By Pastor Bruce Oyen
E-mail: bk_oyen@hotmail.com
This posting is about wine and the Bible: two common mistakes in our thinking about these subjects. In it, I will present two of these mistakes, and give evidence to correct them. I have made these mistakes myself. As the saying goes, "Been there! Done that!"
Mistake number one:
We mistakenly assume that the wine of Biblical times is the same as the wine of today. That is, we mistakenly assume the Bible always uses the word "wine" to refer to an alcoholic drink.
The Baker Encyclopedia Of The Bible has some interesting things to say on the "nature of wine." For example, here (in red) it says the following: "Few would question that at least some wine of the OT (Old Testament) was fermented. Some scholars argue, however, that certain forms of wine in the ancient world were unfermented. They contrast two Hebrew words for wine, concluding that one particular Hebrew word which refers to fresh wine meant only grape juice (Prv 3:10; Hos 9:2; Jl 2:24; Mi 6:15)."
The Encyclopedia then gives reasons for disagreement with this view. But those reasons do not change the fact that some Bible scholars believe some OT wine was unfermented.
John MacArthur, Jr., a current-day Bible scholar, has an interesting comment on John 2, the chapter in which we read that Jesus turned water into wine. This comment seems to support the claim that wine in the Bible was not always alcoholic.
Here (in red) is his statement on John 2:3, from his one-volume commentary on the whole Bible: "The wine served was subject to fermentation. In the ancient world, however, to quench thirst without inducing drunkenness, wine was diluted with water to between one-third and one-tenth of its strength. Due to the climate and circumstances, even 'new wine' fermented quickly and had an inebriating effect, if not mixed (Acts 2:13). Because of a lack of water purification process, wine mixed with water was also safer to drink than water alone."
MacArthur plainly said "wine was subject to fermentation." Therefore, it was unfermented wine until it fermented. He also said "even new wine fermented quickly." Therefore, it was unfermented wine until it did so.
Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian Bible scholar of the 1800's, did not believe all wines referred to in the Bible were alcoholic. He addressed this subject in his commentary on the second chapter of John's Gospel. This chapter tells us the Lord Jesus Christ miraculously changed water into wine.
The Encyclopedia then gives reasons for disagreement with this view. But those reasons do not change the fact that some Bible scholars believe some OT wine was unfermented.
John MacArthur, Jr., a current-day Bible scholar, has an interesting comment on John 2, the chapter in which we read that Jesus turned water into wine. This comment seems to support the claim that wine in the Bible was not always alcoholic.
Here (in red) is his statement on John 2:3, from his one-volume commentary on the whole Bible: "The wine served was subject to fermentation. In the ancient world, however, to quench thirst without inducing drunkenness, wine was diluted with water to between one-third and one-tenth of its strength. Due to the climate and circumstances, even 'new wine' fermented quickly and had an inebriating effect, if not mixed (Acts 2:13). Because of a lack of water purification process, wine mixed with water was also safer to drink than water alone."
MacArthur plainly said "wine was subject to fermentation." Therefore, it was unfermented wine until it fermented. He also said "even new wine fermented quickly." Therefore, it was unfermented wine until it did so.
Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian Bible scholar of the 1800's, did not believe all wines referred to in the Bible were alcoholic. He addressed this subject in his commentary on the second chapter of John's Gospel. This chapter tells us the Lord Jesus Christ miraculously changed water into wine.
Here (in red) is what Barnes wrote on verse 10:
The good wine. This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase "good wine." We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as good, or mention that as the best wine, which was harmless or innocent--poculo vini innocentis. The most useful wine -- utilissimum vinum-- was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine-- saluberrimum vinum-- was that which had not been adulterated by "the addition of anything to the must or juice." Pliny expressly says that a "good wine" was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the "good wine" was stronger than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder. The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. We use the word wine now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country--always containing a considerable portion of alcohol --not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavour to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition. No man should adduce this instance in favour of drinking wine unless he can prove that the wine made in the" water-pots" of Cana was just like the wine which he proposes to drink. The Saviour's example may be always pleaded JUST AS IT WAS; but it is a matter of obvious and simple justice that we should find out exactly what the example was before we plead it. There is, moreover, no evidence that any other part of the water was converted into wine than that which was drawn out of the water-casks for the use of the guests. On this supposition, certainly, all the circumstances of the case are met, and the miracle would be more striking. All that was needed was to furnish a supply when the wine that had been prepared was nearly exhausted. The object was not to furnish a large quantity for future use. The miracle, too, would in this way be more apparent and impressive. On this supposition, the casks would appear to be filled with water only; as it was drawn out, it was pure wine. Who could doubt, then, that there was the exertion of miraculous power? All, therefore, that has been said about the Redeemer's furnishing a large quantity of wine for the newly-married pair, and about his benevolence in doing it, is wholly gratuitous. There is no evidence of it whatever; and it is not necessary to suppose it in order to an explanation of the circumstances of the case.
Albert Barnes, quoted above, had more to say on this subject. Here (in red) is part of what Barnes wrote at the end of his comments on John 2:1 - 11:
5th. An argument cannot be drawn from this instance in favour of intemperate drinking. There is no evidence that any who were present on that occasion drank too freely.
6th. Nor can an argument be drawn from this case in favour even of drinking wine such as we have. The common wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape, without any mixture of alcohol, and was harmless. It was the common drink of the people, and did not tend to produce intoxication. Our wines are a mixture of the juice of the grape and of brandy, and often of infusions of various substances to give it colour and taste, and the appearance of wine. Those wines are little less injurious than brandy, and the habit of drinking them should be classed with the drinking of all other liquid fires.
The following table will show the danger of drinking the wines that are in common use :
Brandy has fifty-three parts and 39 hundredths in a hundred of alcohol; or .........................53.39 per cent. Rum ................................53.68 " Whisky, Scotch .....................54.32 " Holland Gin ........................51.60 " Port Wine, highest kind ............25.83 " lowest ..................21.40 " Madeira, highest .............. 29.42 " lowest .............. 19.34 " Lisbon .............................18.94 " Malaga .............................17.26 " Red Champagne ......................11.30 " White " ..................... 12.80 " Currant Wine .......................20.25 "
It follows that a man who drinks two glasses of most of the wines used has taken as much alcohol as if he had taken one glass of brandy or whisky, and why should he not as well drink the alcohol in the brandy as in the Wine? What difference can it make in morals? What difference in its effects on his system? The experience of the world has shown that water, pure water, is the most wholesome, safe, and invigorating drink for man.
Barnes' comments deserve serious consideration, for they can clear up some of the fog in so many of our minds. I have his commentary set, but obtained these quotes from this website: http://www.studylight.org/com/
EVEN TODAY the word "wine" does NOT always refer to an alcoholic beverage. But most most us don't know that fact. "Been there! Done that!" As proof, here is a link to a website for one of many companies that sell NON-ALCOHOLIC wines: http://www.nonalcoholicwinesonline.com/catalog/.
Mistake number two:
Though there was alcoholic wine in Biblical times, we mistakenly assume that it had the same, or nearly the same, alcohol content as today's wines.
But there is evidence against this assumption. For example, the Baker Encyclopedia Of The Bible, in its discussion of the nature of wine in Biblical times, says this: "Ample evidence is available to demonstrate that wine, though always fermented, was usually mixed with water in the classical and Hellenistic world."
The New Unger's Bible Dictionary has an interesting study on the subject of wine in the Bible. It considers the various Old Testament and New Testament words that relate to the subject. The first Hebrew word considered is "yayin," which means "effervescing." Here (in red) are some statements from Unger's Dictionary on this Hebrew word: "The intoxicating quality of 'yayin' is confirmed by Rabbinical testimony. The Mishna, in the treatise on the Passover, says that the four cups of wine were poured out and blessed and drunk by each of the company at the eating of the Paschal lamb, and that water was also mixed with wine because it was considered too strong to be drunk alone. The Gemara adds, 'The cup of blessing is not to be blessed until it is mixed with water.'"
At the end of the study of this Hebrew word we read this: "Although invariably fermented, it was not always inebriating, and in most instances, doubtless, was but slightly alcoholic, like the vin ordinaire of France."
John MacArthur, Jr.'s statements given above also reveal that wine in Biblical times was not as inebriating as many current-day wines. Read his words again: "The wine served was subject to fermentation. In the ancient world, however, to quench thirst without inducung drunkenness, wine was diluted with water to between one-third and one-tenth of its strength. Due to the climate and circumstances, even 'new wine' fermented quickly and had an inebriating effect, if not mixed (Acts 2:13). Because of a lack of water purification process, wine mixed with water was also safer to drink than water alone."
Easton's Bible Dictionary makes statements to the same effect: "Wine is little used now in the East, from the fact that Mohammedans are not allowed to taste it, and very few of other creeds touch it. When it is drunk, water is generally mixed with it, and this was the custom in the days of Christ also. The people indeed are everywhere very sober in hot climates; a drunken person, in fact, is never seen", (Geikie's Life of Christ). The sin of drunkenness, however, must have been not uncommon in the olden times, for it is mentioned either metaphorically or literally more than seventy times in the Bible." Here is a link to the website from which this quote was obtained: http://www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T3816
Smith's Bible Dictionary makes the same point: "The use of wine at the paschal feast was not enjoined by the law, but had become an established custom, at all events in the post-Babylonian period. The wine was mixed with warm water on these occasions. Hence in the early Christian Church it was usual to mix the sacramental wine with water. (The simple wines of antiquity were incomparably less deadly than the stupefying and ardent beverages of our western nations. The wines of antiquity were more like sirups; many of them were not intoxicant; many more intoxicant in a small degree; and all of them, as a rule, taken only when largely diluted with water. They contained, even undiluted, but 4 or 5 percent of alcohol.--Cannon Farrar.)" Here is a link to the website from which this quote was obtained: http://www.studylight.org/dic/sbd/view.cgi?number=T4468
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia makes statements that also prove that some wines of Biblical times were diluted with water. The more important statements have been underlined.The quote is in red:
Mixed Wine:
In Old Testament times wine was drunk undiluted, and wine mixed with water was thought to be ruined (Isaiah 1:22). The "mixed" or "mingled wines" (see I, 1, (5), above) were prepared with aromatic herbs of various sorts and some of these compounds, used throughout the ancient world, were highly intoxicating (Isaiah 5:22). Wine mixed with myrrh was stupefying and an anesthetic (Mark 15:23). At a later period, however, the Greek use of diluted wines had attained such sway that the writer of 2 Maccabees speaks (15:39) of undiluted wine as "distasteful" (polemion). This dilution is so normal in the following centuries that the Mishna can take it for granted and, indeed, R. Eliezer even forbade saying the table-blessing over undiluted wine (Berakhoth 7 5). The proportion of water was large, only one-third or one-fourth of the total mixture being wine (Niddah 2 7; Pesachim 108b).
NOTE.
The wine of the Last Supper, accordingly, may be described in modern terms as a sweet, red, fermented wine, rather highly diluted. As it was no doubt the ordinary wine of commerce, there is no reason to suppose that it was particularly "pure."
Barnes' comments deserve serious consideration, for they can clear up some of the fog in so many of our minds. I have his commentary set, but obtained these quotes from this website: http://www.studylight.org/com/
EVEN TODAY the word "wine" does NOT always refer to an alcoholic beverage. But most most us don't know that fact. "Been there! Done that!" As proof, here is a link to a website for one of many companies that sell NON-ALCOHOLIC wines: http://www.nonalcoholicwinesonline.com/catalog/.
Mistake number two:
Though there was alcoholic wine in Biblical times, we mistakenly assume that it had the same, or nearly the same, alcohol content as today's wines.
But there is evidence against this assumption. For example, the Baker Encyclopedia Of The Bible, in its discussion of the nature of wine in Biblical times, says this: "Ample evidence is available to demonstrate that wine, though always fermented, was usually mixed with water in the classical and Hellenistic world."
The New Unger's Bible Dictionary has an interesting study on the subject of wine in the Bible. It considers the various Old Testament and New Testament words that relate to the subject. The first Hebrew word considered is "yayin," which means "effervescing." Here (in red) are some statements from Unger's Dictionary on this Hebrew word: "The intoxicating quality of 'yayin' is confirmed by Rabbinical testimony. The Mishna, in the treatise on the Passover, says that the four cups of wine were poured out and blessed and drunk by each of the company at the eating of the Paschal lamb, and that water was also mixed with wine because it was considered too strong to be drunk alone. The Gemara adds, 'The cup of blessing is not to be blessed until it is mixed with water.'"
At the end of the study of this Hebrew word we read this: "Although invariably fermented, it was not always inebriating, and in most instances, doubtless, was but slightly alcoholic, like the vin ordinaire of France."
John MacArthur, Jr.'s statements given above also reveal that wine in Biblical times was not as inebriating as many current-day wines. Read his words again: "The wine served was subject to fermentation. In the ancient world, however, to quench thirst without inducung drunkenness, wine was diluted with water to between one-third and one-tenth of its strength. Due to the climate and circumstances, even 'new wine' fermented quickly and had an inebriating effect, if not mixed (Acts 2:13). Because of a lack of water purification process, wine mixed with water was also safer to drink than water alone."
Easton's Bible Dictionary makes statements to the same effect: "Wine is little used now in the East, from the fact that Mohammedans are not allowed to taste it, and very few of other creeds touch it. When it is drunk, water is generally mixed with it, and this was the custom in the days of Christ also. The people indeed are everywhere very sober in hot climates; a drunken person, in fact, is never seen", (Geikie's Life of Christ). The sin of drunkenness, however, must have been not uncommon in the olden times, for it is mentioned either metaphorically or literally more than seventy times in the Bible." Here is a link to the website from which this quote was obtained: http://www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T3816
Smith's Bible Dictionary makes the same point: "The use of wine at the paschal feast was not enjoined by the law, but had become an established custom, at all events in the post-Babylonian period. The wine was mixed with warm water on these occasions. Hence in the early Christian Church it was usual to mix the sacramental wine with water. (The simple wines of antiquity were incomparably less deadly than the stupefying and ardent beverages of our western nations. The wines of antiquity were more like sirups; many of them were not intoxicant; many more intoxicant in a small degree; and all of them, as a rule, taken only when largely diluted with water. They contained, even undiluted, but 4 or 5 percent of alcohol.--Cannon Farrar.)" Here is a link to the website from which this quote was obtained: http://www.studylight.org/dic/sbd/view.cgi?number=T4468
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia makes statements that also prove that some wines of Biblical times were diluted with water. The more important statements have been underlined.The quote is in red:
Mixed Wine:
In Old Testament times wine was drunk undiluted, and wine mixed with water was thought to be ruined (Isaiah 1:22). The "mixed" or "mingled wines" (see I, 1, (5), above) were prepared with aromatic herbs of various sorts and some of these compounds, used throughout the ancient world, were highly intoxicating (Isaiah 5:22). Wine mixed with myrrh was stupefying and an anesthetic (Mark 15:23). At a later period, however, the Greek use of diluted wines had attained such sway that the writer of 2 Maccabees speaks (15:39) of undiluted wine as "distasteful" (polemion). This dilution is so normal in the following centuries that the Mishna can take it for granted and, indeed, R. Eliezer even forbade saying the table-blessing over undiluted wine (Berakhoth 7 5). The proportion of water was large, only one-third or one-fourth of the total mixture being wine (Niddah 2 7; Pesachim 108b).
NOTE.
The wine of the Last Supper, accordingly, may be described in modern terms as a sweet, red, fermented wine, rather highly diluted. As it was no doubt the ordinary wine of commerce, there is no reason to suppose that it was particularly "pure."
This Encyclopedia quote was obtained from this website: http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/.
More evidence could be given to prove that the alcoholic wine from Biblical times, especially New Testament times, was diluted with water, and therefore not as inebriating as many wines of today. That being so, we cannot accurately say something like the following: "It was common to drink wine in the days of Jesus Christ, so no one should object to our drinking it now, so long as it is drunk in moderation."
That wine of long ago was not equal to today's wines. Today's wines usually are much more inebriating, unless they are nonalcoholic wines, or unless they are greatly watered down.
More evidence could be given to prove that the alcoholic wine from Biblical times, especially New Testament times, was diluted with water, and therefore not as inebriating as many wines of today. That being so, we cannot accurately say something like the following: "It was common to drink wine in the days of Jesus Christ, so no one should object to our drinking it now, so long as it is drunk in moderation."
That wine of long ago was not equal to today's wines. Today's wines usually are much more inebriating, unless they are nonalcoholic wines, or unless they are greatly watered down.
