather, indulgence is treated by way of a Spirit-led self-control.

Third, the sin of drunkenness is much older than our culturally-driven diagnosis regarding alcoholism. It has been a prevalent problem in most ages, and certainly was well enough known in Israel and the early Church to be addressed by both the Old Testament prophets and by the apostles in their letters. And yet, despite this, Jesus chose to institute the Church's feast with wine. The notion that we are more pastorally sensitive than Christ Himself is repugnant and arrogant beyond belief.

What we need to recognize above all else is that the Supper is not our institution. It is not something we designed to aid our symbolic imaginations or to nurture a spiritual emotional life. It is Christ's gift to us, where He gives us Himself.

There are numerous implications to this. One is that we should be very cautious about giving free rein to our own tinkering, on the basis of our own wisdom. But more specifically, it is a reminder that Christ the Healer (for that is a key idea in the word Saviour) comes to us here to make us whole. The notion that Christ's feast as He instituted it could be a cause for sin reflects an unbelieving approach to the Lord's Supper. Rather than looking at this wine as a possible downfall to an alcoholic, we should view it as Christ in His mercy giving back His good gifts to the sinner who has abused them in other contexts. Christ is the Healer, and He teaches us gratitude through the celebration that He mandates in His own presence.

Thus, to remove wine from the Supper is to emasculate it, to rob the needy - yes, to rob those who struggle with alcohol addictions - of the gift of healing life which Christ gives.

Wine means wine.

Gallant uses strong words in his essay, and I have to tell you that I feel the same passion that he does. The error of abstentionism (to counsel others to abstain, as opposed to abstinence; to personally abstain) makes me angry, and I think strong rebuke, or rebuttal, is appropriate. I agree with Jim West's argument, from Drinking With Calvin and Luther, that wine is food, and meat is food, and those who forbid others to drink wine are on par with those who forbid others to eat meat (1 Tim. 4:3). They deserve the same anger that Paul had for false teachers. This is a deplorable teaching that is nothing less than a stain on our garment, which Christ has promised to wash clean. It is humanism, pure and simple. It is also the mind of Uzzah. Abstentionists will give God a hand. They will raise their hand to steady the believer, because Christ has obviously not said enough in His Word. He did not forbid alcohol, and He should have. He was remiss, and you will dare to correct Him, and fill in where He neglected to speak. Harsh words are fitting.



Caminator quoting Tim Gallant in post #39:

<< What then are we to say to the common objection that if we use wine in communion, we will lay a stumbling block before alcoholics?

We are to deny such to be the case. >>




I would put more stress on how the actions of Christians influence others.

On what grounds do you ignore the effect of your actions on others? Do you realize the magnitude of the problem of alcoholism? Or excessive consumption of alcohol?



I do believe that Jesus drank wine. It is also true that we have a wider choice of beverages.
 
Upvote 0

GirdYourLoins

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,220
929
Brighton, UK
✟122,682.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think that at the time Jesus lived water treatment was not what it is today. Wine was safer to drink than water and beer also in other countries. It was often weaker than the wine or beer we get now so that it could be drunk more throughout the day. Stronger wine would have been for special occasions. When Jesus turned water into wine at eh wedding banquet, t was described as finer wine than they had been drinking earlier, which is also likely to have been stronger. So even after they wedding guests had been drinking he provided them with more alcohol. I see having some alcohol as being acceptable but going out to get deliberately drunk is where I would draw the line and what I consider to be a drunkard.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
“If you wish to have must [grape juice] all year, put grape juice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch; sink it in a fishpond. After thirty days take it out. It will be grape juice for a whole year” (De Agri Cultura CXX).
LOLOLOL And you think this works?????
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Another point is that the fermented wine of earlier times did not have nearly the level of potency the wines today have
I already conceded that. They had the alcoholic content that Kosher wines today have, such as Manaschevitz (11%) It's still alcoholic. A lighter person can get drunk on the four glasses at Passover unless they pour lightly. In Jesus' day, people WERE shorter and lighter.

BTW, because of the lower alcohol content, Manaschevitz (look for the square bottle) tastes very fruity and sweet. It's lovely.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
See Post #55. Also, there is no way that the wine (fresh grape juice) Jesus made would have immediately fermented to a point of being strong in alcoholic content by the time the guests drank it (if that is what you are suggesting).

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Jesus did not make grape juice. He made wine. Oinos, which is translated as "wine" 3631 from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the KJV.

Wine means the fermented juice of a grape. It does not mean "new wine" which is barely fermented grape juice. Remember, Mr. Welch was not alive yet, and had not invented his process of making sure that grape juice would not ferment.

New wine is translated from gleukos, meaning sweet new wine. So the WINE in John 2 is just that, WINE, and can't be glossed over to be something else.
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Experience holds more authority.

If this is so, then the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have more experience than anybody else! What are you waiting for, engraved invitations?
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Jesus making even more intoxicating wine would have contributed to them in being drunk (Which is a sin).

So it is impossible that Jesus made alcoholic wine.

Have your own way on this, but while being drunk is a sin, making, distributing and drinking wine is NOT.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Caminator
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
(Which is the Type of Wine the Bible Condemns if Consumed).

Which is exactly the type of wine that Jesus made in Cana.


#3. Unfermented Wine or Freshly Squeezed Grape Juice (A non intoxicating beverage).
(Which is the Type of Wine Jesus made).

Gleukos is the Greek of what is translated "New Wine" in the NT. But you are still not getting the point. As soon as you crush a grape, the yeast on the outside mixes with the juice on the inside and begins to ferment. Freshly squeezed grape juice STILL has SOME alcohol in it. Not a lot, perhaps, but there is still some there.


I believe the wine during Bible times that the Old Testament saints drank was Wine Type #2, whereby it was a wine mixed with water and was lower in alcoholic content

Okay, I'll go along with that. A person can't walk around in a fog all day.

#3. Unfermented Wine or Freshly Squeezed Grape Juice (A non intoxicating beverage).
(Which is the Type of Wine Jesus made).

Do you have any Scripture to back this up? The wine at the wedding feast was oinos--the regular strong drink wine that you are so afraid will turn you into a drunkard, and thence a sinner, and you will {gasp} lose your salvation, that you can't even think of Jesus making such stuff. It's not going to work.
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I quoted a source on silver making. You can click on the link and take it up with them (if you have a probelm with it). If silver is not mixed with copper or other elements it is not hard. That's the point I am getting at. You need to mix the alloy. Just as they mixed wine with water back then (Which is also confirmed by history).

I used to be a jeweler. You can trust me on this, I KNOW what I am saying.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
But the problem is: MOST all can not continue (over time) with a little glass of wine. For they will almost always seek more and more alcohol; for it is very addictive. Which then leads to all kinds of drinking and other horrors"

This is not true. I have drunk wine, beer and other spirits, and have NEVER been an alcoholic. I have even drunk to excess (which is a sin), but that only happened twice in my life, and I was much younger then.
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
for our adversary the devil, is a roaring lion, who walks about, seeking those whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8).

Do you know why a lion roars? Because he is old, toothless, and he is trying to scare something that he can catch and tender enough for him to eat. Satan is toothless!
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Words have meaning and nepho refers to physical abstinence and Christians are commanded to abstain- nepho.

Those who advocate social drinking are only assuming the "wine" Christ made was alcoholic in nature.

John 2:11 this was the first of Jesus' miracles and the purpose of performing these miracles was to manifest His glory and induce a belief in people. Christ committing a sin by contributing to others drunkenness would not fulfill the purpose of miracles. Therefore for this one reason alone we can know for a fact Christ did not create an alcoholic beverage.

Albert Barnes on what the "good wine" was at that time:

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.

The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. we use the word “wine” now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country - always containing a considerable portion of alcohol not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol “added” to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavor to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition.

Good wine is grape juice. They did not have sweet sugar as we do today. Fermentation removes the sweetness from the juice yet it was that sweetness they loved to taste.


Nope sorry..... Your entire thesis COMPLETELY ignore that cultural context of the Jewish people themselves. The Jewish people then AND today do not take such view on the usage of wine as much as your commentary would attempt to pervert what was occurring.

As I said before, GRAPE JUICE dose NOT dull the pallet. The wine stewards comment makes ZERO sense when you try to force it to say what you want it to say.

He says what EVERY person knows about serving wine.... the best wine is served first because the alcohol in the wine DULLS the pallet and once you've had a glass or two a lesser wine is not as discernibly bad as if it were your first taste.
Mark 2:10
and *said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”
The wine steward makes this unmistakably clear

No matter how hard you try you simply can not get away from what he is saying.... Grape Juice does not dull the palate and #2 The very idea that there are better grades of grape juice is so absurd you have to put away common sense to believe it.

The ONLY Jews who did not drink win would have been those who had taken the vow of the Nazarene and only for the duration of the vow.

The idea that at a wedding feast real wine would not have been served is ABSURD. IN fact they were running out. In Jewish customs of that day the family who ran the feast could be sued for such a thing it was not a small matter.

If G-d has called you to not partake of wine, beer or other alcohol that is what you are called to do but to distort and pervert scripture because that is what you are called to do is not at all right.

I seem to say this in almost every post I make.... STOP READING SCRIPTURE AS THOUGH IT IS A GENTILE/WESTERN BOOK. It is a JEWISH book, written in a JEWISH setting with Jewish customs and culture. It is FULL of Jewish idioms. The authors are JEWS.... The beliver who does not bother to realize this and work on learning about the setting, culture, history and idioms is prone to make many, many mistakes in their understanding of what the word is saying.
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
"Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also," (Habakkuk 2:15). If Jesus gave strong drink to his fellow neighbors here, he would be under the woe of Habakkuk 2:15. This would not be a blessing for Jesus but it would be a curse if he were to disobey this part of Scripture.

Strong Drink is not wine. Wine has a 12.5% (approx.) alcohol content. Strong drink is something with 20-95% alcohol content. True some of those were not available then, but other drinks were. Mead, for instance, (fermented honey and water) usually has a 17% content. Rice wine (Sake) was being brewed in China before the time of Christ, and has a content of about 20%.

Various other types of strong drink were being made in Egypt, Greece, Persia, Babylon, India, Rome, and Pre-Columbian America (although the last would have been almost impossible to get to Judea in 33 AD.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Jesus did not make grape juice. He made wine. Oinos, which is translated as "wine" 3631 from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the KJV.

Wine means the fermented juice of a grape. It does not mean "new wine" which is barely fermented grape juice. Remember, Mr. Welch was not alive yet, and had not invented his process of making sure that grape juice would not ferment.

New wine is translated from gleukos, meaning sweet new wine. So the WINE in John 2 is just that, WINE, and can't be glossed over to be something else.


I think the wine stewards comments make it abundantly clear that it was WINE and not unfermented grape juice.

#1 UNDERSTAND the culture and the customs of the Jewish people of that time.
#2 UNDERSTAND the SETTING.
#3 when words are clear, no "interpretation" is needed.

The Jewish people of the day and to this day have no hangup's concerning the drinking of real wine. One should not become bombed drunk as it is not appropriate NOW OR THEN.
If there were no cultural issues with drinking alcohol it is reasonable to believe they were drinking grape juice? No, such a thing is on the surface absurd. In order it to be just juice the weightier evidence MUST be supplied. It is after all a WEDDING FEAST!

For those of you who do NOT drink alcohol wine has a distinct effect on your pallet in that it dulls your taste buds. After about 2 glasses an inferior wine will not be as noticeable. This is why the accepted order is Best wine are ALWAYS served first so that you can enjoy the full flavor of the wine. Lesser wines next and worst wines last.

First off if it were merely grape juice why would you ever employ a wine steward in the first place. Grape juice does not dull the pallet and as such the order of serving would be unnecessary. Secondly and most importantly the wine steward would never say what he says in verse 10. Such a statement would never be uttered about grape juice.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,339.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The Wedding at Cana - John 2:1-11
On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’ And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.’ His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’ Now standing there were six stone water-jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, ‘Fill the jars with water.’ And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, ‘Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.’ So they took it. When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom and said to him, ‘Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.’ Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.​

I must resist the temptation to smooth out difficult reading in order to make the text easier to assimilate into the rest of our pretexts. To suggest that wine was not alcoholic in the time of Jesus is nonsensical in many ways and makes it impossible to meaningfully understand the words of Bridegroom in the Wedding of Cana. As an Australian I read you bring out the good stuff in bottles first, and then when they have a few under the belt you bring out the stuff that comes in boxes. The idea makes perfect sense of the setting and the text, and dare I say it, we even get it today. The message of the passage is not however about wine, nor about weddings, but about the relationship between the old covenant and the new. Trying to smooth this passage with Paul in Romans is a nonsense approach and damages the integrity of both.

Please let the text speak for itself.
 
Upvote 0

Monk Brendan

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 21, 2016
4,636
2,875
72
Phoenix, Arizona
Visit site
✟294,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Melkite Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think the wine stewards comments make it abundantly clear that it was WINE and not unfermented grape juice.

#1 UNDERSTAND the culture and the customs of the Jewish people of that time.
#2 UNDERSTAND the SETTING.
#3 when words are clear, no "interpretation" is needed.

Hey! I was agreeing with you!
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The Wedding at Cana - John 2:1-11
On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’ And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.’ His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’ Now standing there were six stone water-jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, ‘Fill the jars with water.’ And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, ‘Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.’ So they took it. When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom and said to him, ‘Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.’ Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.​

I must resist the temptation to smooth out difficult reading in order to make the text easier to assimilate into the rest of our pretexts. To suggest that wine was not alcoholic in the time of Jesus is nonsensical in many ways and makes it impossible to meaningfully understand the words of Bridegroom in the Wedding of Cana. As an Australian I read you bring out the good stuff in bottles first, and then when they have a few under the belt you bring out the stuff that comes in boxes. The idea makes perfect sense of the setting and the text, and dare I say it, we even get it today. The message of the passage is not however about wine, nor about weddings, but about the relationship between the old covenant and the new. Trying to smooth this passage with Paul in Romans is a nonsense approach and damages the integrity of both.

Please let the text speak for itself.


Here dear brother, we must part ways.... :) Wine is a symbol of the Ruach HaKodesh (holy spirit) The fact that the water was changed into win in ceremonial purification jars should not be over looked. Even more so as a type is NEW WINE= Holy Spirit.... These ceremonial jars hold between 20-30 gallons which when you do the math ended up producing just under ~1,000 bottles of wine.

Several villages have been suggested by biblical scholars but little evidence of exactly where exists. It is safe to say however that the total population of the wedding feast would have likely been well under 200 people. We are told that they had already had their "fill" but this far superior wine was now available according to the steward.

The significance of the first miracle being at a wedding is also symbolic.

The significance of this is that Messiah is about to pour out the holy spirit in a manner that has never been seen before and is the marking of his ministry in the redemption of both Israel and the nations. The measure of his ministry will be greater than anything Israel has or had ever seen.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums