7 Facts that Refute Jesus Turning Water into Alcoholic Wine by Janell Ward

7 Facts that Refute Jesus Turning Water into Alcoholic Wine

by Janell Ward

Thesis: A close examination of Scripture’s text reveal the character of Christ is not consistent with him turning wine into highly alcoholic wine.

Passage: John 2:1-12     

Place: Cana in Galilee, Wedding Feast

Purpose: In NO way am I against having a glass of wine or knowing your limit. This article is to address the confusing issue of Jesus giving more alcohol to drunk people or Jesus condoning the use of alcohol in the wrong way. I also wrote it for Christians who may be in a setting with people who make foolish comments such as "It's okay to get drunk b/c Jesus...." My desire is to give some points that you might bring up if this scenario happens to you (Because it's happened to me so much). This also is for people who enjoy studying the Greek and Hebrew language to give them new insight to the use of the term "wine" in the Bible. So I just wanted to clear that up, so that if you want to read it, you don't feel defensive about the idea. If you haven't read it yet--I really encourage you to--not for me, but for the sake of studying of God's Word and understanding the Scriptures.

Introduction: Before I being this somewhat extensive refutation of Christ’s actions to promote and provoke the intoxication of an alcoholic beverage, I will state that I cannot say for 100% sure that we can know at what point of fermentation the wine or juice was. I would love to have feedback on the below points. However, I do know the character of Christ and I think there is a good argument against the idea of Christ creating highly intoxicating wine.  It’s just some thoughts, and an interesting outline that can cause us to ponder and discover new arguments.  

1. The word for wine, in John 2, can mean fresh, sweet grape juice. The first reason to refute the wine being alcoholic derives from the Greek/Hebrew language. The literal translation of the word wine in the Greek is Oinos which is actually a generic translation of grape juice or wine. Even in the Old Testament several passages that refer to wine are talking about freshly squeezed juice that was sweet to the taste. Why is this important? Because it reveals that the translators of the New and Old Testament did not always bother to make a distinction between grape juice and a fermented drink. Here is an example, in Lamentations 2:11-12, what do the children cry out for? “Corn and wine.”  Children would not be crying for alcohol.  The word here in the Old Testament is Yayin. This word is used several times in referring to drink or sweet juice. William Patton also states: “As both yayin and oinos are generic words, they designate the juice of the grape in all its stages.” (William Patton/Bible Wines).  The author and translator leave it up to us to rightfully discern the word in context.  This truly is to a crucial argument, because it leaves us with a decision about whether a passage is speaking of alcoholic wine or grape juice.  Knowing this, all our decisions about whether we believe it was fermented or not, truly rest in who we think Jesus was. It is very possible that “Oinos” Jesus created was literally better than the freshest juice the wedding party could find. Which leads to my second point…                                                                                                                                                                                                                
2. There was more than one type of wine at the wedding: This is my favorite point, because it seems so obvious that we actually miss it altogether. If you were having a huge feast, how many types of wine would you have at a wedding? Several. Why? Because there are different people with varying ideas of what is good. In ancient times there were several types of wine from white wines, red wines, wines with spices; there were endless grape varieties. If we consider this as a typical feast, we must be aware that they probably served more than one type of wine. Why is this point vital? Because it raises the probability that if there were several wines then the wine Jesus created could have simply been one of the unfermented wines at the feast. (This point goes along well with point 7 about the symbolism of fermentation)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
3. The consistency and unbreakable union of the Trinity would be in question:  Jesus and God are one and “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb. 13:8). Jesus is the same “I Am” as God in the Old Testament. There are a plethora of verses that speak against being drunk on wine in the Old Testament; God consistently rebuked those who divulged in being drunk on wine throughout the whole of Scripture. Jesus was all about the business of God. Even as a child Jesus said, “Would I not be about my father’s business?” (Luke 2:49). Was promoting alcoholism his Father’s business? No. We know that God will not contradict himself; Christ would not go against the very Scripture he came to fulfill (Matt 5:17).  Another significance argument is that when King Solomon asked God for superior. heavenly wisdom, these were the wise thoughts on tarrying with wine:  Proverbs 20:1 – “Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Proverbs 23:20 – “Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:” Proverbs 23:31-32 – “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, [when] it moveth itself aright.” We must regard Scripture as a whole—understanding that contradiction between the Old and New Testament is not in the character of God.                                                                                                                                       
4.   Christ’s role in the appearance of evil would be in question. If Christ had in fact given highly toxic wine at a feast, who would have brought that up? The Pharisees (the high religious leaders of the day). They were looking for every reason to accuse Christ of behavior against God.  Although they called him a drunkard, they never brought up this miracle of his nor put it into question. If the Pharisees were looking for a reason to find Christ guilty, that would have been the very scenario! There is a really good chance that there were Pharisees at this very feast! The Pharisees knew the Scriptures. They were the ones who maintained the Law. They would have known that it was a sin to create a toxic beverage that the Old Testament Scriptures speak against tarrying with the wine. But, not even once is it mentioned. Obviously, culturally speaking, it did not appear to be evil nor was it evil.  If I may be so blunt to say—Jesus would not offer a prostitute another client as much as Jesus would not offer a drunken man another glass of wine.                                                                                                                                                                                        
5. The Kingship/Lordship of Christ would be in question. Proverbs 31:4 says, “It is not for Kings to drink wine or for rulers to drink beer…” Was Jesus a King? Yes. Did he consider himself the Ruler of all creation? Yes. Our omnipotent Creator calls us to follow him in leadership; Scripture calls us co-heirs with Christ, therefore Christ would not want his holy people to get drunk.  Let’s remember that the disciples were at this feast as well—the same disciples that later write in gospels against being drunk. Jesus would not do anything that would provoke the growth of sin which leads to death. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the LIFE.” If we think holiness is shoving more toxic beverages down people’s throat, then we have a major issue at hand. Jesus would not provoke the foolish behaviors of our sin nature. This was Christ’s FIRST MIRACLE not his FIRST MISTAKE. He didn’t mess up. He didn’t sin.  When we use excuses that Jesus turned water into alcoholic wine, we literally question both his perfection and his intentions. Blasphemously, we point fingers at him that he provoked foolishness and drunkenness. The Bible clearly states that drunkards will not enter the Kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11).  Why would Jesus create a situation for condemnation? Reverand Mark Creech adds:                                                                                                                                                                     Making what would have amounted to 120 gallons of a dangerous drug, while giving no restriction for its use, certainly isn't consistent with a manifestation of his magnificence. It makes no sense and runs counter to Christ's spotless integrity to purposely corrupt what was natural and healthy for a recreational mind-altering substance.                                                                                                                  
6.   The Love of Christ would have been in question:  Some people believe that Jesus turned the water into wine to honor the wedding party and to not cause them embarrassment.  This is probably true. It was a disgrace to run out of beverage at a wedding feast, and it was highly looked down upon. So, Jesus turns to bless this family by doing a miracle for them. However, Jesus would not have instigated more worldliness in order to show them love—this would have been counter-productive of his mission. We know that when we provoke someone to sin, we are not being loving to them at all.  1 Corinthians 13:6 says, “ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” Love does not mean complacency. Is being drunk wrong/evil? Yes (We have established that already from Scripture). Jesus would not delight in that, and Jesus is the quintessence of love. 1 John 4:8 says, “God is love…”                                                                                                                                 
7.  Prophecy and symbolism speak to Christ as the “new wine” without decay or death (Mark 2:22). This is such an extensive point, that I will leave it to your own discovery and research.  However, I will give you a few leads—consider that it was the third day when Jesus created the new wine. The third day is symbolic of him being life (rising on the third day). Why is this a vital point if it is prophetic? Because in order to ferment wine it must go through “death.”  The Biblical commentator, David Guzik, adds: “Moses turned water into blood, showing that the Law results in death (Exodus 7:17-21). But Jesus’ first miracle turned water into wine, showing the gladness and joy of His new work.”  If Jesus would have been portraying his glory through a drink, he would have made it fresh and alive. In Isaiah 65, God is speaking to his people about judgment and salvation. We know that Christ is the savior and that he is also referred to as the “new wine.” Look here that in Isaiah 65:8, God says: “As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, ‘Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it.’” If, in fact, this miracle was a fulfillment and symbol of Christ, he would have don’t destroyed the wine through fermentation.  

In conclusion, anyone who obstinately insists that Jesus turned wine into a toxic beverage should honestly question themselves on why they are so defensive about drunkenness or alcoholic beverages in general. I think the issue here could be: Do we want it to be okay to be drunk? Could it be that Christ’s holiness extinguishes our freedom of reckless living and causes us to be wise and holy? So instead of facing the facts that Jesus was not an alcoholic nor did he provoke or promote alcoholism, we slant the Scriptures to shift toward our own cultural traditions. This slanderous accusation against Christ will only lead to more self-fulfilling demands.