Did Jesus change the water into wine or grape juice?

A. 1. — No, it is not true. There is but one word (oinos) used throughout the N.T. for "wine" and this, whether here or in the classical writings of antiquity in the general sense of "the fermented juice of the grape."

There is another word occurring once only (Acts 2:13) translated "new wine," but in all other cases the word "wine" in our English N.T. is represented in the original by the one word (oinos).

1919 224 Q. 1. — Is it true that where "wine" is mentioned in connection with our Lord (e.g. Luke 5:37-39; Luke 22; John 2) in no case does He use the word "wine" as we understand it to mean "fermented juice of the grape," but that, on the contrary, in every case a word in the original is used showing the Lord to mean unfermented pure juice of the grape?

But she, expecting, notwithstanding His answer, that He would supply the want, told the servants to do whatever He said. The marriage must have been one connected with the family, since she took on her to tell Him of the lack of wine, and to tell the servants to obey His behest. And understanding as we now do who it was who was there, it is plain that no want at that feast would He permit to remain unsupplied. So far His mother was right in her expectations.

Six water-pots there were of stone, placed for purifying, after the manner of the Jews. The Evangelist, who was present, not only tells us they were of stone, but also informs us of their capacity, holding of water, when full, two or three firkins apiece. The whole has been reckoned at about one hundred and twenty-six gallons. The wine exhausted, and the water-pots partially if not wholly empty, such was the state of things when the Lord addressed the servants. Just two commands He gave them. First, "Fill the water-pots with water." "And they filled them up to the brim." Clearly there was nothing in them now but water, and no room for anything else. The next command was, "Draw out now, and bear to the governor of the feast." The servants obeyed. "They bare it," writes the Apostle (7, 8). The miracle was wrought. The water had become wine; and the governor of the feast, tasting it, and attesting that it was wine, and good wine, proceeded to compliment the bridegroom on having kept the good wine till then. He knew not, we read, whence the wine came, though "the servants which drew the water knew" (9). The Creator was present, and had made water become wine. No further scarcity is hinted at. Doubtless the supply was adequate for the occasion.

Without a word being spoken to the element, without a sign being made, wine was produced. No shadow was to dim the brightness of the festal scene. Creatures were rejoicing on the occasion of a marriage, and the Creator, who had instituted that union, sanctioned the rejoicing and furthered it. By-and-by we shall see, that He, who could grace a wedding feast by His presence, and provide a supply of wine which the guests did not exhaust, was as ready and as able to sympathise with mourners, and to turn their sorrow into joy. Equally at home in a scene of sorrow as in one of joy, His power, we learn, was needed in both, and graciously exercised. Lazarus was raised from the dead, and sat at meat again with the Lord in the house of Simon the leper. Wine was here provided, when natural resources had failed, and good wine too, and the supply was ample as long as the feast lasted.

A remark, too, may here be made as to the miracle. When was it wrought? Was it whilst the water was in the stone jars? or was it wrought between the servants' drawing out water and that water reaching the ruler of the feast? Was all the water in the jars turned into wine, or only so much as was needed for the feast? Now the words in verse 9, "The servants which drew the water knew," would seem to imply, that they drew out water from the jars, which subsequently became wine ere it reached the ruler of the feast. Both opinions have been expressed so we notice them. Whichever was the case the miracle remains the same — water became wine. The water-pots, filled with water up to the brim, and the time of year, shortly before Passover (so there could have been no ripe grapes to squeeze their juice into the vessels), alike forbid any thought or possibility of collusion. The miracle was a real one, and a special one. We read elsewhere of nothing like it. It was not even like multiplying that which was already there, but of producing that which was not previously in existence.

They in each instance show the glory or real character of the One Who performs the immediate work of power. In the first miracle or sign which Jesus did as recorded in our Gospel, we observe the power of the Creator in exercise upon inanimate nature. A true case of transubstantiation occurs. The element water is changed so completely into wine that colour, taste and smell proclaim the fact; the governor of the feast bearing eloquent though unconscious testimony to the miracle wrought (chap. 2:9-10). Who but the Creator can change the nature of things? And the Evangelist tersely and illuminatively comments, "This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His glory"; "the glory or character as of the Only Begotten of the Father" (chap. 1:14).

The usage of the term, as it is more important than the etymology, so is it clear, uniform and decisive. What we mean by "wine," unless it be modified by the context which surrounds it, is certainly an intoxicating vinous liquor.* That this is the force of yayin h will be apparent from the inspection of all the texts wherein it occurs. In Num. 6:3, "liquor of grapes" is distinguished from yayin h, or "wine," as is plain to the English reader. The "wine" was evidently the fermented liquor: the other phrase denotes any unfermented drink of grape-juice, and, therefore, forbids the thought that it was comprehended under that word. Hence yayin was even employed to denote the effect of wine. Accordingly, Gesenius gives "crapula" as a secondary meaning, and refers to Gen. 9:24. 1 Sam. 1:14; 25:37.

Q. Wine, John 2 etc. Are there two kinds in scripture, one unfermented and legitimate, the other fermented and only evil? ENQUIRER.

A. There is no ground whatever for such a distinction, which is due to teetotal imagination. Wine in its natural and proper sense means the fermented juice of the grape, though it may be applied figuratively to other liquor, or even more widely still. The Nazarite only abstained when under vow; the priest, when about to enter the sanctuary. It was offered to God: not a word of an unfermented liquid. Must was also drunk, which was not fermented. But the new or sweet wine of Acts 2:13 was intoxicating evidently. So wine is supposed throughout the scriptures, Old or New; and hence the warning against excess, never, save in special circumstances, against its use. The Lord made the water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana, and made it "good wine," and abundantly. Nor is the late Dean Alford unduly hard, when he says in his comment, "He pours out His bounty for all, and He vouchsafes His grace to each for guidance; and to endeavour to evade the work which He has appointed for each man — by refusing the bounty to save the trouble of seeking the grace — is an attempt which must ever end in degradation of the individual motives and in social demoralization, whatever present apparent effects may follow its first promulgation. One visible sign of this degradation, in its intellectual form, is the miserable attempt made by some of the advocates of this movement, to show that the wine here and in other places of scripture is unfermented wine, not possessing the power of intoxication." (The Greek. Test. i. 701, fifth edition, 1863).

The feast-chamber at Cana was furnished with waterpots, but even they were empty, sadly suggestive of the emptiness of all earthly joy and delight. At the Saviour's word the pots were filled with water, which became instantly transformed into wine of such excellent quality as to draw forth high praise from the master of the feast. "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." What Christ gives is necessarily superior to anything this world can afford. We are hereby reminded in a typical way of the pure joy with which even earth will be filled in the day of Christ's Kingdom. When He who now sits upon the Father's throne is established upon His own throne in Zion, all earth's woes will be brought to an end. He will fill the whole scene with peace and blessing.

In the third day there shall be the bringing in of marital festivity and joy. The wonderful thing is that while Jesus was there by invitation — a guest — He took His place as Host, for He provided what had been deficient in other hands. Mary said, "Whatsoever He saith unto you do it." He must have the pre-eminence in all things. Thus, as Host, He changed the water into wine — indicative of the joy and festivity of the Kingdom of God. All is dependent upon Him in the truth of who He is, and on the exercise of His authority and glorious power. How great will be the world-wide joy when His word is bowed to in that coming day.

Jehovah-Jesus, the poorest in the midst of the abundance of Canaan, yet Whose first miracle manifested the fulness that was in Him; when He filled the empty water-pots of Cana with wine, keeping the good wine until the end, when He will say "Eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved!"