Those who oppose the Christian use of alcohol often argue that the alcohol content of wine in Bible plays an essential role in determining whether the use of alcohol is permissible for Christians.Two Kinds of Wine in the Bible?
The Scriptures mention “wine” over two hundred times, both in positive and negative contexts. Some Christians have used this positive/negative distinction to argue that the Bible is speaking of two different kinds of wine.
When the Bible speaks positively of wine, then this is referring to “wine” as non-alcoholic grape juice. When the Bible speaks negatively of wine, then this is referring to “wine” as alcoholic wine.
This argument was very popular among prohibitionists, particularly those that led the Temperance Movement. The advantage of this position is that it seems as though one is able to account for all of the Scriptures.
Explanation
However, the alleged distinction between alcoholic wine and non-alcoholic grape juice does not exist in the Bible. The Bible uses the same word for wine in both positive and negative aspects.
The positive/negative distinction has to do with the use/abuse of alcohol. When the Bible speaks positively of wine, this is referring to the moderate use of alcohol. When the Bible speaks negatively of wine, this is referring to the abuse of alcohol, or drunkenness.
Was Wine Heavily Diluted?
Some Christians maintain that the wine in the Bible was almost non-alcoholic. It is argued that all wine in ancient times was filtered and dried into a paste, which was then mixed with water. Thus, small amounts of alcohol were present in wine, but the wine was so diluted as to minimize the intoxicating effects. The alcohol that was used was strictly for preservation purposes.
According to this view, the Bible does not prohibit the use of wine, provided we understand wine to be heavily diluted so that it was basically grape juice with only enough alcohol to preserve the grape juice from spoiling.
In our day, we have purified water, pasteurized grape juice, and refrigeration. There is no need to rely upon alcohol as a preservative. Thus, Christians should abstain from beverages that have a significant alcohol content, which would include all of our modern beers, wines, and liquors. This is the argument of many abstentionists.
Explanation
This particular abstentionist argument demands that all wine was heavily diluted. While dilution was certainly used in some circumstances, this was far from the universal practice. The Biblical admonitions against drunkenness should suffice to prove that not everyone was diluting. Obviously, at least some people were getting a hold of the real thing and becoming drunk. If all “wine” was so low in alcohol content, then one would have to consume gallons and gallons to get drunk.
Moreover, this low-alcohol content argument has no support in historical scholarship. Virtually every scholar agrees that the alcohol content of wine during Biblical times was usually between 5-20%, which is enough to intoxicate.
Ironically, one popular abstentionist argues that the burden of proof should fall on those who claim that Biblical wine contained alcohol. This bold claim is precisely the opposite of reality. The burden of proof always falls on those who are against the consensus of historical scholarship. Such abstentionists have failed to prove that dilution was the universal practice.
Furthermore, many Biblical texts become silly or meaningless if they refer to non-alcoholic grape juice. Would the Shulamite have said to Solomon, “Your love is better than grape juice” (Song of Songs 1:2)?
If wine was super-diluted, why did the good Samaritan pour grape juice on the wounds of the man going to Jericho (Luke 10:34)? Why did Paul counsel Timothy to drink a little grape juice for his stomach (1 Timothy 5:23)?
If wine was basically grape juice, then the weaker brother argument is pointless (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8). Why would anyone object to the consumption of grape juice? No one’s faith is threatened by grace juice.
The wine of the Bible had to have been alcoholic. Alcohol can intoxicate, clean wounds, and heal stomach troubles. Grape juice does none of these things.
Is Alcohol Sinful?
Those who argue that some or all of the wine in the Bible was non-alcoholic or low-alcoholic are operating from a presupposition: alcohol is sinful. Both prohibitionists and abstentionists read the Scriptures through this presupposition.
However, material things are not sinful. Sin does not reside in objects, but in the human heart. Sin comes from the misuse of God’s gifts, not the godly use of God’s gifts. As we will see in the next chapter, alcohol is a gift from God. There is a godly and moderate use of alcohol.
49 comments:
Eric,
TGIF! Cheers!
Can there be a godly use of marijuana too? If it is legal of course.
Doug
Doug,
Great to hear from you. Marijuana is a different issue because the Bible never endorses marijuana like it does alcohol.
Marijuana itself is not evil; Cannabis is not an evil plant. God made it, and it is good. Among other things, it is good for making ropes.
Also, there is a medicinal usage for marijuana (glaucoma patients, cancer patients, etc.).
Is there a godly recreational use of marijuana? Certainly not where it is illegal. We cannot disobey our government.
Is there a godly use of marijuana where it is legal, say, in Amsterdam? Obviously, we must be controlled by the Spirit (Eph 5:18). I've never inhaled, so I don't personally know how much control you lose with one toke. Where is the line? I dunno. Wherever it is, that's where it becomes sin.
Regarding "The Alcohol Content of Wine in the Bible:" Grape juice if left open and unattended will ferment to wine or vinegar. I do not know of anyone in the bible who drank vinegar. The more sugar in the juice, the stronger the results. For wine to be preservative or disinfectant, it must be at least 10% alcohol by volume. If left open and unattended, wine will continue to ferment to vinegar. If you want to keep wine as wine, fill a bottle up with it so no air is in the bottle, then seal the bottle.
Regarding alcohol content of wine in the Bible: Grape juice left open and unattended for several days will begin to ferment and become either alcoholic wine or vinegar. The more sugar in the juice, the stronger the results. I do not know of anyone who drinks vinegar in the bible. For wine to be preservative or disinfectant, it must be at least 10% alcohol by volume. Leave wine open long enough, it does become vinegar!
All it takes is one toke of good marajuana to get stoned - which is equivelent to drunkeness. So to smoke it, whether legal or not is sin.
Although wine definately had the content to get people drunk, I seriously doubt that Jesus would go against the proverbs and turn water into such a wine. Here are a few early Church quotes:
2. Horace, born 65 B.C.: "There is no wine sweeter to drink than Lesbian; that it was like nectar, and more resembled ambrosia than wine; that it was perfectly harmless, and would not produce intoxication." Anti-Bacchus, p. 220.
3. Virgil, born 70 B.B.: "Or from sweet must boils down the luscious juice, and skims with leaves the trembling cauldron's food." Georgic, lib. I. Line 295.
4. Plutarch, born 60 A.D.: "Wine is rendered old or feeble in strength when it is frequently filtered. The strength or spirit being thus excluded, the wine neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind and the passions, and is much more pleasant to drink." Symposium
5. Pliny, born 61 or 62 A.D.: "The most useful wine has all its strength broken by the filter." Liber xxiii. Cap. 24.
Lest Jesus would become a mocker of scripture, I think that His "best wine" as spoken of, was like these wines. It was not just grape juice! But it also would not cause drunkeness - lest He could be guilty of supplying a keg party.
The reality it - wisdom will cause a Christian to take the sake road and not touch it, as scripture instructs - or to not even look upon it. Why take a chance with such a controversial subject. Do not give into "spirits'! be holy as He is holy, do not offend others, and be a good example of a Christian, who can be without blame. Remember, the Bible does instruct a Bishop to not drink wine at all. Why is it okay for others and not the bishops? Maybe something cultural allowed it for some? Like bad water? Most I know that justify alcohol, even in moderation, do not have the closest walk with Christ. They seem to be hindered. Why take the chance?
All it takes is one toke of good marajuana to get stoned - which is equivelent to drunkeness. So to smoke it, whether legal or not is sin.
Although wine definately had the content to get people drunk, I seriously doubt that Jesus would go against the proverbs and turn water into such a wine. Here are a few early Church quotes:
2. Horace, born 65 B.C.: "There is no wine sweeter to drink than Lesbian; that it was like nectar, and more resembled ambrosia than wine; that it was perfectly harmless, and would not produce intoxication." Anti-Bacchus, p. 220.
3. Virgil, born 70 B.B.: "Or from sweet must boils down the luscious juice, and skims with leaves the trembling cauldron's food." Georgic, lib. I. Line 295.
4. Plutarch, born 60 A.D.: "Wine is rendered old or feeble in strength when it is frequently filtered. The strength or spirit being thus excluded, the wine neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind and the passions, and is much more pleasant to drink." Symposium
5. Pliny, born 61 or 62 A.D.: "The most useful wine has all its strength broken by the filter." Liber xxiii. Cap. 24.
Lest Jesus would become a mocker of scripture, I think that His "best wine" as spoken of, was like these wines. It was not just grape juice! But it also would not cause drunkeness - lest He could be guilty of supplying a keg party.
The reality it - wisdom will cause a Christian to take the sake road and not touch it, as scripture instructs - or to not even look upon it. Why take a chance with such a controversial subject. Do not give into "spirits'! be holy as He is holy, do not offend others, and be a good example of a Christian, who can be without blame. Remember, the Bible does instruct a Bishop to not drink wine at all. Why is it okay for others and not the bishops? Maybe something cultural allowed it for some? Like bad water? Most I know that justify alcohol, even in moderation, do not have the closest walk with Christ. They seem to be hindered. Why take the chance?
Vintage, I have no idea what your point is.
Pastor Lyndon, thanks for expressing your opinions. I'll stick with the Scriptures (Psalm 104:14-15; Luke 7:33-34, etc.).
I'm just gonna throw in my 2 cents:
while I tend to agree with you that the wine spoken in the Bible is of the alcoholic variety, you've misunderstood the temperist position -- they say that there are 2 wines in the Bible: good (non-alcoholic) and bad (alcoholic), and that in ancient times, the word "wine" refered to both (determined by context). So for example, the wine the samaritan used was obviously alcoholic, while the wine Jesus made was not--- that's the "2 wines" position.
I don't follow this view because of 1 Tim 3:8 and Titus 2:3. Why are deacons and aged women commanded to not drink too much grape juice?
However, I personally don't drink at all, neither do I encourage others to do so. Why? The reasons given in the Bible for consuming alcohol don't apply to us anymore. For example, we now have stomach medicine (1 Ti 5:23); we are not under the OT Law, so we do not need to keep the festivals; etc.
I don't know what all this talk of "diluted wine" is all about. The Bible says absolutely nothing about it.
What many fail to realize is that "mixed wine" and "new wine" were very intoxicating. The Bible mentions both quite often.
Back then, if one had access to freezing temperatures (like the mountains during winter) he could let a jar of wine freeze - skim off the ice, and enjoy a high-proof wine, similar in strength to brandy.
D
In my opinion more damage to the word of God has been done by those trying to twist scripture to prove abstinence than alcohol has ever done. If the same wine that got Noah and Lot drunk was acceotrd by a type of Christ then that settels it for me.Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek4442 king4428 of Salem8004 brought forth3318 bread3899 and wine:3196 and he1931 was the priest3548 of the most high5945 God.410
I personally hate fundamentalism in any religion. Jesus was most scathing against the Pharisees because they were obsessed with rules and regulations being kept to the letter.
Luckily for humanity, God is not so dictatorial. He looks at each one of us and judges us at what is in our hearts. If we get caught up in inventing and discussing ad nausea 'God's law', we will lose the bigger picture of our role as Christians - to love God and love our neighbours as ourselves.
I for one, fail to see the relevance of the Old Testament in Christianity. I would truly lose my faith, for example, if I were to believe the story of the plagues as described in the OT. The God that I love would NEVER have innocent babies killed to prove a point. God does not commit murder in any form, more so to innocent children.
The whole crux of the matter is to use nature (and that includes wine) in moderation. It is gluttony that is a sin, not enjoying a glass of wine with your meal.
If one chooses to abstain from alcohol, that's his personal choice and it's fine. But saying that other people are sinning is condescending and acting like the Pharisees of the Bible.
Mary,
Jesus doesn't agree with your rejection of the Old Testament.
Yes, Mary while we should not be obsessed with rules and regulations (and also focusing on them will cause us to lose sight of what it's really about), God really did "kill those babies" as you said -- that's why one of the reasons we should be grateful for living in the *New* Covenant. Those days are over -- Jesus now came to *save*. (BTW, the explanation has to do with the doctrine of original sin -- which is out of the scope of this post)
He never told us to believe it all either. Unfortunately, we're told that Jesus explained passages from the Bible but never gave us much of what he said about it.
Can any Christian believe that God took sides during wars and condoned massacres? Do you actually believe in God sending fatal plagues indiscriminately? Of killing children? The Old Testament was written HUNDREDS of years after things were meant to have happened. It was also written by those who were supposed to be 'the chosen ones'.
I have no disrespect to the Jewish faith but we should be concentrating on changing the world for the better - each one doing the best he can in one's own circumstances. Pouring over words written thousand of years ago to try to find different interpretations for the same words is simply a waste of time and energy.
Mary Ann,
Your idea of a Christian has no correspondence with what the Bible actually teaches.
Actually, he did tell us to believe ALL of the Bible. Remember, Jesus said, I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. While this does not directly prove my claim, it does show us that we can't just throw away or ignore the Old Testament. Also remember that Jesus said, "In the volume of this book it is written of me." Thus, studying the Bible is NOT a waste of time -- it will point you towards Jesus and reveal more of His character to you. You do want to get to know Jesus more, right? Or let me put it this way, How do you expect to "change the world" if you don't know Jesus intimately? His Word is one way we can know Him. Don't just throw it away or ignore it.
As for the "indiscrimant killings" (as you put it), actually, they were *always* directed at law breakers (i.e., sinners). That infants and other "innocents" were often included shows us how seriously God takes sin. Be grateful that we live in the covenant of grace were He came to save and not to destroy! In fact, the harsh terms of the law are designed to show us exactly how much God hates sin and how we all fall short of His standards. Just one question Mary: Do you believe that God parting the red sea is a historical fact?
Well said.
No one is ever going to convince me that God actually killed those innocent children, whatever the Bible says. Wars should never be waged upon the sinners but upon sin.
Christianity is all about loving your enemy, forgiveness, and harmony - a far cry from the violent and unforgiving nature met with in the OT. And you believe that God suddenly changed tactics? Jesus came to show us the way to be saved from sin not to save us from the wrath of God!
Also, we have NO WAY of knowing the exact words that Jesus said, since it was all written down several years after his death. The differences in the four gospel accounts is enough to show that it was written by mere humans and each author gave his own understanding of what had happened.
Christianity is not just the Bible. So I have no qualms about being a Christian and not believing every line in the Bible. It does not make me less of a Christian than those who believe it word for word.
Shouldn't Christians be concentrating their efforts on voicing their disapproval against wars, against abortion, against the capital punishment, against unnecessary cruelty to animals, against pollution - in short, giving more value to human life and to God's creation)
I take it that most of you on here are from the USA? I find that Americans are rather fundamental with regards to the different religions they practise. In Europe, we have a totally different approach to it. So I guess it has as much to do with culture as with anything else!
Just one question, Mary -- How are you sure that you aren't following your "own" madeup Jesus if you don't believe the Bible? Not picking a fight here :-) But without an *objective* standard, you have no way of measuring your claims.
So you're from Europe? That's interesting because in the US, most evangelicals are known for social issues but European Christians are not.
Mary said: "No one is ever going to convince me that God actually killed those innocent children, whatever the Bible says."
Isn't this the original sin? Satan tempting us into believing that we can pick and choose what God says, accepting some of it and ignoring what we dislike?
It's important to remember about the Old Testament that it is the symbol that precedes the subject. Many things that seem bizarre to our modern culture are actually essential concepts to grasp before God revealed the much more profound and transcendent salvation through Christ.
How could one understand a perfect sacrifice if they didn't first practice imperfect sacrifices? How could one understand grace if they weren't first bound by the law?
As for difficult passages (such as those involving the deaths of children), isn't it much more likely that you are misunderstanding the passage, rather than that God made a mistake?
Mary said: Christianity is all about loving your enemy, forgiveness, and harmony..."
Incorrect. Christianity is about loving God and living in His will. The rest comes naturally if your relationship with God is in the right place.
very interesting discussion. as a christian my desire is to be in a right relationship to God, that has been done for me by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
that being said. anything can be a source of sin. work, overeating, drinking, smoking, shopping, exercising....whatever it is that becomes our focus.
it does not hurt my relationship to God to share a good bottle of wine with my family. everything that God created is good, thanksgiving is around the corner and we will be moderate in our eating and drinking and while we are doing that we will give thanks to God, for his saving grace.
We are called to be a light to the world, to reach out to our neighbors. if someone thinks it is wrong to drink they shouldn't.
i am so thankful that i am not the judge!
thanks Eric for this blog, it was refreshing.
Mary Ann,
Having travelled extensively through Europe on several occasions and having lived for a time in the Middle East, I can tell you that geography does not determine an individual's salvific relationship with Jesus Christ. It may shape the "pop Christianity" of a culture for awhile, but there is a consistency throughout the ages and cultures with respect to one's acceptance and adherence to the Bible as God's revealed word. One need only read Bonhoeffer, Solzhenitsyn, Lewis, Augustine, Chesterton, Jean Cauvin; etc., to see that zeal and passion for God's word is not something that was invented in the U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries.
You stated that it would destroy your faith in the God you love, to believe some of the things stated in the OT. However, you fail to recognize the basic truth of God's authority. E.g., if I cut down a tree in your yard, I am guilty of wrongdoing, but in my own, I am perfectly within my rights to do so. Perhaps God simply took each of those children immediately to Heaven without allowing them to suffer. In any case, I doubt that would suffice for you, because it is obvious that this existence, and how much each of us enjoys it, is your personal benchmark for whether God is doing "good" to that person or not. If that is the case it is clear that you don't get Christianity in any way deeper than a philosophy for life on this earth - which was certainly not what Jesus intended.
Wow. What a powder-keg this discussion has turned into. From wine to the Old Testament. I think a balance is needed in the OT thing. Yes, it has been preserved for us to read and learn from. Yes, holy men wrote it. But their own personalities, foibles, opinions, paradigms, filters did shine through. While the message is clear, the messenger wasn't always loving or forgiving in his portrayal. Often when stories that have been passed down for hundreds of years finally get written down, they do reflect the current culture including things such as hatred of enemies, loftiness of their ideals, etc. And God let this happen so we could see that, in spite of their human-ness, he used these holy men to pass on a great story of God's redemptive grace for all of creation in all ages. Is this the conventional view of 'inspiration'? No. But then a lot of our doctrine, like much of Scripture, is our retelling of God's story in our own context.
Post-Grace Sojourner,
As you said, what you are espousing is not the traditional view of inspiration.
By what authority do you presume to speak for God? Why is your opinion authoritative?
The Bible judges us. We do not judge the Bible.
Btw, scripture says that Kings and Priests were not allowed to drink.(, Prov. 31:4,5 , Lev. 10:9) We are called a royal priesthood. Should we follow the OT ruling, stay away from it and keep a clear head in all circumstances?
Grace, two truths to consider:
1) Jesus is our high priest.
2) Jesus drank enough to be called a drunkard.
If our high priest can drink alcohol, then so can we.
" 1) Jesus is our high priest.
2) Jesus drank enough to be called a drunkard.
If our high priest can drink alcohol, then so can we."
Amen to that! Wine gladdens the heart of Man and God.
Thanks for posting this man. It has been something i have thought about for a while. Although, proverbs31 still rings in my ear.
I did not know that understanding Gods revelation is progressive, and that seeing this in unique dispensations was such a bad thing. But i am trying to get a good understanding on the consumption of alcohol for Christians. I read an old article in Christianity Today ( june 20 1975 ) "wine - drinking in the new testement times" by Robert Stein. It seems like all wine was watered down, and that the strong drink was straight wine. Wine at the passover was 3 - 1 mixture. distilled spirits seemed to appear arround 800 ad. This article leads one to believe that drinking straight wine was barbaric. I am not a historian, and would love your comments.
By the way I was disipled by a wonderful PCA Chaplain in the Navy
John Owen
Never read the Stein article, but it would not alter my view. Whether wine was stronger or weaker in ancient times is absolutely irrelevant, unless you believe that alcohol is evil. Drunkenness has always been sinful, and wine has always been good when enjoyed in moderation. Cheers!
@Eric@ - good point
@kbcaftershock.blogspot.com@ - yes, but what passed for "wine" in ancient times still contained alcohol. It's still possible to get drunk with watered down wine. Just ask Noah or Timothy :-) (Your comments also apply to OT times. And I mean 1 Tim 3:8.)
I'm short and thin. To my physique, "enjoying *modern* wine in moderation" means exactly one glass of wine over dinner. I get a buzz with anything more and I can't handle the "strong stuff" in any amount.
The second point is that yes, "distilled spirits" are a relatively modern practice. Their popularization seems to have negatively changed our perception of alcohol. In other words, we went from one extreme to another --- from whiskey to no alcohol. But we threw out the baby out with the bath water...
I guess my question is if wine was diluted during the writing of scripture, should Christians dilute also when enjoying Gods creation? It seems that if it was diluted; you would not be getting close to the line of sin as rapidly. we think it is prudent to stay as far away from the gray area in our other liberties as a Christian.
John Owen,
Scripture says nothing about wine being diluted. Diluting or non-diluting is not a measure of godliness in any way. This whole argument is driven by the presupposition that alcohol is sinful. It is godly to drink wine and feel your heart warmed (Psalm 104).
Interesting Blog. I think the following scripture answers a lot of folks comments. No one would invite an alcoholic to a glass of wine but you could create an alcoholic without knowing it. Read on.
Romans 14:17-15:6
17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit;
18 he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats;
21 it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble.
22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves.
23 But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves;
2 let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him.
3 For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached thee fell on me."
4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.
5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(RSV)
Why let wine come between believers. I abstain but if you don't, keep it to yourself.
Rick, if you are abstaining from alcohol because of Romans 14, then can I assume that you are also a vegetarian? I deal with this passage in my other posts on alcohol.
I cannot agree that the wine was diluted or that God forbids the use of alcohol. If you read the story in John about Jesus at the wedding feast,
they had run out of wine and the party was dying. Jesus first miracle was to change some where between 120 and 180 gallons of water into wine.
Read a bit further and you see that the tradition was to serve good wine at first, then when people had had enough that they didn't notice or care, serve the cheep stuff. I would suggest this implies they were getting a little tipsy.
They had run out of both the good and cheep wine when Jesus miraculously provided sufficiently more wine...Just to keep the party alive.
Does God condone drunkenness?? I don't think so. But neither do I believe he is opposed to people having a good time at a party, maybe even getting a little silly.
But drawing the line at that. Maintaining self control (which is evidence of the Holy Spirit) should be the priority. If alcohol is a weakness for you and it challenges your energies?
Then maybe you shouldn't drink. but neither should you condemn others who can.
And before you condemn me....I haven't had a drink in 12 years.
God Bless
ANSWER ME ONE QUESTION,WHATS RIGHT WITH IT?ALCOHOL CAUSES UNTOLD SORROW AND HEARTACHE. YOU WILL NEVER BECOME AN ALCOHOLIC UNLESS YOU TAKE THAT FIRST DRINK.WHO DOES IT HELP,HOW DOES IT LIFT THE NAME OF CHRIST.THE LAST THING THIS LOST AND DYING WORLD NEEDS IS A CHRISTAIN ADVOCATING THE USE OF ALCOHOL.
DTHOLT, you should read my other posts on alcohol because I spend some time answering your objections.
In short, the sin of drunkenness has caused untold sorrow and heartache. Alcohol is not the problem. Sin is.
Alcohol is not sinful. God created wine to gladden our hearts (Psalm 104:14-15).
Grapes are harvested during the peak of ripeness, which lasts only about two weeks.
Once picked, the grapes will last for 2 or 3 days as long as the skins aren't broken.
But, the skins are covered with natural yeasts, primarily Saccharomyces cerevisiae. And as soon as the skins are broken, fermentation begins. Indeed, Pasteur demonstrated this right around 1869 with a microsocope.
If left in an open container, within 3-5 days primary fermentation will be complete and alcohol content by volume will be 4-5%; but wine is not drunk in this stage when the obvious bubbling of CO2 is still seen.
If then enclosed in goatskins, secondary fermentation will take two more weeks at which point the wine wil be complete and will yield 10-15% alcohol by volume, depending on temperature. In Palestine, during a normal year, it would be around 14%.
The end result of this is that for two weeks of the year, fresh grapes could be eaten. Grape juice could only be consume on the day it was created, because within six hours, measurable amounts of alcohol will exist.
For fifty weeks of the year, fully fermented wine was all that was available, at three times the strength of a typical American pilsner. This was called "new wine."
It would last for up to a year in the goatskin (or decades in a bottle once those came around). After about a year, the goatskins would begin to lose their efficacy, air would leak in, and oxidation would begin to turn the wine into vinegar. This wine-vinegar mixture was called "old wine" and was not as palatable.
Contrast this with alambic distillation, which was known as early as 3000BC and was definitely in use in Palestine, Greece, and Rome. A fermented mash of corn, potatoes, or rye would be distilled to create a drink with alcohol by volume of 40-80%. This, is what the Bible refers to as "strong drink" and is to be avoided.
Wine, is not strong drink; and it is (essentially) always fermented, particularly in March and April when Passover arrives.
Dilution and filtering as discussed by some church documents did happen at later times, but to assume it was the normal course of events during Biblical times is merely an exercise in eisegesis.
John 2:10 PROVES THAT THE WINE JESUS MADE WAS ALCOHOLIC AS THE GUESTS SAID NEW WINE GETS PEOPLE MELLOW SO THE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE OLD IS SLIPPED IN. MANY TWIST THE WORD OF TRUTH TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. RIGHTLY DVIDING THE WORD OF GOD BRINGS BLESSINGS.
MINISTER, KEN
Eric,
I appreciate so much your clarification of this issue. I was reared in a Christian home with wonderful parents, but their traditions elevated any use of alcohol whatsoever, apart from that which is in medicinal products, etc., to a sin only slightly below the unpardonable level. I somehow got the impression that I could do a multitude of things that the Bible forbids, including holding grudges and talking about people, eating with abandon,provided I went to church and did not drink. That was the manifestation of my faith in a nutshell.(Of course, I know it isn't an either/or proposition.) I have come to share your point of view in recent years, and I must tell you that while I have no desire to drink too much and drink no more than a glass or so per week if that, I truly understand how wine makes the heart glad. It is a gift. I wish I had paid more attention to actual sins rather than reveling in being righteous and hammering other people for failing to measure up. I also wonder if the hard line on alcohol use helped to create the mystique of forbidden fruit that makes alcohol so attractive to young people. Thanks for adhering to scripture alone.
Angie
I can't say it any better than Ken Gentry JR, so I will quote him on what he says about the subject of thinning wine with water. "Some who deem drinking as everywhere and always evil will concede that fermented wine was actually drunk in the Bible. But they then insist that it was always diluted with water.. For a variety of reasons, this objection does not undercut the moderationist position. First all the evidence supporting this contention comes from extra biblical sources such as Pliny's Natural History. Note, however, the Scripture reference to "mix wine" such as Chapter 9 and 23 of Proverbs and Isaiah 65, are not about wine mixed with water. These text do not mention "water" in the mix.
Second, nowhere does the biblical record distinguish "undiluted" (so-called safe) wine from "water- diluted (so-called safe) wine. Were it actually a mark of righteousness to avoid undiluted wine, why then is Scripture silent on the matter? After all, is not the Scripture "profitable for teaching....." Tim 3:16-17?
I left my last church after I sat through an hour of listening to the pastor explain away wine in the Bible. He used this two wine theory. Whenever the Bible spoke negatively about wine it was fermented wine. Whenever the Bible spoke positively about wine it was unfermented. The last time I had someone tell me "this is what the Bible says, but this is what the Bible is really saying" was when Jehovah Witness come a calling. Unfortunately this time it was a Baptist preacher.
If you are interested in truth, check out "Alcohol the Beloved Enemy" or "Bible Wines or Laws of Fermentation and Wines of the Ancients". One thing I learned and verified is that there were different Hebrew words for grape juice and fermented wine in the original old testament. Grape juice was teerosh or tirosh (look in a transliterated Hebrew/English dictionary) and yayin or yayeen was either grape juice or wine depending on context. They both got translated as "wine" in the Greek old testament. I verified this from a transliterated Hebrew Old Testament.
It's not like God is trying to take away our fun, but instead he is trying protect us from the forces of darkness which mean us harm. Drugs have spiritual effects that go beyond the physical effects. It says in Genesis that drugs ("pharmakeia" in Greek I think) are witchcraft and sorcery and are an abomination to God. Alcohol always brought a spirit of darkness over me when I drank, regardless of how much. I finally got smarter and quit. Hope you do too.
racoon1, in your study of the Old Testament and the Hebrew language, you might want to check out Psalm 104:15. God created wine to make our hearts glad. The abuse of wine does bring darkness, but not the use, at least, according to God.
"For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving..."
"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them."
Having experience with both drugs, alcohol and marijuana, I feel qualified to say that they are NOT the same, they are not even remotely similar. Smoked or ingested weed has an effect that has nothing in common with alcohol. I can smoke a joint and ride my bike at top speed down a narrow mountain trail with grace. I can engage in theological argument. I can read the Word of God with inspiration. I cannot do any of these things after a couple beers.
Cannabis stems are the BEST natural fiber. The foliage makes an excellent browse for livestock, and highly-fertile soil ammendment. The flowers are useful for medication, inspiration and meditation. It's all in HOW you use it, what is your goal?
Praise God for cannabis!
If you truly believe a Christian may not disobey the government, then you must believe America was founded on sin, for our founders rebelled against a recognized "authority" to form this country. Certainly God has blessed that action! Government has AUTHORITY when it sticks to its Biblical mandate of terrorizing the evil-doer. When it steps beyond this, it has only power, without authority, and we are no longer required to oblige. This is the exact reasoning used by the pastors of the founder's time to justify the war against the King. See Jon Mayhew's sermons on the teachings of Paul in this regard.
Bible Thumper, yes, praise God for his creation, including cannabis. However, Romans 13 still applies. Cannabis must be used in a lawful fashion. The civil magistrate is not limited to "terrorizing the evil-doer." I doubt your pastor would support your logic that leaps from 1776 to smoking doobies.
While this is a rather unrelated subject, the principle could apply:
Scripture does not endorse polygamy, however many spiritual Bible characters were involved with it.
Can the consumption of alcohol be viewed in this light?
I don't drink alcohol as a matter of health, and to provide an example to my children, but I don't appreciate others distorting the truth on this matter. Some can make something as clear as the promise of salvation through a personal decision to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, into something murky through legalism reminiscent of the Pharisees.
Several points here:
1) Jesus spoke on the issue of whether things we consume can be a sin. Mark 7:14-23 states this clearly. Specifically, verse 15 states, "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."
2) Water wasn't largely used in the Roman empire to make wine taste better until after Jesus' birth.
3) Matthew 9:17, Luke 5:37, Mark 2:22 all talk about not putting new wine into old wine skins. Albeit this is referring to the new covenant, but this also points to the fact that it was very common to ferment wine in animal skins. NOT GRAPE JUICE!
4) There was no refrigeration in biblical times, so grape juice would spoil quickly in heat of Palestine. Grape juice would need to be consumed almost immediately, which would not be practical.
5) Authors such as Elmer L. Towns point to the fact that Jesus wouldn't have supported the use of "leaven", so he wouldn't have made or consumed alcoholic wine. This is misleading, as wine ferments naturally, especially after the skins are removed. No "leaven" is required. This isn't bread they are making...
6) Jesus DID consume extremely fermented wine when on the cross and given vinegar on the sponge by the Roman soldier.
At the end of the day, this alcoholic issue, and nearly every other contentious matter, such as God's clear position on homosexuality, requiring Israelites to kill all men, woman, children so that they wouldn't later be hindered in worship of pagan gods such as baal, ALL of these issues are what I term as "walkers". A clear biblical understanding of these issues can make a person's walk with God easier, and would glorify Him, but have absolutely NO bearing on whether a person is saved. Let's focus on spreading the Gospel, not arguing the finer points. We are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it would seem. If you can drink with moderation, and are careful not to be a stumbling block in other's walk with/towards Christ, I can't see how drinking a glass of wine with dinner destroys God's temple in our body more than eating a chocolate cheesecake after a greasy steak.
Post a Comment