MityDisciple
Aug 20, 2011
Your going to get a host of different ideas from this one.
The main reason why most people are going to say unfermented because they have a hard time believing that since Jesus delivers men from drunkedness why would He have turned something that they consider sinful to be served.
Well, if you can receive it and not everyone can and I can understand that and would never impose this on anyone, but wine is called wine because it has been fermented. Wine that has lost it's preservation qualities turns into vinegar (sour wine).
Jesus certainly turned water into wine and ordered it be served and believe me, if it was only grape juice, the men drinking it would have spat it back out. They were at a party, they would have wanted wine and more the better. The time for drinking water, juice and coffee wasn't upon them, that would come in the morning.
The miracle of the wine was twofold. First it wasn't grape juice, because the Holy Ghost is not likened unto grape juice, it's likened unto wine, more specifically "new wine" because new wine is sweet and strong, powerful. Just a swig of new wine was potent and a few more could have you swingin off the raftors, which means with God inside one will be a powerhouse. The second is what the man said, "You have saved the best for the last". The OT with it's ordinary taste, the same thing over and over again, from sun up to sun down the same thing, something like a Catholic Mass. But the NT brought a new taste, something with a kick, power, and refreshing. It will never get old, the same new wine that is drunk at Pentecost is still the same when you have another pentecost 10 years later.
Again, there are people that can't get beyond that Christ could do such a thing as to make something fermented and have it served. The same God that changed it into wine is the same God that embarressed the Apostles with speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost. Imagine yourself there with todays standards, you would be not only red in the face, but scared out of your socks, especially if you don't lean toward Pentcost. It would have been embarrassing by todays standards for God to do that through His people in front of thousands of people. Changing water into wine is a light thing. Though we have an abundance of food, food is given by God but I know of human beings that have turned into cows by eating too much. Gluttony is sin, but we don't say too much about that because we like our fix.
When people say it's not wine, I have to conclude that they are either ignorant of the scriptures or they are heaping to themselves scholers with itching ears to change the meaning to fit their weak mind and their undertanding of Jesus.
If one doesn't understand something, don't try to change it, leave it alone until revelation comes.
He changed it into alcoholic wine.
Wine in and of itself is not sinful. Paul told Timothy to drink some for his ailing stomach.
Drinking a glass of wine can hardly be called drunkenness.
I believe Jesus drank a glass of wine at the Wedding of Cana.
In Christ,
Sarah
Yet another question is why would Christ have wine served to already drunk men? Weren't they drunk enough?
I have heard many discuss this and it usually gets no where in terms of a good solid interpretation of why and what was going on. One thing I have often read was the miracle of the wine was Christ showing mercy to the married couple and family. Jewish weddings were 7 days long and so to run out of wine when it was only the 3rd day (I believe) would have disgraced the family and couple and though for us it seems like a small thing would have held that against them as long as they lived there. Not to mention the entire town was usually invited to the weddings back then so you had to provide food and drink for everyone when you got married.
Christ made quite a bit of wine but it was going to last the couple and family the rest of the celebration to the very least. That is all I really hope to input in this thread because though I am hopeful its one of those topics that usually gets out of hand pretty quickly.
Thanks mguldner for that which I can go along with. Another thought that has come to me is that God gave the Israelites the flesh they werte craving for in the wilderness.
is a wine biblerer some one drinks grape juice
they called jesus such
i would think he changed the water in to wine ,and not grape juice
but it does soung like there are differnt strengt in wine
paull said be not drunk with wine but be filled with the spirit
paul must have been famillar with wine that could get you drunk ,,,
as did his readers,,,so exorted them accordingly
being that this was a jewish wedding ,people were underthe law ,,drunkeness was still sin under the old law was it not ,,,so im sure those at the feast would have been aware the danger of drukenss ,and being a drunk
if a parrent had a disobedent child under the old covernent
who was glutteness and a drunk ,,,,,,the law said that he could be put to death for this
im sure those at the wedding knew this
Now for a bit of historical input:
During the course of history from the Assyrian empire to at the very least the fall of Western Rome circa 460s AD, it was common practise to mix the wine with water and sometimes spices or even honey.
Spiced wine was drunk as the standard service through to medieval times at least.
So yes, of course our Lord changed the water into wine. But remember, it wasn't consumed straight.
In fact it was considered the mark of a barbarian (think scythians, sarmatians) to drink your wine straight.
I hope that assists the context.
thank you for all your input so far
He changed it into alcoholic wine.
Where is the Scriptural evidence for this idea?
Wine has two meanings in Scripture, depending on the context. (Look it up!) There is new wine (grape juice) and then there is old wine (alcohol). So when you see the word "wine" you need to study it out, comparing Scripture with Scripture and get the context of the passage.
I'm shocked at how many professing Christians today will stand up for liquor. It's just terrible, really. (Especially compared to how simple and clearcut this matter was to Christians 100 years ago!)
MityDisciple, you ought to study this out for yourself, not just believe everything you're given. Go to your pastor and talk with him about it. Just what you believe is a very serious matter no matter how much you abstain from it yourself.
May God go before you,
savedtoserve
yes i don't have a problem with dinking at all, but i do want to be sure what the bible is saying here, just want some different views , i find it helps coming conclusions...
Great, please just be careful [about receiving Biblical instruction on this matter from this forum].
My edit is in brackets.
Just because some believe this scripture is refering to alcoholic wine doesn't mean they are an advocates of drinking alcohol.
I believe this interpretation and at the same time no advocate of alcohol but in the state of the context and characters of the scripture see it as alcoholic wine.
Remember that there was no refrigeration in the Holy Land what-so-ever. It was impossible to keep Grape juice JUICE for very long after the harvest....perhaps fermenting began in a matter of a few days. Then, it was ALL wine...the alcoholic kind. [Israel is warm at Harvest..] Massive amounts were stored in various containers for millenia there.
The culture, as in Europe today, used wine as a food supplement. It is served at the table, and often children participate..[ very mild ].
To the Issue. The head of the wedding feast??..[maybe the son's Father...maybe the groom himself..] commented on the wine, that "The best was saved to the Last."..I can't imagine him saying that about sweeter grape juice.
@savedtoserve,
Since you asked another to provide Scriptural references, would you be so kind as to do the same?
Fausset says, “Scripture condemns the abuse, not the use, of wine.”
We have to think of this from a witnessing point. To witness to someone that Jesus never had a glass of fermented wine (or only straight wine) makes us look like the uneducated people that they already think Christians are; seriously.
Instead of arguing from the unfermented vs fermented standpoint with people, why don’t we take it a few steps further and just say, “yes Jesus drank fermented wine, but let’s talk about how Jesus never sinned!” Then let our witnessing about the things of God continue from there!
Getting drunk has nothing to do with having fermented wine available to us, but it DOES have everything to do with the sin in our hearts. Then we can ask if their heart is right on this issue but we should know the condition of ours before we venture there!
Just my two cents. God bless,
Lisa
"Instead of arguing from the unfermented vs fermented standpoint with people, why don’t we take it a few steps further and just say, “Yes, Jesus drank fermented wine, but let’s talk about how Jesus never sinned!” Then let our witnessing about the things of God continue from there!
Getting drunk has nothing to do with having fermented wine available to us, but it DOES have everything to do with the sin in our hearts. Then we can ask if their heart is right on this issue but we should know the condition of ours before we venture there!"...LYSA
Nice post Lysa! I concur.
"It is not for kings, O Lemuel,
It is not for kings to drink wine,
Or for rulers to desire strong drink, For they will drink and forget what is decreed,
And pervert the rights of all the afflicted!...[ even Solomon!!]
Give strong drink to him who is perishing,
And wine to him whose life is bitter.
Let him drink and forget his poverty
And remember his trouble no more."
who cares about such questions? Let me list some categories of people interested in such questions:
1) Pharisees
2) Poeple with a religious spirit
3) Scribes
4) ecclesiastical bloodhounds
5) Pharisees
6) Pharisees
7) Pharisees
8) Pharisees
9) Pharisees
Or simply the curious brother, I wouldn't be so quick to judge the intentions of the original post.
Maybe you are right, I don't know the intentions of this brother, but you have to admit, that there are many other discussions here...
I edited my list:
1) Pharisees
2) Poeple with a religious spirit
3) Scribes
4) ecclesiastical bloodhounds
5) Pharisees
6) Pharisees
7) Pharisees
8) Pharisees
9) or the curious brother
;-)
Actually scripture does not say that the people at the feast were drunk.
Joh 2:10 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.
It says when the man had well drunk, or when they had had plenty of wine already. You might say, "When they had already drank plenty of wine." You actually have to read something into the verse that is not there to say they were drunk.
Let me say first that I am of the opinion that a Christian, especially an American Christian, should refrain from drinking alcohol. I do not say this from any Biblical statements about drinking alcohol because I would be left without a leg to stand on scripturally. If we only look at scriptures that specifically refer to drinking we would have to conclude that we should, like Timothy, drink a little wine for our stomach sake.
However there are other reasons to abstain. In America if you are a believer and an unbeliever or a weak brother sees you exercising your freedom in drink he will most likely because of the cultural viewpoint on drinking be offended and be caused to stumble. I would rather abstain from bubble gum than to risk offending a weaker brother and causing him to stumble or offending the unbeliever and causing him to reject my message simply to gratify my flesh through exercising my liberty. Did not Paul say, "Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."
So did Jesus turn it into fermented or unfermented wine? We are not told. However if we have to make an assumption by the definition of what wine is and how it is made we would have to logically say fermented unless we have a clear statement otherwise. That would be my opinion anyway.
This discussion is locked.