Water to Wine and a Question

Discussion in 'The Gospels & Acts' started by FrozenChosen, Mar 29, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FrozenChosen

    FrozenChosen Puritan Board Freshman

    I know Scripture doesn't explicitly say anything about the nature of the participants at the wedding feast, but I can only imagine after drinking 120-180 gallons of wine, there would be some drunk people.

    So why did Jesus turn water into more wine? Wouldn't it be more likely that people would get (more) drunk?

    Is this showing us that we aren't to be so terribly afraid of how people will use our charity?

    I'm fairly confused on this, I would appreciate your wonderful insight on this topic.
     
  2. JWJ

    JWJ Puritan Board Freshman

    Keep in mind that wedding celebrations back then lasted 2-4 days on average. So the wine needed was not just for 1 night but up to several nights.

    JWJ
     
  3. cih1355

    cih1355 Puritan Board Junior

    Since Jesus turned the water into wine for people to drink, does this mean that it is not a sin to drink wine?
     
  4. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Curt,
    Where did you get the idea that it is sin to drink wine? For your edification, use our search function and look for "wine"....this topic has been beat to death.
    Enjoy.
     
  5. JonathonHunt

    JonathonHunt Guest

    Scripture nowhere says that it is a sin to drink wine. It does say clearly that it is a sin to get drunk.

    Many christians (myself included) choose not to drink. I believe that there is a strong personal moral case for not doing so. I believe that statistics show clearly the connection between alcohol abuse and crime. I therefore choose to show my rejection of this world's standards by not drinking. I emphasise that it is a personal thing, although I would prefer my Pastor to be teetotal as an example to others who may not be able to control their drinking. This is the 'weaker brother' argument which I find the most compelling personally. I believe that I can be the most use to all men in all situations by not drinking, and setting a good example. This is the main reason why I strive to lose weight as well, to set an example of self-control and to remove a cause for reproach of the Gospel.

    The whole question about the wine at the feast is interesting, but wine would have been drunk over several days, by many many people, and it was not anywhere near the kind of wine we see today. People would have had to consume a lot of the standard type of wine to get drunk.
     
  6. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Johnathan writes:
    "and it was not anywhere near the kind of wine we see today. "

    In fact Johnathan, this wine that Jesus had made, was "the best". Never has there been wine of this character since this miracle. "Best" means BEST! So, comparing that wine or even wine of that era to todays, and to discredit the capacity for the wine of that era to lack the characteristics in comparrison to todays drink, is unfounded-sorry!

    I heard J. MacArthur pontificate on this same idea; hogwash! There is no such implication in scripture to support this novelty. It is a figment of those whom want to shackle the intellects and consciences of the less knowledgable.
     
  7. JonathonHunt

    JonathonHunt Guest

    Grrrr spell my name right Scott! :smash:

    I wasn't saying it wasn't the best ever wine that Jesus made. It doesn't neccessarily mean that it had to be as alcoholic as it is today. Does best = most alcohol content? My comment was about wine in general in the NT era. And there is abundant evidence from historical sources that much wine was drunk in a watered down form in preference to unsanitary water and so forth. That doesn't mean all wine was watered down either. I was trying to make the point that I believe the scripture allows alcohol drinking in moderation. I thought that to state my own position (no alcohol) was only fair.

    Calm yourself and go smoke a cigar or something... :p

    PS, still remembering your family in prayer at this time.
     
  8. James Ashworth

    James Ashworth Inactive User

    [quote:bcee397c14][i:bcee397c14]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:bcee397c14]
    Johnathan writes:
    "and it was not anywhere near the kind of wine we see today. "

    ..."Best" means BEST![/quote:bcee397c14]

    ...Thanks for the translation there Scott. "Best" means highest volume of alcohol content does it? :biggrin:

    Im sure you already know this but, I think Jonathan (and indeed MacArthur) was refering to the 'level of alcohol' in wine of them days in comparison to that of today. The alcohol content within wine of today is higher than that of Bible times. To quote MacArthur, people would have had to "bypass their bladder to get drunk".
    I think MacArthur makes a good case as a reason why you cant use the drinking of wine in bible times as justification to drink today. As he says, the wine/alcoholic drinks of today would have been seen as barbaric in bible times.

    Nevertheless, could you unlock the shackles of my intellect and explain why its hogwash please?
     
  9. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Jonathan writes:
    "t doesn't neccessarily mean that it had to be as alcoholic as it is today."

    Best would imply -absolutely- best. To be wine, the juice of the vine requires fermentation, else it would not be called wine. That is what makes it wine. How many people were at Cana? I would assume, many. Typically in that day, the whole town went to feasts like this. remember the parable, the wedding feast of the lamb, even people whom were not close to the family were invited.

    John 2:6 "And there were set there six waterpots of stone"

    Waterpots must be small enough to carry. They could not have been so large that they were to heavy to haul (water is quite heavy actually). Plus, they were made of stone! This was not alot of wine for a large party.


    OK...........sorry; too much coffee. I will do as I'm told and "go smoke a cigar".
     
  10. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    [quote:51a3f1d452][i:51a3f1d452]Originally posted by James Ashworth[/i:51a3f1d452]
    [quote:51a3f1d452][i:51a3f1d452]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:51a3f1d452]
    Johnathan writes:
    "and it was not anywhere near the kind of wine we see today. "

    ..."Best" means BEST![/quote:51a3f1d452]

    ...Thanks for the translation there Scott. "Best" means highest volume of alcohol content does it? :biggrin:

    Im sure you already know this but, I think Jonathan (and indeed MacArthur) was refering to the 'level of alcohol' in wine of them days in comparison to that of today. The alcohol content within wine of today is higher than that of Bible times. To quote MacArthur, people would have had to "bypass their bladder to get drunk".
    I think MacArthur makes a good case as a reason why you cant use the drinking of wine in bible times as justification to drink today. As he says, the wine/alcoholic drinks of today would have been seen as barbaric in bible times.

    Nevertheless, could you unlock the shackles of my intellect and explain why its hogwash please? [/quote:51a3f1d452]

    James writes:
    "...Thanks for the translation there Scott. "Best" means highest volume of alcohol content does it?"

    Is not wine a gift of God? Is not wine, "to make the heart GLAD"? What in the wine "gladdens" the heart? The fermentation! Best means that it was the best; not neccessarily the highest alcohol content. However, whatever this wine was, it had the charateristics of that which was -complete-. If it was capable to make the heart glad, it was fullfilled gladness in a category none will ever drink until that day.


    James continues;
    "m sure you already know this but, I think Jonathan (and indeed MacArthur) was refering to the 'level of alcohol' in wine of them days in comparison to that of today. The alcohol content within wine of today is higher than that of Bible times. To quote MacArthur, people would have had to "bypass their bladder to get drunk".
    I think MacArthur makes a good case as a reason why you cant use the drinking of wine in bible times as justification to drink today. As he says, the wine/alcoholic drinks of today would have been seen as barbaric in bible times."

    Rubbish! Just because J. Mac say's it doesnt make it true. Where does one get this from. Please exegete it from scripture. Assuredly the bible warns of "too much wine or drink". hence, drunkeness was quite possible. To say that the drunkards of that day actually sat down and drank 2000 glasses of wine to get drunk is no less than silly-sorry.

    John is against partaking. he suggests to his congregation that they NOT partake. This is the binbding of one's conscience unlawfully!

    [Edited on 3-30-2004 by Scott Bushey]
     
  11. JonathonHunt

    JonathonHunt Guest

    Scott - is it really binding a persons conscience to suggest they should not partake?

    Surely a suggestion is not binding? Or would you say its all in the way the suggestion is made?

    PS Hello James.
     
  12. JWJ

    JWJ Puritan Board Freshman

    Quote: "The alcohol content within wine of today is higher than that of Bible times."

    How do you know? The bible does not tell us and all we have to go on is some history. As a matter of fact, I remember reading some Jewish sources that claim the wine was very potent back then-- more so than some of today's wine.

    JWJ
     
  13. Saiph

    Saiph Puritan Board Junior

    [quote:6dca0fba2a]
    It is a figment of those whom want to shackle the intellects and consciences of the less knowledgable.
    [/quote:6dca0fba2a]

    Amen and Amen.

    [Edited on 3-30-2004 by Wintermute]
     
  14. sundoulos

    sundoulos Puritan Board Freshman

    All wine has similar alcohol content (6%-7%, if memory serves me right), except for fortified wines such as brandy, Thunderbird, etc., which have higher alcohol contents because sugar has been added.

    Wine adulterated with water will have less alcohol and, alas, less flavor.
     
  15. mjbee

    mjbee Puritan Board Freshman

    My grands and great-grands made wine from whatever was available...blackberries, grapes, dandelions. They didn't add sugar (you couldn't get it during the Depression) but that stuff had the alcohol content of a sherry or Port. They also made honey mead (sp?), which will just about make you hallucinate. Strong wine is not a recent invention.

    Jesus drank wine (Mt 11:19, Lk 7:34) even though John the Baptist didn't. The Baptist was a Nazirite (Luke 1:15) from the womb, like Samson. It is likely that Jesus took a Nazirite vow (Matt 26:29, Mark 14:25) which is why He refused the drink that was offered to Him on the cross. It may be correct that Jesus is portrayed with long hair, as that is part of the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:5). Just my :wr50:
    Melissa
     
  16. Jenson

    Jenson Guest

    For the sakes of dear Christian brothers and sisters considering the issue of drinking, hear some advice from an old-time evangelist, Billy Sunday. I know he wasn't Reformed, Calvinistic, etc... but was Arminian (probably Pelagian), and put the invitation system to good use. However, I respect him as a Christian brother whom the Lord used to good effect...



    The Moderate Drinker
    I remember when I was secretary of the Y. M. C. A. in Chicago, I had the saloon route. I had to go around and give tickets inviting men to come to the Y. M. C. A. services. And one day I was told to count the men going into a certain saloon. Not the ones already in, but just those going in. In sixty-two minutes I could count just 1,004 men going in there. I went in then and met a fellow who used to be my side-kicker out in Iowa, and he threw down a mint julep while I stood there, and I asked him what he was doing.

    " Oh, just come down to the theater," he said, "and came over for a drink between acts."

    I said to my friend, "George, do you see that old drunken bum, down and out? There was a time when he was just like you. No drunkard ever intended to be a drunkard. Every drunkard intended to be a moderate drinker."

    "Oh, you're unduly excited over my welfare," he said. "I never expect to get that far."

    "Neither did that bum," I answered. I was standing on another corner less than eight months afterward and I saw a bum coming along with head down, his eyes bloodshot, his face bloated, and he panhandled me for a flapjack before I recognized him. It was George. He had lost his job and was on the toboggan slide hitting it for hell. I say if sin weren't so deceitful it wouldn't be so attractive. Every added drink makes it harder.



    Sorry, no exposition there, but makes a lot of sense, does it??? If only we knew the sinfulness of our own hearts...

    Sincerely yours,
    Jenson
     
  17. raderag

    raderag Puritan Board Sophomore

    [quote:603effb477][i:603effb477]Originally posted by Jenson[/i:603effb477]
    For the sakes of dear Christian brothers and sisters considering the issue of drinking, hear some advice from an old-time evangelist, Billy Sunday. I know he wasn't Reformed, Calvinistic, etc... but was Arminian (probably Pelagian), and put the invitation system to good use. However, I respect him as a Christian brother whom the Lord used to good effect...
    [/quote:603effb477]

    I am just curious. When did reformed believers start believing Pelagians where Bretheren? Are Arians next?
     
  18. raderag

    raderag Puritan Board Sophomore

    Also.

    [quote:aa3822441a][i:aa3822441a]Originally posted by Jenson[/i:aa3822441a]
    I say if sin weren't so deceitful it wouldn't be so attractive. Every added drink makes it harder.
    Jenson [/quote:aa3822441a]

    Equating drinking with sin borders on blashphemy as it is very Clear that Christ drank wine. If we say it is better not to drink, are we better than Christ our Lord?

    [Edited on 3-30-2004 by raderag]
     
  19. JonathonHunt

    JonathonHunt Guest

    On the subject of wine alcohol strength, most stuff here on UK shelves is 12-14 per cent, not 6-7.

    Just a bye the bye.
     
  20. raderag

    raderag Puritan Board Sophomore

    [quote:fbcd066356][i:fbcd066356]Originally posted by JonathanHunt[/i:fbcd066356]
    On the subject of wine alcohol strength, most stuff here on UK shelves is 12-14 per cent, not 6-7.

    Just a bye the bye. [/quote:fbcd066356]

    Hmmm. that sounds a bit like desert wine, or they only drink rot gut there.
     
  21. James Ashworth

    James Ashworth Inactive User

    Sorry for the slow response. Have spent the evening catching up with a friend.
    Dug out my MacArthur tape on the subject though and will refresh my mind tomorrow morning on the way to work. Hold tight!

    P.S. Hi Jensen!! When we doing a sausage n Mash night again? My stomachs finally emptied from the last session :bouncy:
     
  22. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    [quote:bffa0846b1][i:bffa0846b1]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:bffa0846b1]
    Jesus drank wine (Mt 11:19, Lk 7:34) even though John the Baptist didn't. The Baptist was a Nazirite (Luke 1:15) from the womb, like Samson. It is likely that Jesus took a Nazirite vow (Matt 26:29, Mark 14:25) which is why He refused the drink that was offered to Him on the cross. It may be correct that Jesus is portrayed with long hair, as that is part of the Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:5). Just my :wr50:
    Melissa [/quote:bffa0846b1]

    Jesus did drink wine (wine is wine because it has alcohol in it) and Jesus was not a Nazarite, or He would have never have done so.

    What was offered to Him while on the cross was sour wine (it was old and had turned to vinegar) mixed with gall - this was a painkiller! So Jesus refused to drink a substance that would dull the pain of His crucifixion for our sin!

    Jesus was a Nazarene, but that only means He was from the town of Nazareth. (Just as I am a Texan, because I am from Texas).

    I understand the desire behind MacArthur's position, but I do not agree with him. To be on staff at Grace Church you cannot drink any alcoholic beverage ever. So he does bind men's consciences on this topic.

    Think about it - Jesus would not have been qualified to minister at Grace Church!! Neither would Timothy, any of the disciples, or anyone else who drank wine with their meals! D'oh......
    :jaw:

    The Bible does not ever forbid drinking alcohol - :smilegrin:
    It does forbid drinking from addiction or until you are drunk - :lb:

    Phillip

    [Edited on 3-30-04 by pastorway]
     
  23. mjbee

    mjbee Puritan Board Freshman

    Phillip, vinegar was always made from wine. A Nazirite vow meant partaking of NOTHING made from grapes. Painkiller or not, if Jesus took a Nazirite vow (and it appears he did) He would not have swallowed anything made from grapes.
    Nazarene has nought to bear on the subject, and I did not reference Matt 2:23. Nazirite vows could be entered into for a limited amount of time. And according to Num 6:2, women could also be Nazirites. So there. :duel:;)
    Melissa
     
  24. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    [quote:8bb136fd83][i:8bb136fd83]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:8bb136fd83]
    Phillip, vinegar was always made from wine. A Nazirite vow meant partaking of NOTHING made from grapes. Painkiller or not, if Jesus took a Nazirite vow (and it appears he did) He would not have swallowed anything made from grapes.
    Nazarene has nought to bear on the subject, and I did not reference Matt 2:23. Nazirite vows could be entered into for a limited amount of time. And according to Num 6:2, women could also be Nazirites. So there. :duel:;)
    Melissa [/quote:8bb136fd83]

    Melissa,
    You write:
    "....if Jesus took a Nazirite vow (and it appears he did)..."

    Please present your support for such a claim as it is not the orthodox view.
     
  25. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    mjbee -

    I do not see that the verses you cite lead us to believe Jesus took a Nazarite vow. Why do you think He did?

    Phillip
     
  26. sundoulos

    sundoulos Puritan Board Freshman

    Billy Sunday's logic is illogical. Should we give up the legitimate use of knives and guns and axes because murderer s misuse these instruments? Should we never have sex because every prostitiute started out with one act? Should we not eat because every glutton started with one bite?

    Billy Sunday did not preach the gospel. He preached masculinity and Americanism. A poor model for true Christianity is he.

    [Edited on 3-31-2004 by sundoulos]
     
  27. JonathonHunt

    JonathonHunt Guest

    As much as I might agree with some of the sentiment behind Billy Sunday's stance, I would not quote him on anything, ever. He had many faulty views and was deeply flawed particularly in later years. Read a balanced biog of him and you get a fair picture.

    He's worth knowing about, in a measure worth respecting, but not worth quoting!

    I think all the 'wine wasn't the same' arguments aren't what persuade some believers today to abstain. I am suprised if McArthur depends upon these arguments over moral arguments. Personally I believe that my witness is better aided if I don't drink. That's my personal view. Being brought up in an alcohol free home as I child, I never developed a taste for anything much, and to be honest there is virtually nothing I would want to drink even if I decided to!

    On the wine strength issue, Bill - I promise you that the wine my wife drinks (yes, my wife DRINKS folks, so you can see that I don't bind consciences!) is always 12-14 per cent. That's normal on the shelves of our big local mart. Cheap nasty wine gets down to 10 per cent sometimes, but that gives her headaches, so she has a good wine about three times a month.

    One question for you believing drinkers out there - is there any time that you won't drink? Before the Lord's day. for example... just curious.
     
  28. Galahad

    Galahad Puritan Board Freshman

    Jonathan,

    Out of curiosity, is it red wine what gives your wife a headache? The reason I ask is I have a theory I'm working on.

    P.S. I worked in a liquor store this last summer in the wine department.
     
  29. JonathonHunt

    JonathonHunt Guest

    Yes, Jeffrey, but she mainly only drinks red anyway. She is of the opinion that cheap red wine gives her a headache. Usually about 3 pounds a bottle stuff. 5 pounds a bottle stuff doesn't...

    Of course, too much wine gives everybody a headache.

    Please do expound your theory in a U2U, I'm intrigued!
     
  30. raderag

    raderag Puritan Board Sophomore

    [quote:5128811422][i:5128811422]Originally posted by JonathanHunt[/i:5128811422]
    On the wine strength issue, Bill - I promise you that the wine my wife drinks (yes, my wife DRINKS folks, so you can see that I don't bind consciences!) is always 12-14 per cent. That's normal on the shelves of our big local mart. Cheap nasty wine gets down to 10 per cent sometimes, but that gives her headaches, so she has a good wine about three times a month.
    [/quote:5128811422]

    Funny, I am pretty knowlegeable about wine, but I must have forgotton the alchohol content. I was thinking like 8%.


    One question for you believing drinkers out there - is there any time that you won't drink? Before the Lord's day. for example... just curious. [/quote]

    I would not abstain anytime, but I don't drink when I need to be wide awake or need to do soemthing important like bills. I don't drink in the morning, but don't have a problem with it.

    I drink wine every Lords day (communion). ;)

    Personally, I don't think I would take grape juice communion anymore anyway.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page