Was wine in the New Testament "fermented" like the alcoholic drinks we have today?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 29, 2003

Answers

There is no proof that the "wine" at the marriage feast in Cana was fermented. The Greek word for "wine" in this text is oinos, which may refer to a fermented beverage (cf. Eph. 5:18), or it may denote freshly squeezed grape juice (cf. Isa. 16:10). Since the word for "wine" is generic, the student has no right to import the concept of an alcoholic beverage into this passage without contextual justification ? of which there is none.

Moreover, what may be "social consumption" in our day, says nothing about the practice of the first century. The juice of the grape was a common drink in that land of many vineyards.

Finally, the fact that the ruler of the feast could still distinguish the quality of the latter beverage from the former, suggests that his senses were not dull as a result of previous guzzling!

Timothy took wine for his stomach.

The fact that Paul instructed Timothy to "take a little wine for his stomach's sake" involves several things.

First, it suggests that the young evangelist had been reticent to drink the wine prior to the admonition. If drinking fermented wine was common for the primitive Christians, the exhortation would scarcely have been needed.

Second, Timothy obviously suffered from a stomach ailment which required medicinal remedy. The water in Asia Minor could be very dangerous, hence the young evangelist was encouraged to take "a little wine" along with his water. The sentence is elliptical: "Be no longer a drinker of water [alone], but [with it] take a little wine...." (1 Tim. 5:23).

This text must be viewed in light of Timothy's malady, and the conditions of that day. Paul's advice, therefore, no more encourages the modern practice of social drinking than would the use of a prescription drug be a precedent for "pot" smoking.

With reference to the qualifications of an elder, Paul affirms that the candidate for bishop must not be "addicted to wine" (1 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 1:7).

The Greek expression, paroinos, means "given to wine, drunken" (Thayer, Greek Lexicon, 490). To read into that some sort of license for moderate drinking is an irresponsible stretch. Would an admonition against "drug addiction" grant any measure of comfort to someone wishing to "smoke pot" recreationally? Would such a warning interpreted as a license for the moderate use of cocaine?

Moreover, Paul's restriction regarding deacons ? that they must not be "addicted to much wine" (1 Tim. 3:8; Thayer, 546) ? similarly provides no permission for the moderate use of recreational alcohol in today?s world of distilled spirits ? which are far, far stronger than were the fermented beverages of the primitive age. The fact is, within the same context, church officers are charged to be "sober" (nepho), which signifies "to be free from the influence of intoxicants" (Vine, Expository Dictionary, 746).

Josephus employs the word nephaleos (?sobriety?) of the priests, as they functioned in their appointed roles, commenting that they "are [not] permitted to drink wine" (Antiquities 3.12.2). The word literally means "holding no wine".

In context, it denotes the "abstemious lifestyle" required by apostolic instruction.

It is entirely possible that the use of "wine" in the Timothy and Titus contexts may be an example of the figure known as synecdoche, a form of which is when a specific object is made to stand for a general truth. For example, "bread" (Mt. 6:11) stands for food of any sort. It is mentioned specifically, however, because it was commonly eaten at meals.

Accordingly, moderation in "wine" may simply stand for the principle of self-control in at large. It is interesting how certain terms appear to balance one another. The bishop must be "temperate" (1 Tim. 3:2), and "... deacons in like manner ... not given to much wine" (3:8); similarly, "... women in like manner ... [are to be] temperate" (3:11). In Titus 2:2, men are to "be temperate" and "women likewise ... not ... enslaved to much wine" (2:3).

Thus "wine", because it was a common beverage, may be a specific illustration for moderation in general ? without any allusion as to whether or not it involved fermentation.

The New Testament represents the abuses of wine in a series of words that depict stages in transgression.

First, there is potos (rendered "banqueting" - 1 Pet. 4:3). It denotes a drinking party, but as R.C. Trench noted, "not of necessity excessive ... but giving occasion for excess" ? and yet it is condemned! This aptly describes the modern cocktail scene.

Second, there is oinophlugia, which is rendered "wine-drinking" (Berry, Greek-English Interlinear, 1 Pet. 4:3), or "excess of wine" (KJV). Trench says that this word "marks a step in advance of methe [drunk]" (Synonyms of the New Testament, lxi).

No conscientious Christian would want to dabble with beverage alcohol ? in any of these degrees.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 29, 2003.

Word of the day:

conjecture

..............

.......

...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 29, 2003.

Previous discussion that produced this thread.

rod...

...

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 29, 2003.

Christians who condemn wine drinking are missing the entire point!!

Let's change the "beverage" to soda pop, instead. No Christian would dabble in a beverage that they come to realize as being addictive and/or injurous to their health (mental, physical, financial, etc.). If that Christian has prior knowledge to the harmful effects of caffiene, glucose, additives, and carbonation, the Christian would be smart to moderate the consumption of soda pop. The Christian may even decide to abstain from drinking soda pop and instead drink plain ol' water (that's if the water is safe to drink). Now, one issue is preserving the healthy "temple of God", yes I too would agree. But, it the Christian ignores those warnings, or is in complete denial, he will continue to imbibe cuz it isn't like drinking wine (that has its own stigma). Now, how many soda pop Christians are there compared to those "wino" Christians (you can start with me as a wine drinker)? Many? Thousands.....millions...?

Remember the part about having only one master--God?? Look at all of those Christians who have ignored the warnings and have become slaves to the good ol' soda pop desires. Have a look at the over-weight Christians sitting in their pews. Their health issues can be lead to the foods they abuse by over eating, over indulging.

Let's go back to the wine. If the wine was really Grape Juice, then why the warning label by those who claim it wasn't wine? Illogical. Folks, it was wine that was served. If it was only Grape Juice then why are we warned not to get drunk. Folks, it was wine that was served. When Jesus changed the water to wine, it could be explained away as not being a miracle. It takes time for grapes to ferment. It was a miracle, not a matter of fruit concentrate instant mix. Folks, it was wine that was served. What would it matter if they drank from the new wine last, but from the old first? Because, it takes time for wine to age. Folks, it was wine that was served. Why would one not fill the old wine skins with new wine and the new wine skins with old wine? Because, the skins would burst or taint the wine. Folks...........!

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 29, 2003.

Case In Point

Moreover, Paul's restriction regarding deacons ? that they must not be "addicted to much wine" (1 Tim. 3:8; Thayer, 546) ?

"addicted to much wine" it doesn't say restricted from wine. The word "addicted" means the presence of an addictive substance--alcohol.

The word "much" means the quantity of that substance alluding to "moderation".

The word "wine" means the agent that delivers the addictive substance. We're not talking about a simple goblet of tooty fruity grape juice here. Folks, it was wine that was served.

Paul makes a warning about drinking wine. If it were only grape juice, there wouldn't be a need for the warning label.

rod...

...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 29, 2003.

Guys, I thought drinking was ok as long as you didn't get drunk (Even I despise people who drink)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

(*Even though I..

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Hiccup! David. That has been my point! We are not to get drunk and I've given my justification above.

Now, you shouldn't despise anyone. Love those around you. Your sins are not more forgivable than theirs; neither are your sins less condemnable.

rod...

...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 29, 2003.

I've changed my stance on the death penalty... I now believe those who are caught drinking and driving should automatically get the death penalty. Like others countries do.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

You know. The older I get, the less I would want to sit in a jury that had to decide on the death penalty for a convicted killer. I used to believe in the death penalty, now I'm not so sure anymore. My fear is that I would be committing a sin while believing that I was doing justice. I guess I would just lock them up for a life term in prison, which would be another issue to question. Drinking and driving is stupid and sinful. I've seen drunks stumble away from head-on collisions with street posts. They don't seem to get hurt. Then again, I've seen other crashes they've casused. They kill innocent people--children.

rod...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2003.

"Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now." (John 2:10)

Why do you suppose they observed this practice? Why not serve better and better wine as the evening progressed, so the guests could always anticipate something better, rather than something inferior? The answer is pretty obvious. Once the guests had "drunk freely" for a while, they were in no shape to notice how good the wine was.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 30, 2003.

1 Corinthians 6 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

Kevin here is your attempt to make drinking a sin:

" Does one drink impair someone's brain yes or no??? If one drink is enough to IMPAIR someone, then it is a SIN!!! "

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 29, 2003.

You, Kevin, have failed to prove your assertion by circumventing Scriptures and instead using your own interpretations. By your view, chocolate, chicken soup, or bubble gum would be sinful because it impairs the brain. It makes us happy to eat or chew on those foods. I maintain that if we make those things our MASTER, we sin. If we abuse anything, it may become a sin for us to do those things. Scriptures teaches against drunken-ness--loss of self-control leading to disobedience to God.

rod...

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2003.

rod, you cannot justify getting drunk. The bible is clear and forbids it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

I never justify getting drunk. It is a sin to get drunk. How do you get the idea that I condone drunken-ness? David are you sober?

rod...

...

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2003.

rod,

The question is, Are you sober? I am not the one defending drinking. And I don't know how you can accuse me of not being sober after I told you I despise beer and can't stand people who drink.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

David

"Ive now changed my stance on the death penalty.."

I'm not suprised David. You don't know where to take a "stance". You are not guided by the Holy Spirit like the Catholic Church is

You are even confused on baptizing a baby.

See why its over 30,000 different denominations?[Do a search David]

May God give you the grace to become Catholic.

-- T (Ty@Msft.com), November 30, 2003.

Then tell me what the Roman church has to offer that I don't have already?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

"Sober" also may refer to being in touch with reality. I defend drinking; I do not defend drunken-ness. I condone sober-ness. In other words, David are you reading my posts about setting an example for those who may be weak? I would refrain from drinking if it made someone lose his sel-control and proceed to become drunk. I know my stance and I wouldn't have to prove it to anyone. Some people can't handle things and turn them into vices/sins.

rod...

...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2003.

rod,

who just said what Kevin said.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

Huh? What are you saying, David?

...............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2003.

*You just wrote what Kevin wrote

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

I must be drunk with wisdom and blind to ignorance. Sometimes we agree. Amazing!

.................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

It was real wine what they took at the wedding in Cana.

I have bought passover wine from the Jews from Israel for the last 13 years. It is sweeter. Was that the type of wine Jesus used in the last Supper? Maybe yes, maybe not.

The catholic Church also uses a soft sweet tasting type of wine.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

I once had some Jewish Wine (one glass). It was extremely sweet. I got sick. No, I did not get drunk; I got sick. It must have been a bad batch of wine. That was the last time I had any Jewish wine; I threw the rest away.
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

*laughing* Chicken soup doesn't impair the brain!! Is that me or the soup talking?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

I know of a person who ate chicken soup and died. "Is that rigor mortis or is the chicken doing the funky chicken?"

...................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2003.

Yes, Rod, the wine from Hebron your mentioning is extremely sweet.

I decided to take a milder one.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.

Hi Elpidio

I've had these thoughts of starting my own family tradition of having wine with our meals during important religious celebrations: Easter, Christmas, and Thanksgiving (I know...not originally religious). I just don't want to commit a sacrilege while partaking in such a tradition. Such a tradition would certainly reflect The Last Supper celebration. We must remember and it is a deliberate act of rememberance when we include bread and wine in our dinner.

How would the Church view such a family tradition?

..................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.

I'm guessing that the Church might frown on such a family tradtion, unless the family partakes in Holy Communion first. But, I really don't know.

........................................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.

Don't feel bad, Rod. You are not commiting a sacrilege.

The sacrilege is in abusing the real meaning of the bread and wine:

being together as a family.

You are now part of the family of Christ.

In so doing, you are becoming a part of God's family.

Jhn 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Jhn 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jhn 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Jhn 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. Jhn 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jhn 4:26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am [he].

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.

The church of the future, Rod, must be centred on the family is it is to survive.

I started this tradition in 1987 with one of my brothers.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 02, 2003.