The Very Good Wine
November 25, 2011

"When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, . . . |he| called the bridegroom, 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" (John 2:9-10).

The Lord Jesus performed many miracles during His brief ministry on earth, and it seems rather surprising that the beginning of miracles (John 2:11) in His earthly ministry was to transform water into wine at a wedding feast in Galilee.  It was quite a large amount of wine--six large waterpots full, "containing two or three firkins apiece" (John 2:6).  Since a firkin is about ten gallons, Jesus created approximately 150 gallons of wine to give to a group of celebrants who already had "well drunk" (John 2:10)--that is, literally, were drunk.

But would Jesus really do something to increase the intoxication of a crowd of people who were already drunk? Would He really disregard such Scriptures as Habakkuk 2:15: "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, . . . and makest him drunken also" (among many others).  He Himself had rebuked drunkenness (e.g., Luke 21:34), so this would be completely out of character.

But wine never becomes intoxicating until the decay process of fermentation has done its work.  The wine He created was probably the same as "the fruit of the vine" that we shall drink "new" with Him in His "Father's kingdom" (Matthew 26:29).  The Greek word oinos can apply either to the decayed, fermented liquid that intoxicates or to the healthful juice fresh off the grape vine, depending on context.  And this wine He made was good wine, just as everything He had created was "very good" (Genesis 1:31) in that ultimate beginning of miracles when first He "created all things" (Revelation 4:11). HMM

For more . . . .

The good wine Jesus created was just like the good wine "everyman usually set forth at the beginning". The difference is that other people would bring worse wine when people were drunk presuming that they wouldn't know the difference, but Jesus ensures that good wine was still being brought forth even after men were drunk.

So its either the good wine @ d beginning and the good wine "created" by Jesus were both alcoholic, or they were both non-alcoholic.

And non-alcoholic wine cannot make men well-drunk. Thank you.

@Olaadegbu
You still haven't repented from this your biblical gymnastics of forcing your silly opinion and biases into scriptures.

@Olaadegbu
You still haven't repented from this your biblical gymnastics of forcing your silly opinion and biases into scriptures.

Lol

Then what about 1.2 billion with God?

italo:

Then what about 1.2 billion with God?

That is too many, ask Noah if you happen to see him.

Noah's Ark Poll

italo:

The good wine Jesus created was just like the good wine "everyman usually set forth at the beginning". The difference is that other people would bring worse wine when people were drunk presuming that they wouldn't know the difference, but Jesus ensures that good wine was still being brought forth even after men were drunk.

Assuming what you said was right, would it make any sense that Jesus "declared surplus" when men were already drunk?

italo:

So its either the good wine @ d beginning and the good wine "created" by Jesus were both alcoholic, or they were both non-alcoholic.

You are asserting that there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities here, don't you think there could be a third possibility?

italo:

And non-alcoholic wine cannot make men well-drunk. Thank you.

Are you saying Jesus compounded their problems by supplying in-toxic-ated drinks?

If 'good wine' gets men 'well drunk', how can the 'good wine' kept till now not get men 'well drunk'?

Mindless nonsense I say. The substance was interpreted 'wine' by the translators in context and there should be no revisionist attempts here. . . . we all know what wine is:

Noun:An alcoholic drink made from fermented grape juice.

Wine is BY DEFINITION fermented - you cannot have anything like 'wine that becomes intoxicating'. By definition it has intoxicating ability.

This same Ola will later elsewhere be calling for a 'straightforward' reading of the bible when it suits his views, but will attempt to 'retranslate' the passages that don't suit his views.

If someone is selling wine, what is the 'straightforward' interpretation of that?

The wine was called 'good wine' by the ruler of the feast - by definition, if 'good wine' could get people drunk, it has the same properties as the 'good wine' that Jesus created.

[/quote][quote author=OLAADEGBU link=topic=811373.msg9636692#msg9636692 date=1322312825]
That is too many, ask Noah if you happen to see him.

Too many for you, not for God.

Jesus provided wine, he didn't force it down anyone's throat. When he fed 5,000, he provided surplus food (12 baskets surplus) and he knew that gluttony was a sin. He didn't force anyone to overfeed.

debosky:

If 'good wine' gets men 'well drunk', how can the 'good wine' kept till now not get men 'well drunk'?

Are you suggesting that Jesus created intoxicated wine in order to keep men dead drunk?

debosky:

Mindless nonsense I say. The substance was interpreted 'wine' by the translators in context and there should be no revisionist attempts here. . . . we all know what wine is:

Noun:An alcoholic drink made from fermented grape juice.

Wine is BY DEFINITION fermented - you cannot have anything like 'wine that becomes intoxicating'. By definition it has intoxicating ability.

There is no revisionist attempt here. Isaiah 65:8 tells us that the fruit of the vine can also be called wine when it says:

"Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it . . . " 

debosky:

This same Ola will later elsewhere be calling for a 'straightforward' reading of the bible when it suits his views, but will attempt to 'retranslate' the passages that don't suit his views.

What other straightforward reading do you want to give the verse above?

debosky:

If someone is selling wine, what is the 'straightforward' interpretation of that?

Have you heard of non alcoholic wine?

debosky:

The wine was called 'good wine' by the ruler of the feast - by definition, if 'good wine' could get people drunk, it has the same properties as the 'good wine' that Jesus created.

 
It is by your own definition that you claimed good wine could get people drunk and by inference you are essentially saying that Jesus created alcoholic wine even when He knew that folks were dripping drunk?

italo:

Too many for you, not for God.

God does not operate on democracy, you know

italo:

Jesus provided wine, he didn't force it down anyone's throat. When he fed 5,000, he provided surplus food (12 baskets surplus) and he knew that gluttony was a sin. He didn't force anyone to overfeed.

True. He didn't force it down anyone's throat but the 5,000 were hungry in need of food while those celebrating the wedding were well drunk before Jesus created wine. If you don't understand anything at all at least understand that Jesus showed that He created all things by creating wine that was very good.

Webster's Bible Translation
And saith to him, Every man at the beginning presenteth good wine; and when men have well drank, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
Bible in Basic English
And said to him, Every man first puts out his best wine and when all have had enough he puts out what is not so good; but you have kept the good wine till now.

How this keeps recurring's beyond me. Don't people ever consider the option that 'drunk' in the verse may be past participle abi wetin be that word my english teacher dey talk? "have well drunk" is different in meaning from "are well drunk" especially if context is played. Well sha, i no ready make people dey blaspheme on my head, let me step aside.

OLAADEGBU:

Are you suggesting that Jesus created intoxicated wine in order to keep men dead drunk?

I don't know about 'keeping men dead drunk' - those are your words. There is no such thing as 'intoxicated wine' - wine is BY DEFINITION intoxicating.

Unless you are debating whether Jesus created wine or not.

There is no revisionist attempt here. Isaiah 65:8 tells us that the fruit of the vine can also be called wine when it says:

"Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it . . . " 

What other straightforward reading do you want to give the verse above?

That passage is metaphorical - it is actually talking about God saving his servants, Interesting that you decided to OMIT the rest of the verse to take it out of context.

In any case, that verse has been translated as GRAPES, JUICE or JUICE for new wine in a number of versions:

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
This is what the LORD says: When someone finds juice for new wine in a cluster of grapes, another person will say, "Don't destroy it, because there's a blessing in it." In the same way, I will do this for my servants: I will not destroy everything

New International Version (©1984)
This is what the LORD says: "As when juice is still found in a cluster of grapes and men say, 'Don't destroy it, there is yet some good in it,' so will I do in behalf of my servants; I will not destroy them all.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"But I will not destroy them all," says the LORD. "For just as good grapes are found among a cluster of bad ones (and someone will say, 'Don't throw them all away--some of those grapes are good!'), so I will not destroy all Israel. For I still have true servants there.

So there are clear grounds to argue for differing meanings of the Isaiah passage - can you point out even ONE translation that regards what Jesus made in Cana as JUICE?

Have you heard of non alcoholic wine?

 

Technically what is called non alcoholic wine is cases in which the alcohol has been removed via distillation or some other process. Even such 'non-alcoholic' wine usually contain a trace of alcohol.

Anything else called 'wine' is a mistake - BY DEFINITION it must be the product of a fermentation process that produces alcohol.

It is by your own definition that you claimed good wine could get people drunk and by inference you are essentially saying that Jesus created alcoholic wine even when He knew that folks were dripping drunk?    

It is not[b] my own[/b] definition - the master of the feast says good wine can get people drunk according to the record in the bible. Or didn't you read the scripture in question?

If Jesus created good wine which is equivalent to what can get people drunk, then the drunkenness is the prerogative of the drinker, not the maker of the wine.

Besides, we were not told that [i]everyone [/i]was drunk in the sense of being intoxicated - there could be people who had just arrived and had not been served.

Further more being 'well drunk' is an English expression is when everyone has been served or have had their usual portion or are satisfied. Unfortunately you've taken your poor grasp of English to mean they were intoxicated.

To be unable to distinguish between 'drunken' as used in Habbakuk and 'well drunk' is another failing of yours. 

there's no need 4d merry go round. we both know the bone of contention is not whether Jesus created all things or not so dont bother digressing.

wine makes people drunk and Jesus created wine. period.

italo:

there's no need 4d merry go round. we both know the bone of contention is not whether Jesus created all things or not so dont bother digressing.

wine makes people drunk and Jesus created wine. period.

Are you implying that Jesus disregarded the injunction in Habakkuk 2:15?

christians are claiming to be masters of wine now, tsk tsk tsk

gotizsata:

christians are claiming to be masters of wine now, tsk tsk tsk

For once I agree with you here. Bacchus will be grinning from ear to ear now.

debosky:

I don't know about 'keeping men dead drunk' - those are your words. There is no such thing as 'intoxicated wine' - wine is BY DEFINITION intoxicating.

Unless you are debating whether Jesus created wine or not.

If you say celebrants were already drunk by the time Jesus created in-toxic-ated drinks (if that will suit you) does that not imply that Jesus was encouraging drunkeness?

debosky:

That passage is metaphorical - it is actually talking about God saving his servants, Interesting that you decided to OMIT the rest of the verse to take it out of context.

I trust you to spiritualise and allegorise literal sayings in the Bible. It was God Himself making allusion to the fruit juice as the new wine when prophesying about His servants, this fact always eludes the long agers.

debosky:

In any case, that verse has been translated as GRAPES, JUICE or JUICE for new wine in a number of versions:

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
This is what the LORD says: When someone finds juice for new wine in a cluster of grapes, another person will say, "Don't destroy it, because there's a blessing in it." In the same way, I will do this for my servants: I will not destroy everything

New International Version (©1984)
This is what the LORD says: "As when juice is still found in a cluster of grapes and men say, 'Don't destroy it, there is yet some good in it,' so will I do in behalf of my servants; I will not destroy them all.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"But I will not destroy them all," says the LORD. "For just as good grapes are found among a cluster of bad ones (and someone will say, 'Don't throw them all away--some of those grapes are good!'), so I will not destroy all Israel. For I still have true servants there.

So there are clear grounds to argue for differing meanings of the Isaiah passage - can you point out even ONE translation that regards what Jesus made in Cana as JUICE?

The Bible can either be a noose or a life saver depending on how you intend to use it.

debosky:

Technically what is called non alcoholic wine is cases in which the alcohol has been removed via distillation or some other process. Even such 'non-alcoholic' wine usually contain a trace of alcohol.

Anything else called 'wine' is a mistake - BY DEFINITION it must be the product of a fermentation process that produces alcohol.

Have you forgotten so soon that you asserted that wine is always alcoholic, why shift the goal post? Who made the mistake?

debosky:

It is not[b] my own[/b] definition - the master of the feast says good wine can get people drunk according to the record in the bible. Or didn't you read the scripture in question?

Did he?

debosky:

If Jesus created good wine which is equivalent to what can get people drunk, then the drunkenness is the prerogative of the drinker, not the maker of the wine.

Even when the drinker is soaking drunk?

debosky:

Besides, we were not told that [i]everyone [/i]was drunk in the sense of being intoxicated - there could be people who had just arrived and had not been served.

Are you now assuming this or you just got new revelation?

debosky:

Further more being 'well drunk' is an English expression is when everyone has been served or have had their usual portion or are satisfied. Unfortunately you've taken your poor grasp of English to mean they were intoxicated.

If I have a poor grasp of your dialect do you understand what "well drunk" means in the Greek language?

debosky:

To be unable to distinguish between 'drunken' as used in Habbakuk and 'well drunk' is another failing of yours.

As if we have not been talking about drunkeness all along.

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. -- John 2:10

Let us see what Bible scholars have deducted from this verse:

2:10 have well drunk. "Have well drunk" is one word in the Greek (methuo) meaning simply "are drunk," and is translated with this meaning in every other instance (e.g., Matthew 24:49) where it is used.

John 2:10
2:10 the good wine.  This "the good wine" had been miraculously created by the Creator, and was brand new, with no time to ferment and become old, intoxicating wine.  The Greek word oinos was used for the juice of grapes in general, the same word for both unfermented and fermented wine, with the context determining which.  The decay process, utilizing leaven (always in Scripture representing corruption) to convert good fresh wine into old intoxicating wine, could not have acted in this case, because Christ Himself had created the wine in its originally intended form before sin and decay entered the world.  In this form, it was certainly the best wine, having all the health-giving, joy-inspiring character it was created to exhibit in the beginning.  It was probably the same wine which Christ will provide in "that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom" (Matthew 26:29), and will certainly not induce drunkenness.

So God cannot create wine (complete with fermentation)?

You might as well imply that Jesus created fresh fish that wasn't cooked and gave it to the 5000 cos there was no time to cook it.

Or when he healed the ear of Peter's victim @d garden of gethsemane, it wasn't totally healed because there was not enough time.

Or when he appeared Mary Magdalene on the morning of the resurrection, his wounds were still fresh because there wasn't enough time for them to heal.

Have you ever considered becoming a comedian?

italo:

So God cannot create wine (complete with fermentation)?

Why would God create what has decayed instead of the freshly health-giving and joy inspiring nutrients He created originally?

italo:

You might as well imply that Jesus created fresh fish that wasn't cooked and gave it to the 5000 cos there was no time to cook it.

The fish He multiplied was for healthy eating and not poisoned.  Alcohol is in-toxic-ating, in other words, poisoning.

italo:

Or when he healed the ear of Peter's victim @d garden of gethsemane, it wasn't totally healed because there was not enough time.

That is what is called healing my friend.

italo:

Or when he appeared Mary Magdalene on the morning of the resurrection, his wounds were still fresh because there wasn't enough time for them to heal.

He had what was called flesh and bones.  His blood was shed for the forgiveness of our sins. Note that it is not the kain kain you guys drink at your "holy communion."

italo:

Have you ever considered becoming a comedian?

Have you got the sense of humour to laugh?  Let me humour you a little with a J.John crack:

The wise old Mother Superior was dying.  The nuns gathered around her bed, trying to make her some warm milk to drink, but she refused it.

Then one nun took the glass back to the kitchen.  Remembering a bottle of whiskey received as a gift the previous Christmas, she opened it and

poured a generous amount into the warm milk.

Back at Mother Superior's bed, she held the glass to her lips.  Mother drank a little, then a little more, then before you could say Jack Robinson, she had

drunk the whole glass down to the last drop. 

"Mother, Mother," the nuns cried, "give us some wisdom before you die!"

She raised herself up in bed with a pious look on her face and pointed out of the window and said,

"Don't sell that cow!"

OLAADEGBU:

If you say celebrants were already drunk by the time Jesus created in-toxic-ated drinks (if that will suit you) does that not imply that Jesus was encouraging drunkeness?

If the people were 'already drunk' by that time - how can Jesus be encouraging drunkenness when he didn't get them drunk?

As you always say - read the bible in a straightforward way - Jesus was providing for a need for wine. The bible does not say he was encouraging anything so that is purely your interpretation.

I trust you to spiritualise and allegorise literal sayings in the Bible. It was God Himself making allusion to the fruit juice as the new wine when prophesying about His servants, this fact always eludes the long agers.

Don't be daft - I am not allegorising anything - what is an 'allusion' if not a metaphorical reference? You are quite mendacious to make such an accusation when YOU decided to cut out the main thrust of the passage.

The Bible can either be a noose or a life saver depending on how you intend to use it.

Why not answer the question instead of making an irrelevant comment? Can you provide a SINGLE translation where the translators skilled in interpreting passages in context (not some revisionist hacks like yourself) have deemed what Jesus created as juice?

Have you forgotten so soon that you asserted that wine is always alcoholic, why shift the goal post? Who made the mistake?

Wine is always alcoholic - even the alcohol removal process can never remove all the alcohol. Even the SO CALLED 'non-alcoholic' wine still contains alcohol. Again, such things fly way over your head.

Did he?

Did I write the following verse?

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.

If both are 'good wine' then they must have the same properties - if the good wine gets men 'well drunk' (i.e intoxicated) then the wine Jesus made is intoxicating.

Even when the drinker is soaking drunk?

Does food stop being food (i.e having the ability to satisfy) because the folk eating the food are full? Did the baskets of bread gathered after feeding the 5,000 cease to be bread because people were full? As long as it was wine that Jesus created, then it has intoxicating characteristics IF abused.

Are you now assuming this or you just got new revelation?

I am not assuming anything - are you unable to understand the use of 'IF'?

If I have a poor grasp of your dialect do you understand what "well drunk" means in the Greek language?

You tell me - since you are attempting revisionist

As if we have not been talking about drunkeness all along.

Who is 'we' here? The issue is WHAT was created? No one really cares about your attempts to re-write the bible to suit your own thinking. If the bible is CONSISTENTLY translated 'wine' and not 'juice' then it must have alcoholic properties - end of story!

Even if you used a million words in your merry-go-round pattern,

It won't change WINE to JUICE

WINE IS WINE

@Olaadegbu

That 'J John crack' is a variation on one I first heard John Stott tell several years ago: only this time it involved a venerated evangelical preacher preaching at a convention where his glass of milk had been 'enhanced' and the refrain was: "what a cow"!

Meanwhile talking about kain kain at "Holy Communion". have you considered 1 Corinthians 11:17-22? (Though I remember my bro Image123 giving a rather tortuous interpretation to the passage)

Wine is always wine and always has alcohol. It's all in the percentages. Non-alcoholic wine is, by definition, wine with less than 0.5% alcohol by volume (ABV).

italo:

Jesus provided wine, he didn't force it down anyone's throat. When he fed 5,000, he provided surplus food (12 baskets surplus) and he knew that gluttony was a sin. He didn't force anyone to overfeed.

Well said, italo.

Reference:

A non-alcoholic beverage is a beverage that contains less than 0.5% alcohol by volume.[1] Non-alcoholic versions of some alcoholic beverages, such as non-alcoholic beer ("near beer" and cocktails ("mocktails", are widely available where alcoholic beverages are sold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-alcoholic_beverage

Enigma:


Meanwhile talking about kain kain at "Holy Communion". have you considered 1 Corinthians 11:17-22? (Though I remember my bro Image123 giving a rather tortuous interpretation to the passage)

lol, you call image123's explanation tortous? wait until you see olaadegbu's cock and bull story on dat simple passage.

Enigma:

@Olaadegbu

That 'J John crack' is a variation on one I first heard John Stott tell several years ago: only this time it involved a venerated evangelical preacher preaching at a convention where his glass of milk had been 'enhanced' and the refrain was: "what a cow"!

Talking about evangelical preachers, here's another one of J.John's rib cracks:

A new Christian confessed to having a problem with alcohol. She said, "It goes straight to my head." 

She was nervous about taking Holy Communion for the first time because even a sip of wine would make her tipsy.

After the service, she told the minister that her fears had been unfounded.

"What happened?" asked the leader.

She replied, "It went straight to my heart."

Enigma:

Meanwhile talking about kain kain at "Holy Communion". have you considered 1 Corinthians 11:17-22? (Though I remember my bro Image123 giving a rather tortuous interpretation to the passage)

All I can say is that we should reflect on the warning Paul gave a few verses after when he said:

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.  For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

OLAADEGBU:



Talking about evangelical preachers, here's another one of J.John's rib cracks:

A new Christian confessed to having a problem with alcohol. She said, "It goes straight to my head." 

She was nervous about taking Holy Communion for the first time because even a sip of wine would make her tipsy.

After the service, she told the minister that her fears had been unfounded.

"What happened?" asked the leader.

She replied, "It went straight to my heart."

All I can say is that we should reflect on the warning Paul gave a few verses after when he said:

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.  For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

1000 words, zero meaning!