Sorry, Charles. This only echoes a very popular--albeit quite incorrect--translation and interpretation of the status of the wedding. It reflects a quite modern attitude towards the meaning of the word "wine," as well as the emphasis placed by the groom on it in his plan fir the wedding.
What you need to do is develop your own exegesis of the Greek, and be faithful to it, not to someone else's false reading. Please take note regarding John 2:3:
1, The key verb in the original thought is "hustereo" which is "to lack, or to be devoid of," It is in the aorist tense, active voice, participle (= ing) mode, genitive case, singular, and masculine.
2. The verb does not refer to the participants, and is therefore wrongly translated in the KJV
3. The masculine noun "oinos" is in the genitive case, and therefore cannot be the subject of the phrase, thus contradicting the Douay-Rheims and Darby translations.
4. The subject of the verb refers to the masculine noun "gamos" = "wedding" immediately before in verse 2. 5. Therefore the correct translation of thr phrase is, "It lacks wine" where "it" refers to the wedding, not to the people of the wedding,
Going on, Jesus' mother brought this lack of any grape juice as a liquid refreshment to his attention. Looking at what she said: 1. The verb "echo" which means "to have," it is in the present tense, active voice, indicative mode, third person plural, so the subject of the phrase is "they" meaning at least the planners of the feast, which ought to include its principal initiator to whom the bill for it will be sent.
2. The noun "oinos" is in the accusative case and singular, thus making it the direct object of the verb. 3. The KJV, DRB, and Darby translations fail to carry over the sense of the use of continuousness, the implicit nuance of the present tense.
4. These translations say as one voice that the Greek means, "They have no wine" thus themselves fail in communicating entire thought of the Greek, also mistranslating the negative particle "ouk" = "no" or "not." 5. A corrected translation of Mary's sentece is, "They are not having wine." (with the implication that the context is the plan for the feast). This allows the entire sensibility of His reply, "What does that have to do with you or Me?" Obviously then, since neither Jesus nor Mary intitiated, planned, prepared for, or executed the menu and conduct of the feast, what did it mean to them?
Well, as a last-minute invited group, obviously they werer going to consume a goodly portion. And according to custom, they probably ought to have brought a gift, but none is mentioned. Therefore, He saw it beneficial to convert six stone pots of thus ritually cleansed water into abou a hundred fifty gallons of tasty, fresh, pure, cloudless, alcohol-free grape juice as the gift.
(A metaphor here signifying perhaps the conversion of "living water" into the newly-made blood of the cluster, early on signifying the Blood which He was to shed for them, before they were aware of its significance.)
How could He be glorified by your interpretation of making drunk people drunker?
Eh, Charles?
Seriously? Grape Juice?? You think a wine steward doesnt know the differance between wine and grape juice? That saving the best for last would be saving grape juice?
You went into a long explanation of why the sentence structure in Greek indicates that the translations are wrong, but in no way connected that explanation with the idea that the “oinos” was alcohol-free.
In fact, the use of the word wine, and the later comment by the servant: most hosts serve their best wine first, then when everyone has drunk that wine, serve the lesser wine clearly implies that the host had already served some (alcoholic) wine and had run out. Mary pointed this out to her Son, Who made some more wine, better wine, for the wedding.