Replies

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 context pretty much eviscerates your contention that the comment of the "governor of the feast" was talking about this particular event. He was not, if you read the text carefully.

As the governor speaks, "well-drunk" applies not to this event but to other feasts over which he has presided, and not even necessarily only wedding feasts. What he is saying is that so far, at this feast, the best-tasting wine (whether alcoholic or not) was not yet given out.

You cannot, as you desire, build a positive argument that any wine/juice has been offered to the guest before that made by Jesus. Furthermore, not knowing that it was made by Jesus, he doesn't and can't give the reader a clue as to whether the juice is an alcoholic beverage or not. He only says that from some unspecified aspect, it is the best in that quality parameter, whatever it is. Logically, you can guess, but you cannot prove the type of beverage this is. So don't keep on trying.

From my experience, having myself drunk good Burgundies and Beaujolais in Dijon, the Welch's grape juice of New York State Concord grapes, still retaining all the sugars usually consumed in fermentation, and without the acidity or lees, is far tastier and refreshing than any red wine you can find anywhere. So would the freshly created, not-yet-begun-to-ferment blood of the cluster, made from pure holy water, be very delightful to the jaded palate of the feast-master, and a highlight of the banquet.

"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: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all" (Is. 65:8 AV).

And even if the celebrants were plastered to the ears (though you cannot make that to be so), giving them fresh new sweet grape juice could not possibly be wrong or harmful, or sinful, whereas giving them about 150 gallons more of intoxicant could not be anything less than worthy of condemnation for anyone, much less the Holy Son Of God deliberately making them wretchedly nauseous and shamefully sodden.

I hope you are grasping this.

I’m sorry, but your argument makes absolutely no sense in light of verse 10.

You can’t get “well drunk” on unfermented beverages, so that would be a nonsensical statement. Unfermented beverages also do not produce the effect that is spoken of, where, as people consume them, they become impaired in detecting the quality of the beverage (which is why people bring out the cheap wine when people are drunk). Only alcoholic beverages produce the effect.

Not only that, but it flies in the face of common sense. People have always, since the beginning of recorded history, served alcoholic beverages at wedding ceremonies. That is why everyone who reads this verse assumes it is speaking of wine, because it is a completely understandable situation we can all relate to. Only people from cultures like the Mohammedans and Puritans (who came much later than the NT) would think that a wedding might NOT serve alcoholic beverages.

So, if we try to read verse 10 as talking about unfermented beverages, it makes no sense at all. Now, God does not write things in the Bible that are nonsense. So if the equation of: your interpretation + the Bible = nonsense, then it is obviously your interpretation that produced the nonsense.