The above is absolutely the worst kind of Scripture-wresting that is not fit for any kind of serious scholar, and it does not even hint of moderation. Following is a rendering of the sense of the text that remains entirely within the hermeneutic of faithful attendance upon the literal, historical, grammatical, cultural, and Christ-honoring elements of Biblical interpretation.
DID JESUS MAKE ALCOHOLIC WINE AT CANA ?
Jn 2:1-11 AV with Greek phrases from the Textus Receptus
(Note that it is well proven that when oinos/wine is used, it may refer either to unfermented juice, or alcoholic beverage, or both. The sense of what "wine" means is always context-dependent.)
Also, please note that the purpose of this passage is to give Jesus glory from the first of his public ministry until the last. It is not a passage given over to glorifying His birth mother, in which she plays a close, but minor, role; nor to implicitly authorizing the use of alcoholic beverage as a usual concomitant of Christian rites.
=========
1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
This event happened the third day after arriving in Galilee, directly after His baptism by John in the South. Nathanael was from Cana.
2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
The use of "called" might be better translated hereas "invited, '' as well as His disciples.
3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
This is has been taken--contextually and grammatically wrongly--to mean that at the wedding banquet, they had consumed all the wine so far provided, and have "run out of wine." That is not what the verse says.
The phrase υστερησαντος οινου (from hustereo, verb, aorist tense, active voice, participle mode); it (the wedding) was lacking wine
. Jesus' mother turned to face him and said,"οινον ουκ εχουσιν" (from the verb ἔχω = to have, present tense, active voice, indicative mode, 3rd person plural). "They continually have no wine (all the time)" or better yet, "They are not having wine" meaning "at this banquet." What this is is not sying is "They ran out of wine/"
She did not say, "They have no more wine." "No more" is not anywhere in this little scene described. What is there is that they have no wine, none at all.
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
Or, perhaps, "What has this to do with thee and me? We're not here to provide the drinks, are we?" But actually, He and the disciples are invited guests, and it is usual to bring a present for the bride and groom. What can they do to show graciousness?
And His mother had been there from some time, as one may infer from the grammar. If he is going to give a wedding present, she may be hinting both that the celebrating families are too poor to provide wine, so they are not having it at the wedding. Or that they are very aware of the admonition of Habakkuk 2:15, and have no intention to provide and occasion of drunkenness, therefore are not serving alcoholic beverages.
5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
Mary is only telling them that if he takes initiative to do something that needs their help, be ready to do as He orders.
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.
Note that there are six vessels, and a firkin is about 10 gallons. Estimate that each vessel has 25 firkins (6 vessels x 25 ga each, or about 150 gal). That would be about 600 quarts, enough for the whole wedding feast for everyone?
7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
The waterpots here are ritual vessels, not hust ordinary jugs. They are handcarved from stone, not just clay, so they are very expensive, and kept holy and passed from generation to generation. Since wine has leaven in it, fermented wine with yeast would never be put in these vessels. That would defile them. I reckon that Jesus simply would not put filthy stuff in them. Why is it not just as sensible for Him to make sweet, tasty wine like Welch's does now, eh?
8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
Made as if freshly pressed, but totally without the process that normally would cause filth to be in the man-created juice; however, on the other hand, the omnipotent Jesus was not restricted to making the usual variety of alcoholic wine with the usual filth, was He? That would be the case only when one wants to impute the worst, most depraved intent to this Holy Teacher in His exemplary works.
9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
Thinking that the bridegroom had finally broken out the festival wine according to the usual custom of the culture, the caterer/master of ceremonies called out for the bridegroom (with his voice) with the intent to compliment him publicly on his prudent strategy, of saving the wine so as to be served later in the feast, and using pure water at first from the waterpots --
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.
"You have not had wine from the start of the feast, as everyone typically begins the feast. Instead of giving me wine to serve from the beginning, you wisely have saved the very best-tasting wine and not served any of it until now! That's a pretty wise, prudent, and frugal strategy to extend the use of the little you have!" (Note that this verse does not say that anybody in this feast had drunk any wine at all, so far. The master of ceremonies merely describes the usual practice of how a feast is commonly scheduled. For a translator to impose his base-minded assumptions on the text, saying that anyone in this feast was drinking wine, is simply a misinterpretation and not an exegetical requirement. It would be reading into the text in eisegesis something that is simply not there.)
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
Building a doctrine on assuming Jesus was serving gallons and gallons of alcoholic beverage to revelers that were already three sheets to the wind is a very unwise way to claim any kind of theological repute for the interpreter. Even then, it would be very questionable to think that The God who hates the influence of even a little recreationally taken ethanol on the spiritual life of a true believer, would agree with His Son being just a purveyor of a mind-bending central nervous system depressant to the solemnity and holiness of the occasion..
The meek and righteous scholar will not do so, but place the greatest emphasis on the sanctified nature of the first of many affirming miracles that He, the great Teacher and Master performed in His earthly ministry.
A presumptuous interpretation presenting the reader with Jesus enabling a drunken and riotous marriage party is demeaning and degrading to his role as a chaste, humble, and holy Savior bringing decency to a depraved society.
And a holy man of God will not preach or exemplify in his own life of placing a benediction on the use of wine as a Scripturally-approved necessity.
===========
So, no, I do not and nd never will in this life come to believe that Jesus made alcoholic beverage for the Cana wedding. But thanks for offering your provocative, but unwarranted, presumptuous, and gratuitous opinion on the meaning of this passage, so that it can be contested out in the open forum.
The BEST stuff MUST mean SOMETHING!
Oh?
Then WHERE did the 'cheaper' stuff come from?
Yeah!
Ain't it great!
Verse 10 pretty much eviscerates the argument that the “wine” references in this passage are just speaking of unfermented grape juice. There would be no point talking about people “well drunk” on grape juice, or serving up poor quality grape juice later. The fact that this is mentioned proves the beverage in question was alcoholic, because it is only alcoholic beverages that have this effect (where people don’t notice the declining quality of the drinks because they become more impaired as they drink them).
“So, no, I do not and and never will in this life come to believe that Jesus made alcoholic beverage for the Cana wedding. “
I believe He made wine because the Bible says He made wine and wine has alcohol as the Scripture points out in the story. The Bible says it and I believe it.
You believe He didn’t make wine because you want to believe He didn’t make wine, no matter what Scripture says.
WOW, d00d... Your provided translation is so very bent...
Of course he made wine... and drank wine. The only time that there could be grape juice is for a wee time in the fall... A matter of a couple weeks when grape juice was even possible... There was no means to preserve grape juice other than to make it into wine. Would it bother you to find out that YHWH commands bringing out the hard liquor (brandy) on the Great Eighth Day (the day after the week of the Feast of Tabernacles)? Not to spare it (liberal use)... specifically to PARTAY?
There ain't nothing wrong with having a beer or two once in a while and getting a little buzz on. There's nothing wrong with hauling out the champagne on special occasions. It's being a drunkard that is commanded against.