Did Jesus Turn Water into Wine?

The obvious answer to the question, "Did Jesus turn water into wine?" is

yes. At the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee recorded in John 2:1-11,

Jesus turned water into wine. However, this question does not usually

ask what is meant by it. What is usually meant is "Did Jesus make

intoxicating wine?" And the answer is no. Let me explain.

The word translated "wine" in English ( in Koiné Greek) can refer to

either alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine. At present, the term "wine" is

almost used exclusively of alcoholic wine, but let us never be guilty of

interpretation based solely upon modern day definitions. Consider these

examples of the word "wine" being used in Scripture with reference to

unfermented grape juice.

Joel 1:10 says "The field is wasted, the land mourneth; for the corn is

wasted: the new wine is dried up, the oil languisheth." (This refers to

grapes dried up in the fields which could not be intoxicating.) Isaiah

65:8 says "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." (Alcoholic wine in

the cluster? No, the juice of the grape while in the cluster could not

be intoxicating.)

Jeremiah 48:33 says "And joy and gladness is taken from the plentiful

field, and from the land of Moab; and I have caused wine to fail from

the winepresses: none shall tread with shouting; their shouting shall be

no shouting." (The wine of fresh squeezed grapes coming out of the

winepress is grape juice and could not be fermented.)

Certainly other passages could be considered, but these are sufficient

to illustrate that the word "wine" can refer to alcoholic wine or simply

grape juice.

"So, how do we know when it refers to grape juice or intoxicating wine?"

The context in which the word is found will determine whether it refers

to alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine. So, consider the context.

The immediate context of John 2:1-11 is quite clear. The guests at the

marriage feast of Cana were able to discern between the quality of the

drink that the Lord had made and that which had already been served. If

intoxicating wine had been served, and people "well drunk" or "drunk

freely" (American Standard Version, 1901) of it (verse 10), then they

would not have had such keen discernment. Though the amount is not

specified as to what they had previously drunk, if they consumed the six

waterpots that Jesus had the servants fill with water and which

contained "two or three firkins apiece" (verse 6), then they would have

consumed somewhere between 106 to 162 gallons of booze! This is far more

than enough to make the most casual drinker drunk. Those who twist this

account to condone social drinking say the term "well drunk" refers to

the idea that the crowd was so drunk that they could not distinguish.

However, the point of "the governor of the feast" to the bridegroom is

that the guest were able to discern between the "worse" and the "good

wine." If it is the case that these wedding guests were so drunk that

they could not distinguish, then the Lord made the six pots of alcoholic

beverage for those who were already strongly under the influence, and

caused them to be even more drunk! Thus, the "good wine" of the wedding

feast of Canaan must have been the fresh juice of the grape.

Also, consider the logical consequence of those who want to use this

passage to justify the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Their

argument goes something like this: "Since Jesus produced alcoholic wine,

then it is morally right for a person to drink it." However, notice that

their logic takes them further than most of them want to go. Since Jesus

produced alcoholic wine (as they claim), then not only would it be

morally right to drink it, it would be morally right to produce it, sell

it, distribute it, and make a living from it. But since that would most

certainly cause someone to stumble, then it must be morally right to

cause someone to stumble. However, the logical consequence of their

argument would oppose the Lord’s teaching (Luke 17:1-2). No, the

reasoning is a foolish argument that has no foundation in scripture.

Further, consider the general context of the Bible. Habakkuk wrote, "Woe

unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to

him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their

nakedness!" (2:15). The sin Habakkuk is rebuking is the sin of

contributing to drunkenness. If Jesus supplied intoxicating wine to the

wedding guests at Cana, then He contributed to their intoxication. Not

only did Jesus contribute to it, He, also, condoned and encouraged

people to get completely soused! Since intoxication is sinful, then

Jesus sinned, and the "woe" of Habakkuk would be upon Him. If this be

the case, then it would be better for Jesus "that a millstone were

hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea" (Luke 17:2). As a

perfect man, Jesus could not have turned water into alcoholic wine and

offer such to others.

Another passage to consider in this context is Proverbs 23:31-32 which

says, "Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his

colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth

like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." If Jesus had turned water

into intoxicating wine, then He would have caused others to look upon

the wine when it is red opposing the wisdom of Solomon. Since, Jesus is

"greater than Solomon" (Matthew 12:42), He would know the wisdom of

sobriety and would not tempt others with an intoxicating beverage.

Again, Solomon wrote, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and

whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise" (Proverbs 20:1).

"What, then, was the miracle of the wedding feast in Cana?" The miracle

of Cana was that Jesus surpassed or transcended the normal amount of

time and the natural process that it takes to produce and harvest grape

juice. That which normally takes months, took Jesus but a moment.

Augustine wrote, "For he on that marriage-day made wine in the six jars

which he ordered to be filled with water — he who now makes it every

year in the vines; for, as what the servants had poured into the

water-jars was turned into wine by the power of the Lord, so, also, that

which the clouds pour fourth is turned into wine by the power of the

self-same Lord." (As quoted in "Bible Wines" by William Patton, page

91.)

"How could this be? Did they have any methods of preservation of grape

juice in the first century?" Yes. In fact, they had several methods. In

the book "Bible Wines," the author, William Patton, discusses four

methods that the ancients used for the preservation of grape juice. One

such method is to keep air completely excluded — a method often used

today. R. C. Foster in his book, "Studies in the Life of Christ," said,

"A Greek wine ship of the second century B.C. found by divers off the

southern coast of France several years ago contained a great number of

wine flasks that had been sealed so tight that after more than 2,000

years the sea water had not seeped into them."

With close examination, we must conclude that the Lord did not make

intoxicating wine at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. "Did Jesus

turn water into wine?" Yes. "Did Jesus turn water into intoxicating

wine?" Absolutely Not!

Alcohol has caused and/or contributed to broken homes, every kind of

accident imaginable, disease both physical and mental, poverty, and

crimes of every kind. Since its effect is such, it is beyond my own

imagination why anyone would ever want to justify its use — let alone

mar the Lord’s perfect example with its production and distribution. Its

use is not social in any way but is in every way antisocial. Its defense

by sweet-talking, soft-pedaling, so-called preachers is religiously

hypocritical, morally irresponsible, and socially despicable. It has

victimized the unborn, children, teenagers, the middle aged, and the

old. It has victimized business people and laborers, country folks and

city folks, the rich and the poor. There is probably not one person who

has not felt its evil bite and its viperous sting! It is beyond my

reasoning power to understand how people who claim to be spiritually

minded and morally upright will rationalize its use. Blood has filled

our streets because of this vile beverage. Graves have filled our hills

and vales because of this evil drink. Reproach has filled our nation

because of this wicked intoxicant. Corruption has filled our society

because of this corrupted liquor. Shame and disgrace has filled our

homes because of this malicious booze. Rather than justifying its use,

let us stand diametrically opposed to it for "Wine is a mocker, strong

drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."

- - Chuck Northrop

Top of the page